Commons Sitting of 18 July 1864

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—NAVY ESTIMATES.
Resolutions [July 14 & 15] reported.
WAYS AND MEANS—considered in Committee—Account No. 46 of the Finance Accounts [presented June 7] referred.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—Private Bill Costs*; Poor Removal*.
First Reading—Cathedral Minor Corporations* [Bill 220] (Lords); Private Bill Costs* [Bill 221]; Poor Removal* [Bill 222]; Defence Act Amendment* [Bill 223] (Lords).
Second Reading—Fortifications (Provision for Expenses)* [Bill 218]; Indian Medical Service* [Bill 213]; Corn Accounts and Returns* [Bill 214]; West Indian Incumbered Estates Act Amendment* [Bill 215]; Exchequer Bonds (£1,600,000)* [Bill 217]; Metropolis Management Act (1862) Amendment* [Bill 219]; Clerks of the Peace Removal* [Bill 209] (Lords); Armagh Archiepiscopal Revenues* [Bill 202].
Committee—Public Works (Manufacturing Districts) [Advances] [Bill 204]; New Zealand

1617
(Guarantee of Loan) [Bill 150]; Navy and Army Expenditure (1862–3)*; Westminster Bridge Traffic [Bill 205]; Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Supplemental* [Bill 207]; Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Acts Amendment* [Bill 210] (Lords); Poisoned Flesh Prohibition, &c. (re-committed)* [Bill 199].
Report—Westminster Bridge Traffic [Bill 205]; Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Supplemental* [Bill 207]; Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Acts Amendment* [Bill 210]; Poisoned Flesh Prohibition, &c* [Bill 199] (re-committed).
Considered as amended—Scottish Episcopal Clergy Disabilities Removal [Bill 161] (Lords); Poisoned Flesh Prohibition, &.* [Bill 190].
Third Reading—Blenching and Dyeing Works Acts Extension* [Bill 181]; Turnpike Acts Continuance, &* [Bill 194]; Portsmouth Dockyard (Acquisition of Lands)* [Bill 2001; Militia Pay*; Sheriffs Substitute (Scotland)* [Bill 164]; Bank Notes, Ac, Signature* [Bill 206]; Registration of Deeds (Ireland,* [Bill 176]; Poisoned Flesh Prohibition, &* [Bill 199]; Justices Proceedings Confirmation (Sussex)* [Bill 203], and passed.
Withdrawn—Charitable Trusts Fees* [Bill 128].

METROPOLITAN DISTRICT RAILWAYS BILL.
(QUEEN'S CONSENT SIGNIFIED.)
METROPOLITAN DISTRICT RAILWAYS BILL.

  THIRD READING.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  MR. CRAWFORD,on behalf of the City of London, objected to the further progress of the Bill. It was one of a class of Bills which the corporation of London felt it their duty to take exception to at a very early period of the Session. The Bill was not one promoted by any authorized Company, but was promoted by certain individuals for the purpose of making a railway along the Thames Embankment and the new street to Cannon Street, and from thence, by tunnelling, to the Tower, The corporation objected to the proposal to carry the railway from Cannon Street, and they also objected to it because it was intended by this Private Bill to deprive the City Gas Company of certain rights which had been reserved to it by the Thames Embankment Act, which was a public Act. They further said that the merits of the Bill had not been duly considered by the Select Committee, three days only having been devoted to it. They objected also to it on account of its dealing with a vast amount of private property; and as the railway would pass under substantial build-
  1618
  ings in one of the most crowded parts of the City, great danger was likely to result from the undertaking, unless further examination and inquiry were afforded. They represented, that so far from this undertaking relieving the streets from their present enormous traffic, it would increase it, and therefore it was an unwise and an unnecessary thing to allow the railway to be made. Already the streets, especially Fleet Street, were blocked up with vehicles, owing to the gigantic works that were now being carried out in the City of London, so that it was a great inconvenience to those who had business in the City, in consequence of the delay that took place from the over-crowding of Fleet Street; and they said that that obstruction might be indefinitely increased if this gigantic work was allowed to be carried out at the same time. Moreover, they said that the Bill, if carried, would deprive the City Gas Company from having their 50,000 tons of coal, which they consumed annually, brought by water, and they would be compelled to obtain it, to a considerable extent, by carting it through the streets. The objection would not be so great to the Bill if the proposed line stopped at Cannon Street, and the corporation asked for time in order that the House might consider an alternative plan propounded by the City for connecting the embankment with the London, Dover, and Chatham Railway at Blackfriars. The promoters of the Bill were entitled to no commiseration. There was no company in the case—the scheme was the property of a well known Parliamentary solicitor and equally well-known railway contractors, who had complied with the Standing Orders of the House by depositing borrowed money; and he complained that the Select Committee had not directed the attention of the House to the fact of its not being a bonâ fide scheme. He moved that the Bill be read the third time that day month.
  MR. GOSCHENseconded the Motion.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day month."—(Mr. Crawford.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, the hon. Member for the City had in his speech mixed up two questions—one, the question of Order; and the other, the merits of the Bill. That

  1619
  was a somewhat inconvenient course, and he asked the hon. Member whether it would not be better to get rid of the first objection before entering on the merits of the Bill.
  MR. CRAWFORDsaid, he would adopt that course.
  MR. SPEAKER,having recited the provisions of the Bill, said, that as there was an exact case in point, where the City of Bristol by a Private Act repealed certain provisions in a public Act, this Bill could not be stopped on a point of Order.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, that if the Bill were thrown out the inhabitants of the metropolis, with the exception of the City corporation, would be greatly prejudiced, and he expressed a hope that the House would not listen to the opposition of the corporation. The proposed line formed part of a complete system of circular metropolitan railways, which it was desirable should be carried out for the benefit of the whole of the metropolis, and a most inconvenient gap would be created in the system if this Bill should be thrown out.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, that the majority of merchants, bankers, and traders of London, as well as the corporation, were opposed to this Bill. He might say that all who had business in the City were opposed to it.
  LORD STANLEYsaid, that the promoters of the Bill had proposed certain compensations and arrangements with the Gas Company, with which the Company were perfectly satisfied. So far from the 50,000 tons of coal consumed annually by the Gas Company impeding the traffic of the streets, there was no difficulty in foreseeing that it would be brought by railways. It was true the line was laid out for passenger traffic only, but there was no reason why they should not carry their coal at nights. He believed it was the plan of all railways to carry their goods traffic on at night. At all events, he thought he might venture to say that but little of the 50,000 tons of coal would come on the streets of London. It had been objected that the Bill had not been brought in by a company, but by individuals. But, with regard to these Private Bills, he apprehended all Parliament had to do was to consider whether the scheme was one likely to prove beneficial to the public, and not with reference to the promoters, and he never knew of any difficulty in finding money for a line that was likely to pay. The principal objection to the Bill really was, the
  1620
  amount of property that would be destroyed in its construction. He was not surprised at the general feeling that prevailed early in the Session with reference to the land required for the different schemes in the City, but there was far greater fear than knowledge on the subject, arising from a belief that all the land scheduled must be taken and occupied by the railways. Of the four schemes, two had been rejected, and one had been considerably curtailed. In reality the amount of property to be taken by this gigantic undertaking, as it had been called, was 197 houses, all of which, with the exception of 19, would be rebuilt when the works were completed. He was rather surprised that the hon. Member for the City had not mentioned what the present Bill proposed to do for the relief of the obstruction of the streets. The railway would also be carried out in such a way that its construction would be coincident with that of the drainage works, which otherwise must be carried under Cannon Street, and thus any interference with that important thoroughfare would be prevented. The reason why the Bill did not occupy the Committee so long as the others was, that they had already considered substantially the same questions. He wished to say one word with respect to the alternative plan which had been put forward by the corporation. He confessed that he was distrustful of alternative plans which were put forward by parties who were not bound to execute them, and which were often started at the last moment more in order to hold out some sort of expectation to the Committee, that if the scheme before them was rejected some other one would be adopted, rather than with a view to any actual operations. He objected to that alternative plan, in the first place, because it would interfere with a great deal of very valuable property not touched by the line which the Committee had passed; and he objected to it, in the second place, because it would place the City on a branch line instead of including it in the main line. He should add that the general plan of an inner circle had been suggested by the Lords' Committee of 1863, and had received the sanction of the Joint Committee of both Houses which sat this year. In conclusion, he had to state that he believed no other scheme would give so much accommodation to the trade of London with so small an interference with the street traffic or with private property as the one embodied in the Bill.

  1621
  As the other House would have the opportunity of considering the Bill, and of hearing what its opponents had to say, he hoped the House would not reject it at this the last stage, but allow it to go where argument and evidence could be heard on both sides, and where the objections entertained to it could be fairly weighed.
  MR. THOMSON HANKEYsaid, that every person with whom he had conversed upon the subject entertained the belief that it would be most unwise for the present to bring more railways into the heart of London. He did not see how the other House could give this Bill proper consideration at this period of the Session; and all that the opponents of the Motion before the House asked was that the question should be again considered in another Session.
  MR. SCOURFIELDdrew attention to the fact that the promoters of this Bill had made a deposit of stock borrowed for the occasion, a proceeding which a Select Committee had just pronounced to be an evasion of the spirit if not of the letter of the Standing Orders. Under all the circumstances of the case, he thought the House ought not then to pass the measure.
  MR. MASSEYsaid, that this particular scheme had been considered both by the Joint Committee of Lords and Commons and by the Committee of that House presided over by the noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn (Lord Stanley), and the noble Lord's name was a sufficient guarantee that the duties of the Committee had been efficiently performed. Two important bodies, the corporation of London and the Metropolitan Board of Works, represented by able counsel, had opposed the line, but without convincing the Committee that it was a bad one. It was for the other House, and not for them, to say whether or not the subject could be properly investigated before the Session closed. As to the deposit of borrowed money, although a Select Committee had condemned the practice, he was sure it was not intended, and would be rather hard, to give retrospective effect to the recommendation of the Committee, especially as the practice had been tacitly acquiesced in by the House for some years. As the opponents of the Bill would be able to state their case in the other House, he saw no reason why that House should reverse the decision of their Committee, and hoped the Bill would be read a third time.
  SIR WILLIAM FRASERsaid, that he had been a Member of the Committee, and
  1622
  had gone into it with opinions rather averse to the scheme embodied in the Bill; but the evidence which had been adduced subsequently led him to the conclusion that it was the very best which had been devised for meeting the requirements of metropolitan traffic.
  MR. TITEbelieved that the amount of injury done by this railway to the City would be much less than was supposed, but he thought it would be wise to postpone the Bill until next Session, when they would have had the opportunity of seeing the progress of other works.
  Question, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read 3o, and passed.

PUBLIC OFFICES—SATURDAY HALF HOLIDAY.—QUESTION.
MR. O'REILLYsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether Her Majesty's Government will give their favourable consideration to the propriety of extending to all the other public offices the Saturday Half Holiday, which has long prevailed to a certain extent in the Audit and some other Offices, and which, as the Secretary to the Treasury has stated, has been granted to the Post Office, without entailing on the public inconvenience or expense?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, this was a Question of some importance to the public service, and without communication with the heads of Departments he was unable to answer the Question of the hon. Gentleman.

UNITED STATES—SEIZURE OF THE BARQUE "SCIENCE,"

  QUESTION.
  MR. BLAKEsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he can state if any decision has been come to by the Government of the United States of America respecting the seizure some months since of the barque Science, of Waterford, at Matamoras, by a Federal ship of war?
  MR. LAYARDsaid, in reply, that by the last accounts from the United States they had heard that the Science had been released, but they had received no particulars as to whether damages or compensation had been awarded.

TRAFFIC OF THE CITY OF LONDON.

  QUESTION.
  LORD ERNEST BRUCEsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, When the provisions of an Act of Parliament, which received the Royal Assent on the 28th of July, 1863, intituled "An Act for the better Regulation of the Traffic in the Streets of the City of London, and for the prevention of obstructions therein," are likely to be carried into effect; whether Colonel Fraser, the City Commissioner of Police, did not several months ago send in a proposed set of Rules, Orders, and Regulations, approved of by the City Law Officers, for the approbation of the Secretary of State, and what has been the cause of so long a delay?
  SIR GEORGE GREYreplied, that he had previously stated the cause of the delay in bringing these traffic regulations into operation. Colonel Fraser had no authority in the matter, but the Court of Aldermen, having power by law to make regulations for the traffic, had transmitted to him, through the town clerk, some months ago, a series of regulations which they had made, in order that they might receive his sanction. He had referred those regulations for the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown, who reported that some of them were in excess of the powers vested by law in the Court of Aldermen. He had accordingly sent them back, and on Tuesday last he received, through the town clerk, a revised set of regulations, which appeared to be free from all legal objection. He had, therefore, given them his sanction, and they would at once come into operation.

TREATY OF VIENNA AND PRUSSIA.

  QUESTION.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury a Question respecting the territorial guarantee contained in the Treaty of Vienna. He wished to know, Whether any representations have been made on the part of this country to Prussia to the effect, that if Prussia insists upon departing from the Treaty which settled the limits and conditions of the Germanic Confederation, the British Government will not hold itself further bound by that guarantee?
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: No communication has been made of that nature
  1624
  to the Prussian Government, and I do not think it would be expedient to follow the example of Prussia. That country having in the beginning of the Danish difficulties declared that she might repudiate the Treaty of 1852, in consequence of Denmark not having fulfilled some of her obligations which were totally independent of that treaty, we should have no right to tell Prussia that we are absolved from the Treaty of Vienna on account of another transaction taking place in 1863 or 1864.

ARMY—EXPERIMENTS WITH RIFLED ORDNANCE.—QUESTION.
MR. J. A. SMITHsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, Whether there would be any objection to lay before the House a Letter addressed to Earl De Grey by Mr. Alfred Jeffery on the 29th of April last in reference to his Correspondence with the War Office, and the results of his experiments with Rifled Ordnance since July, 1854?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON,in reply, said, there would be no objection on the part of the War Office to lay on the table the Correspondence which had taken place between that Department and Mr. Jeffery if the hon. Member thought fit to press for it, but there would be some inconvenience in producing an isolated letter from that Correspondence. He might, however, state the opinion entertained with regard to Mr. Jeffery's inventions. Mr. Jeffery, as long ago as July, 1854, submitted a specimen of his compound shot to the Government, which very shortly afterwards determined to institute experiments with projectiles on Mr. Jeffery's principle, and also to place at his disposal guns to be rifled on any system which he might think best adapted for carrying his projectiles. Experiments with cast-iron guns had been conducted and brought to a conclusion, and there had been further experiments with his projectiles from wrought-iron guns. More importance had always been attached to Mr. Jeffery's projectiles than to any system of rifling which he had brought forward. The Ordnance Committee had given it as their opinion that Mr. Jeffery had succeeded in the objects which he originally proposed to himself—namely, that he had effected a mechanical junction between the two metals, iron and lead. They also thought that Mr. Jeffery was the first to

1625
propose a very slow twist in guns. Yet no practical result had been attained, because the Ordnance Committee had not deemed it their duty to recommend that Mr. Jeffery's system should be adopted in the service; but it was by no means impossible that at some future time some part of his inventions might be adopted. The Ordnance Committee had on all occasions borne willing testimony to the public-spirited motives which appeared to have actuated Mr. Jeffery in his transactions with that Department, and to the fair and open manner in which he had always acted; and the Secretary of State for War was quite prepared to concur in that opinion of the Committee.

DENMARK AND GERMANY—THE TREATY OF LONDON (1852).—QUESTION.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he would beg to ask, What Her Majesty's Government deemed to be the present position of the Treaty of 1852, and whether they held it to be still in force?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: The position of that treaty is like the position of any other treaty, the conditions of which have been found practically not to be capable of being strictly enforced. All the contracting parties to that treaty have been sharing in negotiations, the object of which was to modify it. It is perfectly competent for those who make a treaty, if after the lapse of time its conditions are not applicable to existing circumstances, to agree to a modification of that treaty; and that was the result of the Conferences which were lately held in London. The position of this treaty is, therefore, like that of any other treaty in which the parties who signed it are willing by common consent to make some modification.

MR. ARNOLD, POLICE MAGISTRATE.

  EXPLANATION.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he desired to explain that Mr. Arnold, the Police Magistrate, thought the statement he had made the other night in answer to the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley) was calculated to throw blame upon him. He wished, therefore, to say that he had desired to cast no blame whatever upon Mr. Arnold. He had merely intended to convey that Mr. Arnold had not represented to the Secretary of State or the
  1626
  Commissioners of Police that the conduct of a Police Constable to whom he had made reference required investigation. Mr. Arnold said that his usual course in such cases was to make a verbal communication, but he thought that, where the conduct of a Police Constable was concerned, it was desirable that the Magistrate's opinion should be recorded in writing, together with the grounds on which it was based.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, he wished to ask whether Police Magistrates were to be expected to make these communications to the Home Office respecting the misconduct of the Police when, as had happened he believed in three instances, they had previously done so in vain?
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he was not aware that the fact was as stated by the hon. Gentleman. All he could say was, that if the conduct of a constable required to be brought under the notice of the Commissioners of Police, it ought to be done in writing and not by a verbal statement, which might be inaccurately reported.

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

POLITICAL RELATIONS WITH BRAZIL.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. BERNAL OSBORNErose, pursuant to notice, to call attention to the state of our political relations with Brazil, and said, Sir, I feel that some apology is due not only to the House but to the immense commercial interests which are affected—to the owners of Brazilian stock, and to all who are engaged in commercial intercourse with the Empire of Brazil, that some apology is due for my bringing on this subject at the eleventh hour to a fatigued House, exhausted by the labours of the Session. But if the House is exhausted by its labours, I think it is bound to remember the great issues which are at stake in the question of the unsatisfactory relations which have for a long period existed, and which still exist, between this country and the Empire of Brazil. The question is so important that I think even the Chancellor of the Exchequer would do well to interrupt his private conversation, and to listen to what is now going on—because it

  1627
  materially affects the credit and responsibility of Her Majesty's Ministers, as I will show presently. The case of our relations with Brazil at this moment may be put shortly. I believe the Empire of Brazil is the one isolated example in the civilized world, of a State with which we have numerous transactions of various kinds, with which we have not a single commercial treaty or a treaty of any kind except the Convention of 1826. I hope the House will give me its attention while I state the nature of our transactions with Brazil. I find the commerce carried on between this country and Brazil amounts to not loss than £12,000,000 a year. I find that the Brazilian debt held in this country amounts to nearly £9,000,000. Moreover, there are three English companies engaged in making railways in Brazil, which have guarantees for upwards of £5,000,000 of capital. Added to these three companies are various other companies, composed entirely of Englishmen, and employing English labour, who have undertaken not only to drain the capital but to light the towns, to work the mines, and to perform other operations in that country. There is a numerous English population scattered all over the country, and yet that population is not secured in its property, nor protected in person by any sort of treaty. That fact must at once strike the House as a state of things which is so peculiar that we are entitled to ask how it has been brought about, and why it is allowed to continue by Her Majesty's Government? What is the cause of this entire absence of treaties? The cause, I am unfortunately obliged to say, is to be found in that meddling, mischievous policy which is never content unless it is interfering with small States and subjecting them to insult and to injustice. That policy in the case of Brazil has not only been tyrannical towards her, but has been mischievous in its effects upon England. Without going into a history of all our transactions with Brazil, I may say that there can be no doubt that from 1822 to 1844 Brazil was in such a state, owing to the weakness of her finances and the weakness of her Executive, that the slave trade was carried on to an enormous extent; but I am prepared to maintain that from the period when Brazil became altogether independent, the policy of that empire has been essentially anti-slave-trade. A very remarkable fact occurs by which I will prove that assertion. It is proved by what is called the Convention of 1826. In
  1628
  that Convention were incorporated the slave treaties we had made with Portugal, whereby the right of search was given, and the power of adjudication by mixed Commissions. But besides that there was a most unexampled provision in that Convention—one which, I believe, was never introduced in any slave trade treaty with any other Power. It is that stipulation which is at the bottom of all the bad feeling which has been generated in Brazil towards us. By that provision, if Brazilian citizens were found to be engaged in the slave trade, the Brazilian Government engaged to treat them as guilty of piracy. Such a provision exists in no other treaty, but the Brazilians yielded that concession to us, and proved by adhering to it that their policy was anti-slavery, and in utter opposition to the traffic in slaves. That provision was in force from March, 1830, to March, 1845, when be strong was the public feeling in Brazil against our exercise of the right of search—which had been tremendously abused by the English Government—so great was the public discontent that the Government of Brazil was forced to give it up, and to notify to the English Government that the adoption of the Portuguese treaties, as far as they were applicable to Brazil, must cease. The English Government accepted that notice, and the arrangement terminated in 1845, and then no other stipulation remained but the first article of the Convention of 1826. Lord Aberdeen's Government was then, I believe, in power. And here let me say that, in speaking of Lord Aberdeen, I can never do so in this House or elsewhere without doing justice to his intrinsic probity, his honesty, and his good intentions. Lord Aberdeen was induced to get the Parliament of that date to pass an Act, the 8 & 9 Vict. c. 122, called the Aberdeen Act. That Act authorized British cruisers to seize Brazilian ships upon suspicion of being employed in the slave trade, and to carry them before British Vice Admiralty Courts for condemnation. That must strike the House as a most extraordinary provision. That provision, however, was extensively put in force. Innumerable vessels were seized and were sent before the Vice Admiralty Court at St. Helena—acts which naturally produced a very bad feeling in Brazil against this country. When that Act was discussed in this House, who was the man who spoke loudest against it? The man who more than any other

  1629
  opposed the Act was a man who had been Attorney General, and who afterwards became Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, and ultimately Lord High Chancellor—Sir Thomas Wilde. He said, in effect, that so illegal, so monstrous was the Act that it was impossible England could ever inflict it upon any country but one which was unable to resist. That was the opinion of Sir Thomas Wilde, the Lord High Chancellor of the Whig Government. Another great Whig ornament of the House also spoke loudly against the Act, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Milner Gibson). I wish he would now bring his influence to bear upon his noble Friend at the head of the Government, and would now use those glowing words which he used on that former occasion. If he would do that he would be doing much towards restoring amicable relations between this country and Brazil. That right hon. Gentleman not only resisted that measure, but he brought forward an express Motion and divided the House upon it. At that period large cargoes of slaves were being landed in Brazil. If at that time he thought the Act was unjust, what does the right hon. Gentleman say now, when, as I will show, the slave trade is extinct? and how can he reconcile it to himself to sit cheek by jowl with the noble Lord who insists upon retaining that Act? But Lord Aberdeen never meant that Act to be permanent. We have had so much of blue-books lately that I will not trouble the House by making many references, but I must refer to one despatch. When Lord Aberdeen notified the passing of this Act to the Brazilian Government, what did he say? In a despatch dated the 2nd of June, 1845, Lord Aberdeen said—
  "Her Majesty's Government are far from wishing this mode of adjudicating vessels shall be permanent. They will be ready, as soon as any measures of the Brazilian Government shall enable them to do so, to recommend to Parliament to repeal the Act."
  That was an express pledge given to the Brazilian Government that if they then adopted measures tending to the extinction of the slave trade, Parliament should be invited to repeal the Act as soon as the circumstances justified such a course. I think even the noble Lord will not deny that that was an express promise. Brazil received this Act—a weak State—a State which could be experimentalized upon by
  1630
  the policy of the noble Lord, having no navy and no means of defence. What could Brazil do? It did all it could do. It protested against this Act as an infraction of the law of nations—and in that the Brazilians were fortified by the opinion of Sir Thomas Wilde—and they refused altogether to enter into any commercial treaty with this country until that Act was repealed. The protest was treated as all protests are by our Government from States which have not Armstrong guns to enforce them. Not content with the Act as hitherto carried out by our cruisers, who had only attacked Brazilian vessels which were suspected when they were found on the high seas on the coast of Brazil, the noble Lord in 1850 actually ordered our cruisers to carry their operations still further, and to do an act which he believed had never been done before under similar circumstances—he ordered them to invade Brazilian ports and to cut out the suspected vessels even when in the Brazilian ports and waters. This system continued for two years; and this measure created the greatest ill feeling in Brazil towards the English. Did we succeed by what I will term this legislative piracy in stopping the slave trade? The feeling of the Brazilians was very strong against the slave trade—for I beg to call the attention of the House to the fact, that that trade was carried on not by the Brazilians themselves but by foreign capitalists and adventurers, chiefly Americans, Spaniards, and Portuguese, but in some instances—at least, so it has been whispered—by Liverpool merchants. The Brazilians, however, were so much disgusted with the meddling policy of this country towards them that, instead of supporting us by measures in their Chamber, they took no steps to aid in putting down the slave trade. Subsequently, however, the greatest exertions were made by the Brazilian Government to put down the traffic, and with such success that even the noble Lord now at the head of the Government wrote as follows to Lord Howden, our Ambassador at Madrid, on the 15th of May, 1851, enclosing a copy of the Brazilian laws, and holding up Brazil as an example to the Spanish and Portuguese Governments. These are the noble Lord's words—
  "No reasonable doubt can be now entertained, that if this same system is energetically pursued for another twelve months the slave trade to the Brazils will be almost entirely extinguished."

  1631
  So great were the exertions of the Brazilian Government, and so great their success, that in April, 1852, I find that Lord Malmesbury, then our Foreign Minister, withdrew the order for British cruisers to enter the Brazilian ports and waters, which was given by the noble Lord in 1850; and I must say that the conduct of Lord Malmesbury, at all events, in connection with his management of our affairs with Brazil, reflected great credit upon him, although it has been the fashion of hon. Members sitting upon the Ministerial side of the House to cast much abuse upon him. In consequence of that order British cruisers ceased to invade Brazilian ports and waters, and a better state of things soon arose. The Brazilian Chambers, sensible of the kindness and conciliating disposition by which the conduct of the noble Earl had been dictated, redoubled their efforts to suppress the slave trade. In 1853, a Committee, the Chairman of which, I believe, was the late Mr. Hume, and on which were the hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington) and the noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn (Lord Stanley), came to the conclusion that it would be right, in consequence of the great exertions of the Brazilian Government for the suppression of the traffic, to consider the propriety of repealing an Act which was still regarded as so obnoxious. Since 1852, so successful has been the policy of the Brazilian Government, in consequence of the measures carried by Lord Malmesbury and the conciliating tone of the noble Lord's despatches, that the slave trade had virtually ceased by 1856. I think there were only two attempts to run slave cargoes between those years. One of those cases occurred, I believe, in 1852, when an English ship was taken by a Brazilian cruiser in Brazilian waters. The captain and crew of that ship were severely punished, and all the slaves liberated. But there was still another case which I know will be adduced, and to which, as I wish to avoid nothing, I will refer. In 1853 a ship containing 250 Africans was taken by a Brazilian cruiser, but forty-seven of the Africans were stolen. This fact caused a great outcry, and all the missing slaves, with the exception of about sixteen, were ultimately captured. Since the year 1856, I am prepared to prove on undoubted authority, that no slave has been run on the coast of Brazil, and that the slave trade there is entirely extinct. I will give a
  1632
  short quotation upon this point, for I do not like to make a statement of this nature without fortifying it by high authority, and what authority can be higher upon the subject than the opinion of the noble Lord the First Minister of the Crown? On the 5th of June, 1856, the noble Lord said—
  "The slave trade might be regarded as extinct in Brazil, for though attempts had been made to revive it, they had not been attended with much success. There was generally evinced throughout the Brazils a spirit of determined hostility to the revival of the traffic."
  Since that period the Brazilian Government have passed law after law; and, what is more, have attempted to enforce them in the strictest manner possible. It is a curious fact that not a single slave was employed in the construction of the 200 miles of railway made by English companies in Brazil. Moreover, I must say to his honour, the Prince de Joinville, who married a Portuguese Princess, is most decidedly opposed to the trade, and by his exertions and the spirit of the Portuguese Government, free labour has almost superseded slave labour. The whole of his estates are colonized by Germans, and, I believe, by a great many Swedes. The slave trade in Brazil has thus of late years received a blow from which, I think, it can never recover. What has been the conduct of this House in reference to this traffic? It was not too much to expect that the House would, with the extinction of the slave traffic, repeal the obnoxious Act of 1845—an Act which the Brazilians regarded as unjust and insulting; but the House did nothing of the kind. The House has been content to wait year after year, and to leave our enormous trade without protection. We have witnessed several abortive attempts on the part of several Governments to enter into treaties with Brazil, and both Lord Clarendon and Earl Russell have made ineffectual attempts in that direction. The Brazilians absolutely refused to enter into any treaty with us unless the Act of 1845 were repealed. And yet that Act still remains upon the statute-book, irritating public opinion in Brazil, doing incalculable mischief to our trade, and making our policy a byword among nations. Now I will call the attention of the House to the occurrences of last year, which I think ought to be taken into consideration. We all remember the case of the Forte, and the severe reprisals which were made upon the Brazilians by a

  1633
  British squadron. That case was referred to the general arbitrator in the disputes of nations, the King of the Belgians, who in June, 1863, gave his decision to the effect that the British officers were altogether in the wrong.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Not altogether.
  MR. BERNAL OSBORNE: Do you contradict it?
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Yes.
  MR. BERNAL OSBORNE: Well, really, the noble Lord has the face to contradict anything. I did not expect that the statement would be contradicted, for, if I have read that award aright, the King of the Belgians said that the British officers were wrong, and that some amends ought to be made to the Brazilian Government. I can only wish that I had provided myself with the despatch, for the denial of the noble Lord shows how careful one ought to be. At any rate the decision was not in our favour. That, at least, the noble Lord will not gainsay, although he may, possibly, be able to get off upon a quibble of words. Well, there was another case. I find that in 1859 the British cruisers captured and retained a steamer belonging to the Republic of Paraguay, which was taken in the River La Plata. The whole affair was carefully kept secret until I asked whether any apology had been made. It was denied that any apology had been made; but the fact is that in 1862 Mr. Dorian, the British Chargé d'Affaires in that part of the world, was empowered to apologize to the Republic of Paraguay for the affront which had been offered to their steamer. I believe this to have been the first apology ever made by the noble Lord, and as such it is very curious, and deserves to be recorded in letters of gold. I have not the despatch by me, but I do not think that this will be denied. An apology was offered to the Government of Paraguay; but up to the present time no concession has been made in respect to the case of the Forte to the Brazilian Government. Do you dispute that? The Under Secretary has been rather unfortunate in his contradictions to me. He contradicted me in a previous debate, and he has not vacated his office yet. We have had incidental debates on this subject before, and after the question has been referred to Portuguese mediation I cannot understand why irritating and offensive language should be used by Her Majesty's Government.
  1634
  What must be the feeling of the noble Lord at the Foreign Office when he became aware of the use of such language. On the 8th of February, 1861, the noble Lord the Foreign Minister wrote to Mr. Christie—
  "I think it right to observe for your information and guidance that, as the Government of Brazil have of late acted in perfect good faith in regard to the suppression of the slave trade, it would be advisable in any communications which you may have on this question of the emancipated negroes, to avoid as much as possible any discussions which may tend to continue the feeling of irritation which has so long existed in the public mind in Brazil against this country in reference to the slave trade."
  That being the despatch of 1861, how can the irritating and improper language used in 1864 be reconciled with those expressions, and I should like to know whether the Portuguese Government would continue their mediation in the face of such language? Perhaps I may be contradicted in that, but I have information in my pocket which defies contradiction—and it may be that I am in a position to give some information to the Foreign Office, which is at once ignorant and insolent. What has been the policy of the Brazilian Government with regard to the emancipados? By a decree of 1858, the Brazilian Government altogether forbade any emancipated negroes to be appropriated to private individuals. None of these negroes could be apprenticed, except under the Government. The adoption of that step was most material. It has been denied that any of those men were really emancipated; but I have the Report of the Minister of Justice to the Brazilian Chambers, and from that it appears that in 1860–1 200 emancipados were made free; 147 in 1862–3; and 71 down to May, 1864. Yet in the teeth of all this it is denied by the First Minister of the Crown that any satisfaction had been given on these points, or that the Brazilian Government has taken any steps to emancipate these men. I now come to the most extraordinary statement that I have ever heard from the Treasury Bench—and I have heard a great many. It was said, in answer to a question—it looked very much like an arranged thing, and like what is called in the sporting world a "plant"—it was said that there were twenty requirements, without satisfying which no negro could obtain his freedom. I was puzzled to find where the document containing those requirements came from. It is

  1635
  well known that our agents and Consuls abroad all know the tenor of what the Foreign Office wishes, and Mr. Christie knows the spite of the noble Lord at the head of the Government against Brazil, and was willing to supply him with fuel in this way. On the 3rd of April, 1852, these twenty requirements were forwarded in a despatch from Mr. Christie. But where did he get them from? From any official document? By no means. They are contained in an Opposition newspaper, which is a sort of half Owl and half Punch, and the object of publishing them was to ridicule the law's delays in Brazil. However, Mr. Christie was only too happy to Bee them in the newspaper, cuts them out, and sends them to this country, and the noble Lord the Prime Minister seriously produces them in this House as official. What would the noble Lord say if he saw quoted in the Brazilian Chambers Punch's Essence of Parliament as authentic?—and yet that would be just an analogous proceeding. It is too bad that a nobleman holding the position of First Minister of the Crown, should come down to this House and endeavour to persuade the representatives of the country that that list of twenty requirements was an official Brazilian document, when in fact it was no other than a squib. In sober sadness I ask what is the policy of the noble Lord in regard to Brazil? Is it a hostile policy? Does he wish to worry these unfortunate Brazilians until, like Denmark, they should resist? I really do believe that the best thing they could do would be to show some spirit and resist the Act of 1845, and that would be sufficient to upset the present Ministry and would lead to the repeal of that piece of legislative oppression. It would not be difficult to prove that there has always been an understanding in Brazil that the Act would be repealed. The noble Lord the Prime Minister said the other night that Lord Aberdeen did not repeal the Act in 1852, when he was in office. Why, the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) was in Lord Aberdeen's Cabinet, and I always understood that he was an awkward colleague to Lord Aberdeen. We all know that, when the noble Lord takes up a thing, he does not lightly leave it off. I have no doubt that Lord Aberdeen would have repealed that Act but for the presence in his Cabinet of the noble Lord. Lord Aberdeen, in the debate on the 17th of June, 1858, said that the Act was so obnoxious to Brazil that it was
  1636
  called there "the Algerine Act;" that, on its introduction, he had stated that nothing would give him greater pleasure than the arrival of the day when it should be repealed, and he was not sure that the proper time for its repeal had not already arrived: it was, however, for Her Majesty's Government to decide; but the conduct of Brazil in this matter had been such as to entitle that country to much consideration at our hands; and he could only recommend the attention of Her Majesty's Government to the realization of what he promised when he originally introduced the Act. That was Lord Aberdeen's opinion so late as 1858; and although the First Minister of the Crown in 1864 had testified to the extinction of the slave trade to a great extent, and although it had been condemned by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne, yet the obnoxious Act remained upon our statute-book. Surely, using the language of menace and irritation is not the way in which a country like Brazil, no longer in its infancy, should be treated. If we want to get on with any country, we should employ terms of conciliation and not irritation. From the repeal of the Act of 1845 what state of things would result? Brazil would be too happy to enter into a commercial treaty and a postal convention with you on the condition, however, that you remove a stigma from them by repealing the Act of 1845. There could not be a better time than the present for the repeal, because in February of the present year there was a meeting of a new Parliament in Brazil, and I believe it is well known that the temper of that Assembly is such that if you repealed the Act of 1845 they would be ready to grant you anything in the way of commercial freedom. But so long as that Act remains in the statute-book, and so long as language is used in defence of that Act, so long will you have a state of irritation in Brazil, most unfortunate for that nation and most injurious to the commerce of this country.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, while the hon. Gentleman recommends mildness of language—of which he is so great a master—he has not himself used the mildest language in discussing this subject; but it is my intention rather to follow his precepts than to imitate his example. The hon. Gentleman says I am a great hand at denying. I think I may retort upon him that he is a great hand at asserting. I know—every body knows—the source

  1637
  whence the hon. Gentleman draws his information. [Mr. BERNAL OSBORNE: Where from?] From an active Brazilian agent. [Mr. BERNAL OSBORNE: I deny it.] The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well whom I mean. [Mr. BERNAL OSBORNE: No. What is his name?] He is indebted to an active Brazilian agent—an Englishman, I am sorry to say—who is very ready to supply information—what I think is sometimes incorrect information—to newspapers and others who are willing to undertake the cause of Brazil. I do not blame him, for he is doing his duty and is paid for it; but I only wish that those who adopt his statements in Parliament would take the trouble to be quite sure that what they assert is exactly correct. There was much in the speech of the hon. Gentleman which might provoke me to go into an angry discussion. [Mr. BERNAL OSBORNE: Be provoked then.] Never mind. Her Majesty's Government are now engaged through the Portuguese Government in negotiations, the object of which is to re-establish diplomatic relations between this country and Brazil. I do not think, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman has shown great judgment in endeavouring just at this moment to raise a controversial discussion on the matters to which his speech related. If I were to go into details in reference to his statements, the necessary consequence would be that I should be led to say things which he would again condemn; and thus the controversy would go on. I trust the House will allow that I am better performing my duty in abstaining from entering upon the details which the hon. Gentleman has gone into. As the hon. Gentleman has endeavoured to impress the House with an idea of the disadvantages occasioned to commerce, not only by our present relations with Brazil, but by those which have existed for some time, I will simply state the amount of our exports to and imports from Brazil in a certain period of time. From 1850 to 1852 the imports varied from £2,000,000 to some £2,100,000, and the exports from £2,000,000 to £3,000,000. From I860 to the present time our imports from Brazil have been as follows:—In 1860, £2,200,000; 1861, £2,600,000; 1862, £4,400,000; 1863, £4,500,000. I say that that is not a state of things which shows that our commerce is under any disadvantages. Our exports to Brazil have grown not quite in the same degree.
  1638
  From 1850 to 1852 they amounted to from £2,000,000 to £3,500,000; in 1860 they were £4,500,000; in 1861 they were rather more than £4,500,000; and in 1862–3 they were from £3,700,000 to £3,900,000. Therefore, as far as our commercial intercourse with Brazil is concerned, it cannot be established that it has suffered in consequence of the matters which have, no doubt, occasioned a considerable amount of irritation on the side of the Brazilians, It is quite true that the Brazilian slave trade has ceased since 1852. In the beginning of that year the Brazilian Government passed laws and established regulations which have, I believe, prevented any material importation of slaves into Brazil. But when the hon. Gentleman says there is such a dislike to the slave trade in Brazil, I must remind him that out of a population of 7,500,000 there are 3,000,000 slaves or only 1,000,000 short of the number in the Southern States of America. There are 10,000 emancipados. [Mr. BERNAL OSBORNE: There are more.] Then that tells still more against the hon. Gentleman, and at the rate at which, according to the hon. Gentleman, they are set free, they may be all dead before they are liberated. I must not, however, waste time by going into a controversial discussion with the hon. Gentleman on these subjects. I am anxious that the negotiations now going on should be successful; and I think the House would act wisely if it refrained from debate on this question, and did not allow things to be said on one side or the other which might revive angry feelings, and embarrass the negotiations which the Portuguese Government, with the best motives and in the best spirit, have undertaken to carry on.
  MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALD: Sir, I do not desire to address the House at any length; but the speech of the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) which we have just heard is so different in spirit to the one he delivered on a former occasion, that it is necessary I should make a few observations. The noble Lord has appeared in quite a new character, particularly with regard to Brazil. He says that he thinks the House will be of opinion that he will best discharge his duty by avoiding irritating language towards the Brazilian Government. ["Hear, hear!"] And I think that cheer shows the noble Lord that it is the opinion of the House that he will best discharge his duty by using moderate

  1639
  and courteous language towards that country. I can only express my regret—a regret which I know is shared by many Members—that what the noble Lord feels to be his duty now he did not feel to be his duty on former occasions. What was the language which, within a very short period, the noble Lord used in this House with reference to the Brazilian question? The noble Lord told the House that the conduct of the Brazilian Government was flagrant, disgraceful, and flagitious; and the noble Lord went on to say that, instead of giving merit to the Brazilian-Government for any efforts on their part to put down the slave trade, it was only under the fear of the Aberdeen Act that the slave trade was not carried on now. The noble Lord refused on that occasion to give the slightest credit to the Brazilian Government, for what all the world acknowledges to have been most noble and praiseworthy conduct in their efforts to suppress the slave trade. The noble Lord may laugh, but that is an opinion which has been expressed by some of those who are as anxious to put down the slave trade, and who are as good friends of the negro as the noble Lord himself. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Liskeard (Mr. B. Osborne) has quoted the opinion of Lord Truro; I quoted the other day the opinion of Lord Aberdeen; and I ask the noble Lord if he has not read that Lord Brougham said the other night, in another place, that the Brazilian Government were worthy of all praise, and had met with the success they deserved. And yet the noble Lord thinks he is performing his duty and is using moderate language when he uses the terms, flagrant, flagitious, and disgraceful towards the Brazilian Government. [VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I did not use the word flagitious.] The noble Lord did not confine his courtesies of language only to the Brazilian Government, because he told me that it argued great ignorance on my part that I did not know the contents of the document to which he referred. The hon. Member for Liskeard has already referred to that document; and what is it? It now appears that it was a squib from an opposition newspaper, which was cut out by our Chargé d'Affaires, and sent home to the noble Lord. It has never been laid on the table of the House, but it has appeared in a blue-book which is never distributed to Members. And this unauthentic document is that upon which the noble Lord, in the exercise of his courteous lan-
  1640
  guage towards Members on this side of the House, says is a mark of the grossest ignorance on my part that I did not know it. I have a number of statements, not derived, as the noble Lord says, from Brazilian sources, but from our own blue-books, which show that the Brazilian Government have the greatest difficulties to contend with in dealing with the emancipados. The country is extensive and the plantations are separated by vast distances, and the emancipados having been located in old times upon the plantations, there is great difficulty in getting an account of them. It is evident, however, that the Brazilian Government are making every effort in their power to get the negroes set free. In 1861 Mr. Christie mentioned that in one district letters of emancipation were being granted to the blacks in large numbers, and added, "This I know to be true;" also, that in the very last year the Brazilian Government had been exerting themselves in the most praiseworthy manner in reference to the emancipados, and had set free a great many employed in the Government establishments. And I defy Her Majesty's Government to show that the Brazilian Government has not exhibited a most anxious desire to use every effort to carry into effect the stipulation with reference to their freeing the emancipados. I will not detain the House longer, but I could not help congratulating the noble Lord on the new course which he has adopted, and I hope he will continue to think that he will best discharge his duty by using moderate language to other countries, and that it will not be inconsistent with his duty not to use offensive language towards those who sit opposite to him.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he did not reproach the hon. Gentleman with not knowing the contents of the document referred to and laid on the table of the House last year. What he meant was, that the hon. Gentleman having been in the Foreign Office must have known the general conduct of the Brazilian Government in respect to the emancipados, and that frequent applications had been made to them for lists, which we have not been able to obtain.
  MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALDsaid, he did not know it. It never came before him in the shape the noble Lord had put it.
  SIR HUGH CAIRNSsaid, he could not allow the discussion to close without expressing his regret at another point in the speech of the noble Lord. The noble Lord said the statistics he had read showed

  1641
  that the commerce of the country had suffered but little, if at all, from the interruption of diplomatic relations with Brazil. He was sorry to find that the Government entertained that opinion, for he feared it would lead them to take very little trouble to get diplomatic relations renewed. Prom communications with persons engaged in commerce between England and Brazil, he knew that traders laboured under constant and serious apprehension with regard to the risks to which their property—amounting to three or four millions sterling—was exposed in Brazil from the want of that protection which British commercial interests enjoyed in every other country, and that they stated in the most decided manner their conviction that the renewal of diplomatic relations would be followed by a considerable expansion of commerce. He trusted, therefore, that the Foreign Office would endeavour to ascertain whether or not this was a delusion under which the Government laboured. He pronounced it an utter and complete delusion. He was quite aware that the noble Lord could point to the Returns, showing the increase of imports and exports but could the noble Lord contradict what he had stated—that the merchants were filled with apprehension in regard to their property, and that they said the exports could be, perhaps, doubled if commerce received due protection? He would give the noble Lord another instance which was worthy of his attention. In this country our merchants had at this moment claims against the Brazilian Government to the extent of several hundred thousand pounds. No person ever disputed the justice of those claims, and an attempt had been made to adjust them by means of a mixed Commission. Her Majesty's Government had repeatedly said that there ought to be means provided for repaying to the subjects of this country the claims to which they were justly entitled; yet, from the bad terms on which they were with the Brazilian Government, they had utterly failed in obtaining a satisfactory adjustment. He could tell Her Majesty's Government also, from his own personal communications with merchants in this country who were interested in the question, that they had long since ceased to importune the Foreign Office with regard to the resumption of diplomatic relations, simply because they were convinced of the inveterate and determined hostility felt by the noble Lord and the Foreign Office to the Government of Brazil, And he must say
  1642
  that when they heard such language as was heard in that House not many days ago from the noble Lord, that impression on the part of the merchants of this country must necessarily be confirmed. Reference had been made by the hon. Gentleman who introduced the discussion (Mr. B. Osborne) to the Aberdeen Act as being the primary and chief cause of the bitter feeling existing between this country and Brazil. In his (Sir Hugh Cairns) opinion, the causes of the rupture of diplomatic relations were these two—the Aberdeen Act and the language of the noble Lord. The noble Lord had not ventured that evening to say a word on the subject of the Aberdeen Act. As a question of international law, it was impossible to look at that Act without feelings of unmitigated amazement. He firmly believed that there was not a country in the world of whose strength we had any reason to be afraid against whom we should ever have ventured to direct such a measure. How was it that that Act happened to pass? It was because Sir Robert Peel brought it in under the sanction of his Government, and because the noble Lord who was then in Opposition supported it, and thu3 neutralized the opposition which would otherwise have been raised to it. But what did Sir Robert Peel say with reference to it? Did any one wish to know the history and merits of the Act? Let them read the short debate which took place upon the subject of that Act in 1845, and they would find that Sir Robert Peel said he felt that it was a most extreme and even extraordinary measure. He stopped the progress of it for some days in order that he might consider whether the objections made by Sir Thomas Wilde could be answered. He then said—
  "It seems a very strong measure indeed for us to legislate for Brazilian subjects; and although we have the Treaty of 1826, which stipulates that the slave trade shall be deemed to be piracy on the part of Brazil, we will not venture, in our legislation, to deal with the persons and lives of Brazilian subjects, but will only deal with their property." [3 Hansard, lxxxii. 1071.]
  He (Sir Hugh Cairns) would like to know what right had we to deal with their property any more than with their lives? If the argument was worth a rush, the stipulation in the treaty that the trade should be piracy, if it gave this country the power of dealing with it by its municipal laws as piracy, gave it the power of dealing with the lives of those engaged in it just as much as with their property. The vice of the Act was at once shown, and condemna-

  1643
  tion branded upon it by these expressions. Let any one read the speech of the Attorney General of that day, who attempted to defend the measure, and say whether there was one word in his speech which answered the objections of Sir Thomas Wilde. In fact, the treaty was a stipulation between two countries that it should not be lawful for the subjects of the Emperor of Brazil to be concerned in carrying on the slave trade; but what did that mean? Did it mean that a foreign country was to pass laws to punish the subjects of another country as they thought fit? All that the Government of Brazil said was that they would have municipal laws passed in their own Legislature to punish their own subjects within their own jurisdiction. [Viscount PALMERSTON: Read what follows.] The words that followed did not alter the case in the least. All that was said was that it should not be lawful for the subjects of the Emperor of Brazil to be concerned in carrying on the slave trade under any pretence, and that carrying it on by any person who was a subject of His Imperial Majesty should be deemed and treated as piracy. But by whom was it to be so deemed and treated? Not by our Parliament so as to enable us to fix penalties; but it was to be so deemed and treated by the Brazilian Government, who if they had not power to punish it as piracy, could go to the Legislature and obtain that power. He again repeated that there was not a nation which would not have said, and said most truly, that this was a flagrant attempt to infringe the independence of its Legislature and its Sovereignty, and it would have been resented on that account.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he rose to do an act of justice to Mr. Christie, our Minister at Brazil, who had been spoken of in terms of reprobation by the hon. Member for Liskeard.
  MR. BERNAL OSBORNE: I beg pardon. I said he was universally unpopular in Brazil.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, the hon. Member had stated that Mr. Christie had somehow or other been provided for in this country. Now, whatever Mr. Christie derived from this country he had earned by honest service. But this was not the only act of injustice of which the hon. Member had been guilty. The hon. Member attributed to Mr. Christie having sent home an extract from a Brazilian paper, which had been quoted by the noble Lord at the head of the Government. Mr. Christie
  1644
  did no such thing. He held in his hand papers, which were accessible to every Member of that House, which showed that the extract in question was sent home by Mr. Elliot, the present Chargeé d'Affaires, subsequent to Mr. Christie's recall. He had not the least wish to impugn the accuracy of the document, or to except to the hon. Member's description of the source whence it was derived, but he was anxious to exonerate Mr. Christie from the blame that had been heaped upon him for having in his diplomatic character sent home that document. He thought the substance of this debate must lead the House at once to understand that Mr. Christie was not likely to meet with justice at the hands of the Brazilian Government. He was sorry to say it appeared that the Government of Brazil were seeking to compel that House to repeal an Act of Parliament by persecuting Englishmen in Brazil. Such was the corruption among the Brazilian Judges that seven of them had been displaced since the difference between England and Brazil had been referred to arbitration, first to the King of the Belgians and now to the King of Portugal. He held in his hand a letter from a high official of the name of Don Jose do Narcimento Silva with reference to the case of a Mr. Reeves, which was under adjudication in Brazil. Mr. Reeves was a claimant—a joint claimant—for a sum of £20,000. With the permission of the House he would read the letter of the eminent person in Brazil to whom he had referred to the Judge who was to try the case. The writer said—
  "Most Illustrious and Excellent Judge,—Your Excellency is a Judge in the cause in which an Englishman (Reeves) denies the maternity of a lady Deslinda, in order to deprive her of her inheritance from her son, and I am so convinced of the right of this lady that I take the liberty of asking you to vote for her. Read the arguments of Nabuco, compare them with the proofs in the cause, and you will see that what I ask is just. I thank you by anticipation for your kindness, and beg you to give orders to your most affectionate friend, &c."
  He could multiply proofs of attempts to corrupt the Judges engaged in trying cases between Brazilians and Englishmen. He hoped that the result of this discussion would be to show to the House that if harsh measures appeared to have been used towards Brazil it must be borne in mind that Brazil had been persecuting English subjects, and had refused to answer the notes of the English Government, and had maligned Mr. Christie by agents

  1645
  here as well as in Brazil. They must remember the animus manifested by Brazil, and that Brazil was trying by these means to coerce the English Legislature into a repeal of the Act, which was certainly justifiable at the time it was passed. Indeed, if the accounts which we received of the state of the internal slave trade of Brazil were true, the Act was not only justifiable but was actually necessary. He believed that that Act was necessary still, for the price of slaves in Brazil was rising, and he suspected that one of the inducements which made the Brazilians so anxious to obtain the repeal of the Act of 1845 was that they might "abate," as they called it, the price of slaves. Within Brazil at this moment the internal slave trade was of a most (he would not use harsh terms) painful character. Slaves were torn from one province to be sent to another; husbands were separated from their wives, the mother from the child, and children sold from ten to twelve years old. This was the state of things under which we were asked to abandon the policy we had hitherto pursued. If ever there was a justification for our interference in any case against the renewal of the slave trade, he believed it was in the case of Brazil; and when the hon. Member for Liskeard appealed to the fact that the English railway companies who were constructing railways in Brazil had never employed a single slave on their works, he (Mr. Newdegate) thanked God that his fellow-countrymen had discarded that infernal traffic in the undertakings in which they were engaged. He thought, however, that the very fact of the hon. Member mentioning that circumstance showed how general was the employment of slave labour in Brazil.
  MR. T. BARINGthought his hon. Friend who had just spoken (Mr. Newdegate) had rather wandered from the question, which was not whether Mr. Christie had been abused, or whether Brazilian Judges were corrupt, but whether by conciliation and kind language we were not likely to renew friendly relations with Brazil, to increase our commerce, to obtain justice for Englishmen, and to succeed in the negotiations which were now taking place? His hon. Friend might say that the internal slave trade was an abominable traffic, and so it was; but the Act of 1845 was not levelled against the internal, but against the foreign slave trade; and when there was evidence that in Brazil the latter had ceased, the whole case of his hon.
  1646
  Friend fell to the ground. The question then was, whether we were to persevere in a course of action which had drawn o line of separation between this country and Brazil; or whether we should now enter upon a policy of conciliation, instead of that taunting, irritating policy which we had hitherto pursued?

ST. BERNARD'S REFORMATORY, LEICESTERSHIRE.—OBSERVATIONS.
MR. PACKEsaid, he rose to call attention to the Report of the Inspector of Reformatories, on the state of the St. Bernard's Reformatory at Whitwick, in Leicestershire. In doing so he begged to assure his noble Friend the Member for Arundel (Lord E. Howard) and the other Roman Catholic Members of the House, that he was actuated by no invidious motives. Last year an outbreak had taken place in this Reformatory of so serious a nature that some of the police who were called in were nearly murdered by the boys who were engaged in the disturbance. The Reformatory was then under the management of the monks of St. Bernard; but as it was found they were not able to deal with such refractory youths, it was afterwards transferred to other hands. On the 19th of June, 1863, it was agreed to commit the management to a number of gentlemen, whose names were among the most respectable of the Roman Catholics of this country, and among them were two clergymen. On the 19th of June Mr. Harper, one of the committee of management, wrote a letter stating that the government of the institution was completely altered, and that rules had been formed by means of which the boys would be kept in the most perfect order. One of the rules was to the effect that no boy should be suffered to go out of the school without being under the supervision of one of the authorities. That rule the managers had no means of enforcing. Mr. Sydney Turner, the Inspector of Reformatories, wrote to the Secretary of State, informing him that the arrangements were complete; that the new system ought be allowed to go on for one year from the 1st of July; that during that interval the number of inmates would be limited to 100, and that the experience of twelve months would enable them to see whether the Reformatory could be successfully conducted. Within four months from that time the Inspector visited the institution again, and

1647
expressed himself perfectly satisfied with what he had seen, although he said there were 143 boys within the walls. It appeared, then, that as regarded the number of boys the arrangement which had been entered into with the Secretary of State four months before had been altered. At the end of the last year the chairman of the bench of magistrates in the neighbourhood of the Reformatory wrote to the Secretary of State, informing him that for several nights the police had been obliged to be in the institution; that between thirty and forty of the inmates, who had got loose, had been put into gaol for various offences; and that four of them had been committed to take their trial for burglary. The facts of the case were these—the boys had got up at night, tied the sheets of their beds together, let themselves down from the windows, a height of about nineteen feet, and so having escaped committed this burglary. Here was a body of nearly 150 of the worst young scamps to be found in the country, youths brought up to crime, who having the means of escape within their reach might commit any depredation they liked in the neighbourhood. When he was a boy at Eton the windows of the boarding house in which he lodged were barred, so that there were no means of getting out at night. Well, he should like to know whether boys who were notorious for vice were to be trusted in rooms where there were no bars to the windows. Things soon after arrived at such a pass that the police were several nights obliged to remain in the Reformatory to help to take care of those boys. His right hon. Friend the Home Secretary sent down Mr. Sydney Turner to investigate the facts. In his Report Mr. Turner stated that an effective staff of officers ought to be engaged. What he (Mr. Packe) had apprehended had taken place, and the authorities had shown that they could not manage the maximum of 150 boys. Mr. Sydney Turner was in error when he said that the number would be limited to 100. But this gentleman concluded his Report by stating that he believed there was no reason to fear their being taken by surprise in the future. Why they should have been taken by surprise between 1863 and 1864 he could not understand, as the authorities well knew the ferocious temper of the boys. When the new management was instituted an efficient staff of officers was to form part of the establishment; but the sequel
1648
showed how far the staff had been able to keep the boys in any kind of order. As an acting magistrate of the county of Leicester the point on which he wished to dwell had reference to the employment of the county police in aid of the management of this Reformatory. In Leicestershire they had no more police constables than were necessary to keep the peace of the county, and they could not, therefore, spare any part of the force to assist the authorities of that institution in maintaining order there. How was it that this Reformatory could not be managed without such extraneous assistance? The chief constable, in his letter of the 5th of June, said he trusted that arrangements had been made with Inspector Ward and constables for speedily calling in other assistance in case of need. But the police ought not to be made to stand sentry to a Reformatory. From a letter addressed to a local paper the other day, he found that Mr. Quick, the manager of that Reformatory, said he had sent for twenty of the London police, but he was referred to the police of the county, on whom he had to fall back. Mr. Quick was, he believed, a very respectable man, and a clergyman, who wished to manage these unruly lads by mildness and kindness; but he was deficient in firmness, and was really no more capable of managing such an institution than he was of being Governor of Newgate. These boys were principally Irish, from Liverpool and its neighbourhood. As matters at present stood, the conductors of that Reformatory did not find efficient men to restrain these felonious boys from committing depredations over the county; and he desired to impress upon the Secretary of State that the county of Leicester ought not to be called upon to furnish police to control this ill managed institution.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he was not surprised that the hon. Gentleman, as a Member for the county of Leicester, should have called the attention of the House to the disturbances which had recently taken place in the St. Bernard's Reformatory. The facts of the case were all contained in the papers which had been laid on the table, and from them it appeared, that although the Reformatory some time ago was certainly not managed in a way which could be regarded as in any degree satisfactory, yet its management had been greatly improved during the past year. The gentlemen in whose

1649
hands the management of the institution had been placed last year had exerted themselves to the utmost in reforming it and placing it on a better footing. At the same time, he agreed with the hon. Gentleman that sufficient energy had not been shown by the rev. Mr. Quick, who was, no doubt, anxious to do his duty, but who was not a fit person to have the control of lads of such a class. But since the late outbreak, which certainly did take the officers by surprise, he was given to understand that the managers had determined to increase their staff materially, by which means the attendance of the police would be dispensed with. It was not reasonable that any large number of the county police should be obliged to abandon their ordinary duty elsewhere, and to go to the neighbourhood of that Reformatory. He was informed that there would be associated with Mr. Quick a lay manager, who had been accustomed to the discipline of the army, and who would be better able to control these lads than a clergyman. It should be mentioned also that this wa3 not the only case of outbreak in a Reformatory. There had been outbreaks of a similar description in other Reformatories, which were under Protestant management; but he hoped that the precautions now taken would prevent any recurrence of these disturbances. [Mr. PACKE: The windows should be barred.] If such disorderly proceedings were continued, it would be absolutely essential for the peace of the neighbourhood to withdraw the certificate from the institution; but it would be difficult to avoid doing more harm than good by its immediate withdrawal, because the lads would no longer be in legal custody, and would, perhaps, be guilty of acts more mischievous and calculated to excite greater alarm than if they were detained in the Reformatory, A ship had been assigned by the Admiralty to be placed in the Mersey for the reception of hoys of that class; and although the lads now at St. Bernard's Reformatory might not be transferred to that ship, yet, by using that vessel as a means of exercising an efficient discipline over all the boys who might hereafter he committed to a Roman Catholic Reformatory from that part of the country, the necessity of sending any more of them to the St. Bernard's Reformatory would be obviated. At all events, unless every ground of complaint was effectually removed, the permission to send boys to this Reformatory
1650
would not be continued. But, although the alarm which had been excited in this case was in a considerable degree well grounded, he hoped the House would not discourage the efforts now being made—which were certainly well meant—for the improvement and good management of this Reformatory.
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, the House could not be surprised that very considerable interest had been excited in the neighbourhood of this Reformatory by the proceedings which had taken place, and he believed he might say that the feeling was unanimous that the Reformatory ought to be removed. The boys placed there had been brought from a great distance, and it was quite clear they had been placed under a management which was not capable of conducting an establishment of that description. The whole neighbourhood had been kept in constant apprehension, and even the monks themselves were quite as anxious as others to be freed from the neighbourhood of these refractory lads. The right hon. Baronet had detailed the steps which had been taken for improving the future management, and as representing that part of the county he must say he should be very glad if those measures did succeed; but if another outbreak should occur he hoped the certificate would not be extended; that the boys would be sent to the ship at Liverpool; that measures would be taken to free Leicestershire from the evils to which the county had in no way contributed, and that they would hear no more of these most serious and unpleasant outbreaks.
MR. HEYGATEsaid, the alarm which prevailed on this subject had been somewhat exaggerated in the newspapers and elsewhere; still, as he lived in the immediate neighbourhood, he must say he could not look with indifference at repeated out-breaks of this character. The right hon. Baronet, however, had exercised a wise discretion in not withdrawing his certificate, as a very great improvement had taken place in the management. These outbreaks were to a large extent attributable to the number of boys crowded together being greater than could well be managed in one reformatory; and a Report to that effect had been made two years ago by the Inspector. The reconvictions almost always came from reformatories where the largest number of boys were collected together. With re-

1651
ference to the increased expenditure which these outbreaks had occasioned to the county, it was quite true that two or three policemen had for some time after patrolled the neighbourhood; but the expense, even if it had not been repaid, which it was subsequently, had been insignificant. He hoped the change which had been made in the government of the Reformatory would lead to a better state of things, and that the right hon. Baronet would recommend a smaller number of boys to be kept there in future.
MR. NEWDEGATEexpressed his hope that no establishments of this kind would be set on foot for the future.

PASSPORTS IN FRANCE—QUESTION.
SIR WILLIAM FRASERsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether passports are required by British subjects travelling in France? The subject would, no doubt, be interesting to the large body of persons who were about to travel on the Continent. Looking to the tone of the articles which appeared in the German papers, he did not think Englishmen going to Switzerland would be likely to go through Prussia—they would, no doubt, much prefer going through France. Some time ago a notice appeared in the Moniteur, which stated that the subjects of Her Majesty would not be required to produce passports when travelling in France. This very liberal notice not only showed the kind feeling of the Emperor of the French, but it was also a most politic statement, for it induced large numbers of Englishmen to take the route through France to the Continent; but, notwithstanding the notice to which he referred, cases had occurred of British subjects being seriously molested in consequence of not having passports. He could mention several such instances. One English gentleman while travelling in the South of France, on arriving at the chief town of a department, was asked by the gendarmes for his passport. He replied he was a British subject and he understood a passport was not required. The demand was repeated: he made the same answer, and calling his servant pointed to his baggage, which bore his address in London, Notwithstanding this, he was forcibly removed and marched along a hot road in the South of France, in order to be brought before an official—he supposed the sous préfét of the department. This gentleman stated
1652
that there was no charge against him, he was dismissed, and he found his way back to the hotel. Complaint was made to the English Ambassador, who, he believed, communicated with the Government of the Emperor; but the gentleman in question had, he believed, received no apology or redress from any one. He did not bring forward this particular case as a grievance, but he had heard of many others, and that for one case that obtained publicity many were probably never heard of. The answer of the French Government might be—"True, a British subject needs no passport in France; but how are we to know that a traveller is a British subject?" He admitted the force of that dilemma. They had all read the description of Britons by the Irish poet—
"Pride in their port, defiance in their eye,
I see the lords of human kind pass by."
But if foreigners might be pardoned if they did not recognize the travelling Briton by this description, for the haggard individual, generally accompanied by females, who was seen wandering about railway stations of a morning in a state of listlessness, hardly bore any of the poet's marks of a Briton about him. Still he did not think that he ought to be exposed to the risk of being detained for some hours for not having a passport when he had been told that no passport was necessary. He believed that if a communication were made by the Foreign Office to the French Government it would be a convenience to a large number of persons. The Government of the Emperor having notified that British subjects required no passport, the onus probandi was, he thought, thrown upon the French officials to show that a British subject was not what he professed to be, instead of the onus being upon him to show that he was a British subject. He trusted that some arrangement would be come to for doing away with this source of inconvenience to English travellers in France.
MR. CARDWELLsaid, that the subject should receive the attention of Her Majesty's Government.
Main Question put, and agreed to.

SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
Supply considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
(1.) £860,276, Post Office Packet Service.
MR. CAVE,in rising to put the question of which he bad given notice, in regard to the West India Contract, said, he wished to make a few remarks in explanation of his meaning. Early in the Session he had been surprised to receive at the West India Committee the copy of a letter from the Secretary of the Treasury to the Colonial Office, dated the 11th of March, calling upon the colonies to contribute towards the expenses of the Packet Service. That letter contained some remarkable passages; among other things credit was taken for the liberality of the proposal only to desire the colonies to contribute where they are directly concerned. They were not to be asked, for instance, to pay for the service from St. Thomas to Mexico. It would certainly be somewhat astonishing to call upon a British colony to pay any portion of the expense of the packet service from one foreign country to another. The geographical knowledge of Government Departments bad been said to be limited, and a story had been told of a despatch addressed to "the Island of De marara," but he (Mr. Cave) would not suppose that the Treasury could be ignorant that St. Thomas was not a British island, but was, perhaps, by that time almost the only possession left to the unhappy King of Denmark. The last passage, however, of the letter was most worthy of note. It ran thus—
"It will be necessary that the payments to be made by the several colonies should be made not later than the 30th of June next, and the corresponding payments not later than the same day in each succeeding year."
This looked so much like an attempt to tax the colonies without their consent, that he put a question to the Secretary to the Treasury, who informed the House that the meaning intended to be conveyed was that those colonies which wished to avail themselves of the packet service would be expected to contribute. He (Mr. Cave) then moved for the correspondence relating to these circumstances, which had lately been delivered to hon. Members. He there found that in 1862 there was a letter from the Treasury to the Colonial Office, stating the intention of Government to terminate the contract at the beginning of this year, indicating very vaguely, and, as it had turned out very incorrectly, the substance of the new contract, and suggesting that the West India Colonies should contribute in certain imperfectly explained proportions. The letter was communicated
1654
through the office to the West India Colonies. Owing to the vague and hypothetical nature of the communication but little attention was paid to it in the West Indies. Such replies, however, as were sent home were in the main decidedly unfavourable. Under such circumstances, he should have imagined that the Government would have gone more closely into the matter, fixed upon a maximum contribution for each colony, which might easily have been done, and then either left the conveyance of mails to open competition, or in case the replies received were sufficiently encouraging, entered upon the new contract only in respect of such colonies as came into their terms. But what did the Government do? They left the matter wholly in abeyance for two years, and sent no other message to the colonies, and entered into a fresh contract with the Royal Mail Company without giving the colonies any voice in the matter. They bound themselves for six years to pay nearly £173,000 a year, and passed the contract through the House in a hurry at the end of last Session, suspending the Standing Order which required contracts to be laid on the table for a month, or rather, inducing the House prematurely to approve of the contract, as it was impossible to comply with the order, and that with so little publicity that there was no trace of it in Hansard. He did not, however, complain either of the new contract or of the Royal Mail Company. He believed the terms were fair enough, as contracts went, if it was requisite to have a contract at all. And he quite concurred in the opinion expressed in the Postmaster General's last Report, that the company had done their part remarkably well. He (Mr. Cave) had every reason to speak well of them, The contract was approved by the House, and therefore was a matter of certainty at the end of last Session—namely, in July, 1863. Nothing was hinted about West India contributions, which might, of course, have been calculated by the same time; but on the 11th of March this year the peremptory demand to which he had alluded was made, which reached the West Indies about the beginning of May. This gave them two months to convene their Legislative Assemblies to pass the necessary Bills, after debate through both branches of their respective Legislatures, to raise and pay the money, amounting in the case of Jamaica alone, the most impoverished of the colonies, to no less than £11,634. Why, the

1655
demand of Austria and Prussia that the unhappy Danes should revoke their Patent of Constitution within an impossible time was not more unreasonable. No wonder if the replies were—as he had been informed they were—unfavourable; and yet credit was taken in these estimates for the whole amount of £37,554—a remarkable instance of reckoning chickens before they were hatched! Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could give the House some information upon the point, as well as upon the course Her Majesty's Government intended to take. If the right hon. Gentleman replied that he would simply refuse to carry the mails, then—if he (Mr. Cave) might be pardoned for using a very ordinary expression—he would be cutting off his nose to spite his face, as he would lose the postage of the letters and yet be bound to pay the whole subsidy, nearly £173,000. He doubted whether the right hon. Gentleman would punish the colonies so much, after all, as he supposed. When the contract which had lately expired commenced, the West Indian waters were in the undisturbed possession of the Royal Mail Company. Now, no less than five competing steamship lines had appeared, or were in contemplation. There was, first, the heavily-subsidized French line of the Messagéries Impériales, sailing once a month, calling at the English Islands of St. Lucia, St. Vincent, Grenada, and Trinidad, and passing within hail of Jamaica. There was, secondly, the Spanish mail line from Havannah and Porto Rico, passing close to Jamaica, and not far from the Leeward Islands. There was, thirdly, the West India and Pacific Company, sailing four times a month from Liverpool, and calling at Jamaica and Trinidad. These three lines of steamers were actually running, and their days of sailing were advertized. Fourthly, a line was projected between Jamaica and New York in correspondence with Cunard's steamers; and, fifthly, a line was contemplated from England to Madeira and Demerara. The Government, while they were thus deprived of the power of sealing up the recusant colonies—which, if it could be done, would probably inflict greater inconvenience on this than on the other side the Atlantic—had positively tempted them, under any circumstances, to avoid sending their correspondence by Her Majesty's mails, because they had lately doubled the postage on letters sent by the Royal Mail steamers, and very much reduced that on letters sent by private
1656
ships, which would, of course, apply to every line he had enumerated, except, perhaps, the French and Spanish. He could not imagine on what principle the Government had acted in dealing with this postage. Formerly the postage to foreign countries was three times the amount to the British colonies; for example, it was 6d. to Jamaica and 1s. 6d. to Cuba, on the ground, as he had always understood, that foreign countries which contributed nothing directly should thus pay indirectly some portion of the subsidy. He asked the right hon. Gentleman last year, when the change was made, whether any part of the subsidy was now to be paid by these foreign countries. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to wonder at the question, and said that such a thing was never heard of. He would now give him a precedent. A correspondence had lately taken place between the Colonial Office and Mauritius, in which that Island had been called upon to pay £6,000 a year more to the Peninsular and Oriental Company on account of the refusal of the French colony of Réunion to pay any longer its proportion of £12,000 a year, the French Government having determined to run a line of its own. And he might add that the West India Telegraph Company had applied for a subsidy from those foreign colonies through which it might pass, and that those applications had been favourably received. Either this packet service was, according to one opinion, such a benefit to this country, both in maintenance of communication and securing large and swift vessels in case of emergency, that it ought to be kept up by the Imperial Exchequer; or, according to another view, it was of equal advantage to the countries to which the mails were carried, in which case we should neither demand payment from British colonies alone, nor continue to bear the whole loss of running mails to foreign countries. It was only fair to admit that the case was one of difficulty. The colonies and their correspondents here would doubtless have complained had the contract been abruptly terminated, and there would have been difficulties in the way of bringing all the colonies to an agreement; but there were two years to spare from the time that the idea was first propounded by the Postmaster General, and those difficulties would have been far less than these in which the Government found themselves involved by the course they had preferred. He, therefore, begged to ask what prospect there

1657
was of recovering the proportion to be paid by the colonies, £37,554, and what measures would be taken by Her Majesty's Government in the case of the colonies declining to contribute their quota?
MR. PEELthought that, upon whatever question of detail the hon. Gentleman might raise objections, he would not deny that the claims upon the West India Colonies were perfectly fair and legitimate. It was quite as much for the advantage of the West India Colonies as for the advantage of this country that regular postal communication should be maintained, and if they shared the benefit it was only reasonable that they should share the cost. The rule applied to those colonies was a rule generally adopted with respect to other colonies. In the case of India, one-half of the expense of the mail service was defrayed by the Indian Government; and in the case of Australia, one-half of the loss arising upon the postal service was paid by the different Australian Colonies. Canada and Mauritius maintained mail services at their own expense; and with respect to the Cape, which made no contribution, the proceeds of the postal charges were more than sufficient to meet the expenses. With respect to the mode in which the claims upon the colonies had been computed, he would observe that the mail line went direct to St. Thomas and there branched off in three directions, and no claim was made upon the West Indian Colonies for the expense of those portions of the service which extended beyond St. Thomas to Brazil or Mexico. The Correspondence upon the table showed that when the West India Mail Company was asked what reduction in their terms they could agree to if their service was confined to the West India Islands, and not extended to Mexico and other foreign ports, the answer was, that no reduction could be made, because it was precisely from those other portions of the service beyond the West Indian Colonies that they expected to derive a remuneration which would compensate for the loss upon other branches of the service. The hon. Gentleman had asked what answers had been received from the West Indian Colonies. He (Mr. Peel) had only seen three answers—of Jamaica, of Granada, and of British Guiana—all of which were unfavourable. What he had stated at the beginning of the Session was, that if the colonies were able to contribute but declined to do so, then the Government would consider what steps should be taken. But
1658
if it were proved that a colony was unable to pay the amount demanded, the Government would be disposed to treat it with every consideration. With respect to the difference between the treatment of our own colonies and those belonging to other countries, he would remind the hon. Gentleman that a very large proportion of the whole amount of sea-postage was derived from those foreign colonies—as much as £45,000 out of a total of £60,000 in 1860.
MR. CAVEdid not think the cases of India and Australia were quite in point. India had not self-government, and the consent of the Australian Colonies had been obtained before the contract was concluded, a course which ought to have been followed in regard to the West Indies. He did not object to the principle of the colonies paying their fair proportions; he objected most to the manner in which the demands upon them had been made. He thought the Government should have asked their consent, and should have waited for their answers before making arrangements.
Vote agreed to.
(2.) £1,600,000, Exchequer Bonds, agreed to.
(3.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £14,355, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1865, for the Civil Establishments on the Western Coast of Africa."
SIR FRANCIS BARINGsaid, he had upon former occasions called attention to this Vote, and he felt bound to do so again, because recent occurrences had made it still more necessary that the attention of the Committee should be given to it. He did not desire to go into any discussion of the Asbantee war or of the transactions connected with it, but he wished to call the attention of the Committee to the imperfect control of Parliament over this Vote, with a view, if possible, of inducing the Government to make a better arrangement in future. For his own part he thought it a mistake to endeavour to extend our forts and our possessions in that part of the world. By such a course they did not advance the great cause which was the justification for the great sacrifice of life upon that coast—the suppression of the slave trade—while, on the other hand, these settlements were of little or no advantage in a commercial point of view.

1659
It appeared that at Lagos, of which place we took possession because of the once flourishing trade carried on there, since our occupation the trade had very much diminished. He was afraid that our occupation of Lagos had been in part the cause of some of the squabbles which we had got into in that part of the world. What he wanted to press upon the Committee was, that there ought to be some control over what was done on the African coast. At present Parliament knew hardly anything of what was going on until it was called upon to vote the money which had been spent. It was very difficult for the Secretary of State to control the Colonial Governors. They did what they thought proper, and when they told their story to the Colonial Secretary he had to choose between disavowing and recalling the Governor or of approving steps which, had he been consulted beforehand, he would probably never have sanctioned. There were in the colonies none of the checks which existed in this country; probably the resident Europeans were all for taking possession of their neighbours' property, desired to spread their power and influence, and looked at things in a light very different from that in which they were regarded in this country. Some check or control over the doings of these Governors was more than ever needed now, because there seemed to be among them a disposition to spread the territory of this country, seizing a bit here and a bit there in a manner which would produce difficulties that might ultimately take the form of war, like that with Ashantee. As an illustration of the sort of thing which went on upon this coast, he would mention what had occurred at Lagos. He did not intend to repeat any opinion upon the steps which had been taken—although he retained his original opinion, he would now say nothing about the occupation of Lagos itself; but what he complained of was that all these things were done without any check or control, and without Parliament knowing anything of what was being done. On the 14th of November, 1862, the Governor of Lagos issued a proclamation recalling from Abbeokuta all English residents in that place—a measure he should say of very doubtful legality, and one which was not brought to the knowledge of Parliament until the publication of the blue-book about a month ago. The difference which had caused the issuing of this proclamation led on the 2nd of March,
1660
1863, to a blockade of Abbeokuta, which had this unfortunate result—that although the King of Dahomey, who seemed to be rather in favour at present, was marching towards that place, the Abbeokutans were prevented from obtaining guns and gunpowder with which to defend themselves against him. Last year there was another small war which was only brought to the knowledge of that House by a private Member; and in the month of February Governor Freeman took possession of a small piece of territory, as he declared, because it interfered with his financial arrangements. These measures might be right, or they might be wrong, but they ought not to have been taken without the knowledge and without being subject to some control on the part of the Home Government and the Parliament of this country. He was afraid that the Secretary of State would always have difficulty in dealing with Colonial Governors; but in his opinion the best mode of protecting the country against their mistakes was, that all these matters should as early as possible be brought to the knowledge of Parliament. There was nothing like a discussion in that House for making men act with caution. If these Governors knew that within a certain time after they had taken a step it would be discussed in that House, he would answer for it that there would be considerable hesitation and delay before they took the initiative in wars, or seized upon territory. What he should recommend was, that the Secretary of State should address to all the Governors stringent directions in the spirit of those contained in his despatch to Governor Pine, forbidding them, except in cases of necessity, to seize territory or to go to war without previous communication with him; and that beyond that, whenever such an event occurred, the Government should, if Parliament was sitting, immediately, and if it was not, then within a few days after its meeting, lay upon the table papers explaining what had been done. He felt satisfied that if some such course were pursued, matters would be much more carefully conducted, and that the Secretary of State would be assisted in keeping a check on those whom, under existing circumstances, he was unable to keep in order.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he observed a charge of £2,000 a year for a steamer for the use of the Governor of Gambia. He should like to know what duties were performed by that steamer? There was

1661
also £4,000 for the maintenance of forts and establishments on the Gold Coast. Was there any need of such an outlay in order to keep off the poor blacks? The Vote of £4,600 for Lagos included £3,125 for works and buildings. He should be glad to know what those works and buildings were?
SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he wished to draw the attention of the Committee to two items in the Vote—that of £500 for the relief of famine on the Gold Coast, and that of £2,000 for the Ashantee war. It was hardly just to the country, he thought, to lead it to suppose that the expenses of a war which would more probably cost £200,000 would be defrayed by the latter amount, or that the famine in question could be effectually relieved for the sum which the Committee was asked to vote for the purpose. Since, he might add, the question of the Ashantee war had been discussed in that House, some further papers with respect to it had been produced, and the Colonial Office had, he was bound to say, duly performed its part in that respect. He was, however, surprised to find that the military authorities had furnished no information as to the operations which had very recently taken place. But to return for a moment to the famine, he found at page 9 of the "Further Papers" to which he alluded, a despatch addressed to the Duke of Newcastle, and dated July 13, 1863, in which Governor Pine said—
"I highly approve and earnestly join in the prayer of the deputation, that your Grace will be pleased to provide this Government with supplies of provisions; for I firmly believe that the greatest distress will exist ere long, and that thereby, unless provided against, the movements which I so earnestly advocate, so soon as the rainy season shall be over, will be retarded,"
Now, shortly after that letter was written, 500 additional troops were landed on the Gold Coast, and in the month of October, the Governor having evidently received from the Colonial Office a letter which was not to be found in the papers wrote as follows:—
"I regret to perceive that your Grace is not in a position to hold out any promise of aid from Imperial funds with respect to a provision against the famine which I now regret to state is ravaging the country, in proof of which I have to mention that the price of a bushel of Indian corn, the staple article of food, has risen from 2s. 6d. to 13 s. 6d., and I have not the slightest prospect of being able to alleviate the distress from colonial funds."
1662
While such was the state of things, 1,600 men had been sent out to add to the distress, who never drew a trigger, who died, or were dying off, under the influence of the climate; and it, therefore, appeared to him absurd to come to the House of Commons to ask for such a sum as £500 to alleviate the famine which prevailed. Mr. Blanc, the Commissary General, had, he believed, endeavoured to make provision for the troops to a certain extent, and by his labours the distress had, no doubt, been diminished; but there must have been a large outlay of public money, which we should eventually have to pay. To advert, however, more particularly to the operations of the war, he must say that the papers with respect to it, which had been preceded by such a note of triumph, were not of the value which hon. Members had been led to hope. When he came to examine them he found they contained only the plan of operations of May, 1860, in which many places in which operations had now taken place were not mentioned. [Mr. CARDWELL: They relate to Major Cochrane's operations.] Exactly so; to Major Cochrane's operations four years ago, and not to those under discussion. There was no plan of the operations in which the troops were engaged which could be of any advantage in the present discussion. There was nothing about the Prah or the expedition to Comassie. Now, in the West African Times, which should be an authority on the matter, he perceived that great jubilation was expressed at the expenditure which was going on throughout the course of this year—something like £14,000 a month for the last fourteen months. To ask for a sum of £2,000 under those circumstances did, he must confess, seem to him to be somewhat absurd. He could, he might add, to some extent confirm what fell just before from the right hon. Baronet the Member for Portsmouth (Sir Francis Baring), because he had information to the effect that in the course of last autumn an English officer arrived at Sierra Leone, having with him some sick men, for whom he wished to provide; but he found the military hospital quite full, most of the cases arising from gunshot wounds, the result, as he was told, of a battle which had taken place at Lagos. Now, how was it, if that were so, that we had never heard of that battle? It was desirable, he thought, that the House of Commons should be enlightened as to when and why,

1663
and by whose orders a war was being conducted in Lagos. But to return to Cape Coast Castle; he believed that matters were worse than they were when the House discussed the question. He held in his hand a letter frem a medical officer, who was now the principal, and, indeed, the only medical man at the station, in which he said—
"I have now but bad news. There is no end of sickness here. I never had so much to do in my life; one of my assistants died in my room last Monday evening. His was a most melancholy case. He was sent out from the West Indies in charge of the troops which came to aid us, and which have only helped to crowd our house. He and Dr. Flynn, an old Trinity chum, were sent in charge, and with general orders to proceed at once back; but the great want of medical officers required that I should detain them. Dr. Flynn I sent on to Lima (after being two months here) with invalids. Dr. Greig, the other, I sent in charge of troops on the march to the Prah, with orders to return at once. On his return he took ill of fever and dysentery, not severe at first. I brought him out of his lodgings to stay with me in my own room, where I could often see him; but, notwithstanding all care, he died on the 31st of May. He was buried on the 1st of June, the first officer in the new burial ground. Since its use on the 1st of May a man has been buried every day nearly. I have now only one to help me, and he is constantly taken ill. I have been sometimes alone for the whole work. Since I have been here, of five officers four have died, three of the medical staff, and one engineer—nine altogether, and fourteen invalided home. An officer of the 2nd West arrived with the troops on the 9th of April. He brought his wife, an old traveller, well accustomed to the tropics. She was carried on board ship in a basket on the 14th of May, and died two days after at sea. Anything like the privation and abomination of this place it would be impossible to find. I forgot to mention that if the military staff had been invalided home every mail that leaves carries a freight of fever-stricken mortals, who are hoisted on board in a basket, and then have to bear a single sea voyage in the worst ocean-going steamers that leave England. Coal coasters at home are larger and better than this African line. I wish the English people knew the real cost in life and money of this attempt to put down slavery. I suppose that is the only reason for keeping up these settlements. I am convinced. What the war is for I don't believe is known in England, and what it is costing in the articles above mentioned, I don't think either is known; or else, if so, they must see some great value unappreciated out here in the natives or country. Well, this is all unpleasant, and so any news of this place is ever likely to be."
That letter would prove that the statements which had been made upon the subject had not been exaggerated. No doubt the Government had had their attention directed to the letter from Commodore
1664
Wilmot, a man of consummate ability, and than whom no one was more competent to express an opinion upon matters relating to the West Coast of Africa. In that letter that officer spoke of the insane nature of our operations upon the coast, and urged upon the Government the impropriety of carrying out the scheme upon which they had determined. He was sorry that his noble Friend (Lord Clarence Paget) had hesitated to give him the information which he had asked for on a previous occasion, with reference to the speed of the squadron stationed on the West Coast of Africa; but as his noble Friend had hesitated to afford him that information, he had been compelled to obtain it from other sources. We maintained seventeen steamers on the coast, and of these he found that the Rattlesnake was the only vessel capable of going ten knots an hour, and that of the others the fastest could only go 8·3 knots an hour. This calculation of speed was made according to the measured mile, and, as they all knew, the measured mile was the greatest possible effort that could be made, for something always occurred to prevent such a rate of speed being attained when a ship came into actual service. The fact was that we had a squadron of about seventeen vessels on the coast, the speed generally being seven knots an hour, some of them not being even so fast. And this was the case when they knew that the very fastest American steamers were sold to the Spaniards for the purposes of the slave trade. He had in his pocket an account of a very fast vessel passing through four of our steamers, communicating with the shore, and going out again with impunity—in fact the traders laughed at our ships. The senior officer of a squadron had given orders to our steamers not to give chase to any vessels, because by such a course they would only be led off the station without doing any good, but to lay at anchor near the places where it was expected that slaves might be embarked. It was absurd to suppose we could put an end to the slave trade by spending £700,000 upon a squadron which was insufficient for the purpose, and that not owing to any fault of the officers or men on board the vessels themselves, In addition to this, we had had a war in the swamps of Africa in which we had lost more than half of our men without seeing an enemy, and had fought the battle of Lagos about which we had never heard a word. He

1665
maintained that we were spending a million of money in vain, and, unless we altered our tactics, the sooner we recalled our slave squadron and abandoned our forts on the coasts the better. He had himself seen service in that quarter of the world, and no one could be more anxious to see an end put to the abominable traffic in slaves, but he could not approve any policy which involved only loss of life to our men without affording us any corresponding advantage. To promote a famine by landing men when a famine already existed, and to come down to the House to ask for £2,500 for that which had cost £250,000, was nothing less than absurd.
Whereupon Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £12,105, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1865, for the Civil Establishments on the Western Coast of Africa."—(Sir John Hay.)
MR. WHITESIDEsaid, he could give an answer to the question that had been put as to what we were doing in the colony, from a letter which he had received from a gentleman who was not connected with the army, but who was residing at Cape Coast Castle. This gentleman said that the protectorate was supported by the Imperial Government at a cost of £4,000 a year for the salaries of the Governor, the Chief Justice, the Colonial Secretary, the Collector of Customs, and the Police Magistrate; besides £750 a year for house rent for the Governor and other officials, Besides that amount the Governor borrowed £2,000 a year from the military chest, but it did not appear that he ever repaid that sum. It was to be returned when the protectorate was in a position to pay it. As the receipts from the customs were about£3,000, it was evident that the protectorate would never be able to support itself. In a war the Natives refused to render the slightest aid to the Government unless they were paid high wages, and they even declined to protect their own country unless they were paid for it. The gentleman whose letter he was quoting from said that the war was useless and unjust. It was useless, because no good could come of it, as there was not a single Ashantee on the coast; and to show that it was unjust he said a chief of the Ashantees having stolen a quantity of rock gold, and according to the law of his coun-
1666
try had incurred the penalty of death, he ran away to the protectorate and claimed protection of the Governor upon which the King of Ashantee sent to the Governor to give up the chief; the King was invited to a conference; but he replied that he could not hold a palaver with white men. Palaver was the phrase used to designate diplomatic proceedings, and a very good word it was for the purpose. The King, therefore, returned to his own country. Our troops were sent into the bush on the 14th of April and returned in June. They again took the field in January, and remained until June, when: this letter was written. Although the army had not met a single enemy, the small garrison had lost sixteen white officers, six white sergeants, and over 200 men, by fever and dysentery. Twenty-three officers had been invalided, and many of them would never be fit for duty again. Four West India regiments arrived in two divisions in August, and most of the officers were invalided. The military expenditure before the war was about £800 a month; it was now over £8,000, and that did not include stores sent from home. He might mention that one steamer took out £45,000 worth of stores, and received £5,000 for it. The surgeons had been particularly unfortunate, for out of five four were gone. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Portsmouth (Sir Francis Baring) asked what was to be done to check the Governors from entering upon transactions of this character, and he (Mr. Whiteside) answered him by saying that it should be a direct Vote of Censure upon the men who, though they might not be personally answerable for the results of the war, had given it their sanction; and although his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir John Hay) failed in such a Motion the other evening by some six or seven votes, yet both fact and argument were with him. It was inhuman to send our soldiers into the bush where the men died without meeting an enemy. The King of Ashantee left the climate to do the work which his troops could not so efficiently perform. Now, somebody must be responsible, The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Portsmouth had raised the question whether this thing should be repeated. They could not get at the Governor, but they could get at the Colonial Office. That office had acted most unwisely, and although they did not intend to do wrong, yet were they responsible. Directions had been given to aban-

1667
don the stores, which cost £45,000, and the King of Ashantee would find them very useful for the next campaign. Of course arrangements were made—they always were after a Vote of Censure had been passed—for removing the survivors from the Gold Coast; but had the Government calculated what the King of Ashantee would do? Might he not come down and remove Governor Pine and the rest of them? To invade his territory was just what irritated one of these Kings most. [Mr. T. G. BARING: The territory was not invaded.] No, but the army was sent for that purpose. They went, but they did nothing. If it had been intended to march against the capital and kill the King, they might have done that, but they did not. They did nothing but suffer and die. The Colonial Office was responsible for what had taken place, for the Governor would never have made war without their consent, and they had not taken any step to alleviate the suffering they had caused until a Vote of Censure threatened them in that House.
MR. CARDWELL: I entirely sympathize with every expression of regret for the sufferings of our soldiers on the Cape Coast, which has fallen from the hon. Member; but the right hon. Gentleman ought to have had the candour to acknowledge that the Colonial Office has done everything in its power to mitigate those sufferings the moment the news of thorn reached this country. The right hon. Gentleman, with that disregard for accuracy of dates which so frequently interfered with the good effect of his eloquence, has said that my proceedings were the natural result of a Vote of Censure. Now, so far from waiting for a Vote of Censure, the necessary measures were taken long before any Vote of Censure was heard of, and as soon as the news reached this country, as the right hon. Gentleman might have known if he had read the papers with any care. So, with regard to the stores also, the right hon. Gentleman might have known by reading the papers that special precaution was taken to prevent any part of the stores, particularly guns of any kind, falling into the hands of the King of Ashantee. There is quite enough to be regretted in this affair, and when we are speaking of a great public calamity it is just as well that hon. Gentlemen should be more accurate in their facts and their dates than the right hon. Gentleman has been. There
1668
are a few points on which I wish to offer an explanation to the hon. and gallant Member for Wakefield (Sir John Hay). The hon. and gallant Gentleman remarked very naturally that the item of £500 for the relief of famine was a very small one. But this item was the only sum which had been sanctioned by the Treasury as yet, and therefore was the only one proper to be introduced into the Vote. It has nothing whatever to do with the support of the troops, an item which will be included in the Military Estimates. It only related to the civil department. The hon. and gallant Baronet read a passage from a despatch of Governor Pine, in which he asked that supplies of provisions might be furnished to avert the distress which he believed would shortly exist; and in accordance with that request, with the sanction of the Treasury, twenty-seven tons of rice were sent out, at a cost of £390, which, with freight and sundries, came up to £500. Then the hon. and gallant Baronet said that this was a costly war, and that £2,000 could not possibly be the whole expense of it. That observation is, no doubt, perfectly correct. I am afraid it has been a costly war, and I am conscious of the evils of costly wars; but this item of £2,000 has nothing to do with the military expenditure—it relates only to charges incurred by the Civil Government, and civil charges only are comprised in the present Estimate. In the early part of this war the Governor sent home two items of expenditure, the first of which was £1,395, on account of this war, already paid by the Colonial Government. There was afterwards an account of £3,123 more spent in the war, but not paid, because the Colonial Government had not got the money—making a total of £4,158. The Treasury here declined to have anything to do with the £1,395, which they said was a charge properly belonging to the Colonial Government; and, with regard to the £3,123, they said they were not satisfied with the explanations they had received; but, looking to the urgency of the case, they would allow £2,000 on account until more satisfactory explanations were sent, and that is the sum set forth in this Vote. The hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. Williams) asked me why £2,000 was given to the Governor of Sierra Leone. Now, I must remind hon. Members that there has been a greater reduction on the Colonial Estimates of late years than on many others, as hon. Members will see on

1669
looking through the Votes. For myself, I am most anxious to co-operate with the House in further reductions in these Votes, but with regard to this £2,000 it has always been included in the Estimate. The £2,000 for the steamer was a part of the settlement with the colony, and has also been always included. Whether the Government of this country should pay for its maintenance is a question very different from the use and value of that steamer, which is undoubted and cannot be disputed. Of all the accessories of a colonial establishment a steamer, doing the work which this does, is the most valuable. Portions of the settlement are removed 150 miles from the mouth of the river, and the steamer affords the inhabitants a most invaluable means of communication. With regard to the £3,125 for buildings and works at Lagos, that sum is for buildings required in the colony, such as a courthouse, buildings for the Customs' service, a powder magazine, &c.
I believe I have now answered the questions which were put to me in detail, and all that remains for me is to notice the weighty matters referred to in the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, who opened this discussion. I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend in most of the principles which he has laid down. I think the object of this country in establishing a settlement on the West Coast of Africa cannot be a self-interested one, having in view the increase of the wealth of England. The great design which has always interested this country in connection with our proceedings on that coast is the repression of the slave trade, and with it the introduction of legitimate commerce and of Christianity as the civilizing agent of mankind. An extension of territory in that country would be what no one would wish to see carried into effect; and certainly any desire of aggrandizement or territorial acquisition there would be foreign to our purpose and alien to our policy. What our policy should be and is was well laid down by a Committee of 1842, of which Lord Derby, Earl Russell, Mr. Speaker, and other distinguished men were Members. Speaking of the Western Coast of Africa they said—
"The relation of the Native tribes to the English Crown should be not the allegiance of subjects to which we have no right to pretend, and which it would entail an inconvenient responsibility to possess, but the deference of weaker
1670
Powers to a stronger and more enlightened neighbour, whoso protection and counsel they seek, and to whom they are bound by certain definite obligations."
That policy may be right or it may be wrong—I am not now arguing that question; but in Lord Grey's book our policy is described in the same sense, and as it is the policy to which this country has adhered, I hold with my right hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth that to extend our territorial possessions on the West Coast of Africa is not the most desirable mode of giving it effect. Such a system of acquisition would be attended with many evils which, as far as possible, should be avoided. I am asked what the view of the Government is with respect to expeditions into the interior of Africa? I may answer that question by pointing to the policy which we have endeavoured to give effect to in reference to the expedition which has been brought under direct discussion. We have sent out orders to put an end, if possible, to expeditions on the Gold Coast. With respect to Lagos, I anticipated these discussions by announcing to the Governor of Lagos that our policy was to be one of abstaining from taking part in the disputes among Natives. A war that has been raging there between two tribes is very mischievous to trade, and inflicts great suffering on the Natives; but I do not think it would have been right for us to take a part in it, or to endeavour to put an end to it by force. It is difficult to lay down in clear terms what the details of a policy are. Those details must be complicated and difficult where our object is not the usual one of acquiring wealth or extending our power, but where our policy is solely and entirely a disinterested one—namely, at great inconvenience and no inconsiderable sacrifices to ourselves, to abolish a traffic disgraceful to human nature, and extend the advantages of religion, civilization, and legitimate commerce to the miserable inhabitants of Africa.
MR. ADDERLEYsaid, he believed that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies had done all that could be done in the case which had been brought so prominently under the notice of the House. He thought that of the papers now before Parliament the most satisfactory one of all was the despatch of the right hon. Gentleman, in which certainly he showed a determination to apply a remedy to an existing evil, and to prevent a recurrence of the unfortunate complications

1671
and embarrassments that had given rise to it. But, unhappily, these steps had been taken too late. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Portsmouth (Sir Francis Baring) that under such circumstances remedial measures must come too late. That was the point which they had to consider. It was difficult to fix a censure and to say who was to blame, and, even if it was not, censure would be too late. What they wanted to do was to prevent a recurrence of circumstances in which it was useless to blame any one for disaster, and in respect to which information came too late. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies had stated to the House the expenditure which we had incurred accurately according to the Returns which had reached him; but he doubted whether these Returns gave all the military expenditure for recent operations.
MR. CARDWELL: It was not the military expenditure. I said we were on the Civil Service Estimates, and that these were expenses incurred by the Civil Governor on account of the war.
MR. ADDERLEY: He was, then, quite correct in thinking that they had not before them an estimate of the expenditure for the whole of the affair. The present case afforded a striking exemplification of the mistaken policy we had adopted on that coast. The policy of setting up a protecting Power on the West Coast of Africa was both wasteful and mischievous, and he took this opportunity of giving notice that on the first day of next Session he should move for a Select Committee, which might inquire into the whole subject, with the view of preventing a recurrence of such evils as those which we were now lamenting. By assuming the task of protecting barbarous tribes, we not only scattered our army to an unnecessary extent, but exposed our troops to a demoralizing and deadly service—not only by warfare, but by the pestilential climate of some of the most unhealthy parts of the world. It was folly enough for us to assist great colonies as vigorous as ourselves in their wars for self-defence, without setting up Protectorates on the coast of Africa to which barbarous tribes would look for aid in mutual hostilities, and for plunder for themselves. We have had experience enough to show us how insane a policy this was, and the sooner we backed out of it the better. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies told them
1672
he had written to the Governor of Lagos, urging as the wish of the Government a pacific policy. But would the Governor, with the English flag and the English Exchequer at his back, carry out the wishes and intentions of the Government in that respect? He would remind the right hon. Gentleman and the Committee of the saying of the first Napoleon, that the true policy of this country was to concentrate our forces at home, and send them abroad as they might be required; not to scatter them, as we do, in every direction, in search of service, and embroil ourselves with all the world; and he said that it was fortunate for mankind we so wasted our strength, which concentrated would make us almost too powerful for the rest of the world. It was said that the policy adopted by this country was necessary in the interests of commerce and of civilization. But the fact was that commerce was disturbed and impeded by such a policy. Look at what had taken place in the present instance. Governor Pine wrote home to say that it was useless talking of peace, for he had an arduous task to perform in defending an extensive line of coast, bordered by tribes, some of whom were under British protection, while they had rivals under other protection; and he seemed to have grand notions of his position, calling upon the Home Government to support him, but fortunately calling in vain. The time had come, he wrote rather magniloquently, when the question must be settled now and for ever, whether the English flag was to be trampled on by savage and sanguinary tribes. But, surely, there was a prior question to be settled, namely, whether the English flag should be trailed about all over the world as an Irishman trailed his coat-tails at a fair, to be trodden on and insulted by any one who had nothing to do, and nothing to lose. Governor Pine thought that good policy, economy, and mercy would be served by sending him a force sufficient to decide at once and for ever the supremacy of England over African barbarians. The House of Commons would probably be of opinion that none of these results would be so insured. Major Cochrane and Commander Wilmot both cautioned the Governor that the House of Commons would never stand such a course; but he was blind to their remonstrances, pressed on the Colonial Office the necessity of doing what he asked, and at last quarrelled with these two officers because they had so wisely cautioned him

1673
not to quarrel with the King of Ashantee. What made the absurdity the greater was, as appeared from Governor Pine's own statement, the war he proposed could only be carried on by the sacrifice for the time of the chief object for which we maintained this settlement—namely, by suspending our efforts for the abolition of the slave trade. He (Mr. Adderley) deprecated strongly the policy of sentimental colonization which was too much adopted by this country. He considered that a better case than this could hardly be brought forward to illustrate the impolicy of the course we were pursuing in this direction. He thought the time had now come to consider whether we had any inducement for exposing our officers and men any longer in a climate so deadly that when it was proposed at the end of the American war to make West Africa a convict station, Mr. Burke made a celebrated speech in this House, in which he described it as a place where "all death lives and all life dies"—a place too dreadful even for criminals to be sent there in commutation for death. He should take the first opportunity next Session of moving for a Committee of Inquiry into the use of our West African establishments, and he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies to enable him to prepare for it, and to have in readiness the evidence which would be necessary for a fair investigation. He hoped that that inquiry would lead to the abandonment of the Gold Coast forts, and the concentration of our settlements, or disposal of them otherwise. The right hon. Gentleman said that he was against all extension of our possessions on this coast. But with the best intentions this extension was going on, and would continue to go on unless they resolutely set their faces against it. Fifteen years ago the Gold Coast was only a lieutenant governorship under Sierra Leone. Then it was constituted a governorship. During Earl Grey's tenure of the Colonial Office we purchased the Danish forts there for £10,000; and the Dutch forts were now being offered us for sale. If, as the result of the inquiry he proposed, the Government could see their way clear to withdraw from the Gold Coast, and concentrate their forces in two places, or even in one, upon this coast, the greatest benefit would result from the appointment of a Committee. It should be remembered that whatever our squadron might have done for checking the slave trade, no such end had yet been in the least advanced by the troops, whom we
1674
had employed on shore, for they could do nothing but embroil us with the tribes along the coast, while they certainly did nothing for the civilization of the country. The slave trade could be best repressed by a differently composed squadron on the coast, and he quite agreed that it would be well to have faster and fewer vessels there. He hoped, however, that the Protectorate would be abandoned, for the only result had been a large loss of valuable lives, while neither commerce, nor suppression of the slave trade, nor civilization of the tribes, had apparently been promoted by it.
MR. HENRY SEYMOURsaid, he was glad that the right hon. Gentleman was resolved to move for a Committee next Session: if he had not made the announcement he (Mr. Henry Seymour) should have done so himself, for he wished to see the whole question ventilated. He hoped, however, that in the meanwhile the Colonial Office would have devised some better means of managing the affairs of these settlements. He must say, however, that he thought the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Adderley) was riding his hobby too hard when he designed to confine England to the limits of these Islands; it seemed to him (Mr. Henry Seymour) absurd to talk of restraining this nation within such narrow limits.
MR. ADDERLEYsaid, what he desired was to restrict the number of our forces abroad.
MR. HENRY SEYMOURremarked, that the natural course for a people so powerful, vigorous, and enterprising as that of England was to expand and to occupy nearly every region of the world; and if Napoleon had seen the present wealth, power, and influence of this country in all parts of the world, he would have approved the policy of the British Government for the last thirty or forty years. As to the outcry about these paltry military expenses, he would ask how our colonies could have become so prosperous if they had not been aided in their weakness by the mother country? While our colonies and possessions added largely, on the whole, to the wealth of the mother country, there must necessarily be some which, like the territories of the United States, required for a time an expenditure from the mother country in order that they might become the sources of wealth to the generation which followed. Instead, therefore, of restricting our present policy, he would extend it still further; and if this question were debated he

1675
should be prepared to prove, that our expenditure all over the world was returned to us a hundred-fold by the prosperity of our colonies and possessions. Take the case of Ceylon—we were now exporting from that colony 40,000,000 lb. of coffee a year, and British capital there was to a great extent bringing 10, 20, and 30 per cent per annum to those who laid it out. The imports into this country from the West Coast were increasing, but the products from the interior could not be obtained without the aid of posts established upon the coast; whereas on the east coast, where there were no British settlements, it appeared from accounts given by Captain Speke, that at a short distance from Mozambique towards the interior, the price of Manchester goods increased 2,500 per cent, in consequence of the difficulty, from want of possessions on the coast, of causing the goods to penetrate into the interior. Until they broke the outer crust of the continent they could not gain the interior. Then let them look to the progress of civilization. He thought the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Adderley) could not have examined the position of Sierra Leone and the Gambia, where schools and missionary stations were established, whereby Christianity and civilization had been extended, as well as commerce promoted. Then as to the suppression of the slave trade—Commodore Wilmot, in a valuable minute on the subject, had proposed the occupation of Quettah, as a means of putting an end to the slave trade on the only part of the western coast of Africa where it still prevailed to any extent. He wished to observe that our vessels on the coast were most inadequate in speed; not one of them could go more than nine miles an hour, whereas the slavers were notoriously the fastest vessels that could be built. It had been said that this squadron, besides its proper duties in suppressing the slave trade, could be relied upon as a squadron of reserve in case of war; but it would be of very little use against the fast vessels of other nations. He did not find fault with the policy of the Government, but with the way in which that policy was carried out. Why, slavery was acknowledged in British courts of justice in the limits of the Protectorate! We had done away with protectorates almost everywhere, and he did not see why the protectorates on the Gold Coast should not be done away with also. Reference had been made to the Dutch possessions, and the Minister for the Colonies was aware that a move-
1676
ment was taking place in the Chamber in Holland with regard to the Gold Coast, and it was said there, "either let us have our affairs managed better, or sell the territory to the British Government." The estimate of the revenue which might be obtained from these possessions was £50,000 a year. The cost of management was £20,000. Now, if we could settle the question satisfactorily with the Dutch the customs revenue might be divided, and the colony be made self-supporting. The climate was not so bad as had been represented, and was not nearly so injurious to health as the Gambia and Sierra Leone; and he trusted the Government would not abandon the coast, but that next year the subject would be thoroughly sifted by a Select Committee. There was one great defect in the Estimates, for it was impossible to ascertain how much these colonies cost this country. The civil expenditure was set out, but there was no statement as to the naval and military expenditure. The House ought to be furnished with an estimate of the expenditure of each colony. He believed that if we entered into any well-devised scheme for the suppression of the slave trade, Lagos would form an important portion of that scheme; but all the efforts that had hitherto been made had failed from want of administrative ability, for neither Mr. Freeman, at Lagos, nor Mr. Taylor, at Abeokuta, had conformed to the habits of the people. He should like to know when the account of the military expenditure of the Ashantee war would be laid upon the table, and what was its estimated cost for the coming year. It was understood that the Vote was to be postponed until that statement could be laid before the House, and until the policy of the Government could be explained. The question had been shirked by one Member of the Government, because it was not in his department, and he thought the responsible member of the Cabinet ought not to consider it beneath his dignity to give the necessary explanation as to the civil and military expenditure.
MR. ARTHUR MILLSsaid, the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had misunderstood the remarks of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Adderley). He did not understand that his right hon. Friend had stated his intention of moving for a Committee to inquire into the whole subject, but that the question of the Protectorate was one which ought to be inquired into; and in that opinion he (Mr. A. Mills) fully

1677
concurred. He should be sorry if the investigation was directed to particular acts of the Government on the Gold Coast. With respect to the policy which had been pursued by this country, people were asking who was to blame—the Admiralty, the War Office, or the Colonial Department? But if any body was to blame it was not any particular Ministry, or any one official Department, but Parliament itself, which had allowed a system to go on which might at any time explode in disasters similar to those at Lagos or the Gold Coast. He trusted the attention of Parliament would be aroused to the subject, and that an inquiry would be instituted for the purpose of ascertaining whether an attempt to protect the Native tribes was a wise course, and one likely to extinguish the hateful traffic which had been so long carried on. The case of Lagos showed one of the most remarkable failures of our policy resulting from an attempt to interfere in the quarrels of the Native tribes. That colony was founded for the purpose of extinguishing the slave trade; and no doubt that was a very laudable object, in which the country would sympathize if it could be carried out without an undue sacrifice of life and treasure. But what had been the result? Why, when Abeokuta was invaded, it had to depend on supplies of powder from Porto Novo, which was supplied by French traders in exchange for slaves. So that this colony of Lagos, which was planted for the specific purpose of abolishing the slave trade, became, through the foolish policy of the Governor, the means of carrying it on. How could they expect a proper man for Governor of such a colony as Lagos when the salary was only £500, not enough to tempt a country apothecary in fair practice? The whole question of our protectorate over Native tribes ought to be fairly and impartially discussed. The country did not grudge a moderate expenditure for the suppression of the slave trade, but it did grudge the indefinite expenditure involved in protecting Native tribes.
LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, the hon. and gallant Member for Wakefield (Sir John Hay) had quoted a private letter from a personal friend, in which it was stated that our squadron on the coast of Africa was unable to cope with the slave trade. A similar statement was made the other night, when he (Lord Clarence Paget) stated that, he had no knowledge of any slaver having escaped from our squadron after a fair chase.
SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he should be happy to supply his noble Friend with the information.
LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, the statement of his hon. and gallant Friend was, that in spite of four steamers the slaver got away. All he could say was, that he had heard nothing of such a case, I nor had any information to that effect reached the Admiralty. His hon. and gallant Friend said that positive orders had been given to the various ships composing the squadron not to leave their station for the purpose of chasing slavers. But his hon. and gallant Friend knew that if our vessels were to leave their station it would be one of the most advantageous things that could happen for the slave dealers, as they would immediately take the opportunity of despatching slave ships during the temporary absence of the station ship. It was quite possible that a certain number of fast American steamers might be employed in the trade, and no doubt it would be advisable to match them by faster ships; but we wanted fast steamers all over the world, and to send a fresh squadron to the coast of Africa every year because fast American steamers were sent there would be attended with great inconvenience. The Admiralty were perfectly alive to the subject, and would not neglect any opportunity for providing for any contingency.
MR. MONSELLsaid, the question before the Committee was, whether they should practically pass a Vote of Censure upon the Government by withdrawing this sum of £2,500. Now, it seemed to him most unfair to cast the blame for the present state of things upon the Government, who were simply carrying out a policy inaugurated in 1842 upon the re-commendation of a Committee of which Lord Derby was a Member, and adopted by successive Colonial Secretaries. The occasion of this war really was that the King of Ashantee had threatened the extermination of tribes which we were bound; to protect, and the Government would I have been wanting in their duty, if they had declined to afford their assistance. The loss of life on the occasion was, no; doubt, to be deplored; but according to Commodore Wilmot, if Major Cochrane had done his duty our troops would have marched to the capital of the King of Ashantee, and it was impossible for the Government to provide that all their officers serving on distant stations should be as efficient as could be desired.
SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he had no wish

1679
to put the House to the trouble of dividing upon the Vote. The only reason why he had urged upon the Government the necessity of suspending the Vote, was that the sum of £2,500 altogether inadequately represented the expenses entailed upon the country by this war. He thought the Government ought to have laid a supplementary estimate upon the table, showing the expenses already incurred for this calamitous war. He believed that something like £250,000 had been expended, of which only this small item of £2,500 was to be found in the Votes.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, no statement of the military expenses incurred in this war had been laid on the table by the War Department, because it was quite impossible that such a statement could be made. The war had taken place in this and the last year, and the accounts for the military expenditure of last year were not yet laid upon the table, nor could they be included in this year's Estimates; but the commissariat charges and field allowances had been taken at an increased amount, in case the war should continue. The expense of organizing a large transport corps had been estimated, but it would be absolutely delusive to attempt to lay on the table an account of the actual expenses incurred. When the Army Expenditure of 1863 was laid before the House, it would be seen what expenditure the war had entailed.
MR. HENRY SEYMOURasked if he was to understand the noble Marquess to say that all the military estimates were two years behindhand?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Not the Estimates, but the account of the military expenditure.
MR. HENRY SEYMOURsaid, the Government for some time had been spending £1,200 a month for this war, and an account of the estimated expenditure ought to be laid upon the table, as he believed was done in the case of the China and Crimean wars.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, that the expenses, so far as could be done, had been included in the Estimates which had been laid before the House; but the war was going on at the time.
SIR FREDERIC SMITHsaid, it would be quite possible to give an approximate estimate of the expenses from time to time. To get an estimate two years after the event was of no use. It might as well not be printed.
MR. HENRY SEYMOURasked, how
1680
it happened that while we were voting £2,000 a year in aid of the Government of the Gold Coast, the magnificent tanks which were in the country had been out of repair, so that no water could be had? He should move to reduce this Vote by £500, the salary of the Governor of Lagos, unless he should receive an assurance that Mr. Freeman was to be removed.
MR. ADDERLEYasked for an explanation of the circumstance that Governor Pine was adverse to raising any taxes in the colony itself. He said in one of his despatches he had neither the face nor the courage to do so.
MR. CARDWELLsaid, that owing to the invasion of the King of Ashantee and the extraordinary severity of the season, there had been a great famine and great distress in the colony, and the passage to which his right hon. Friend had referred related to that state of things. It was only when the revenue of the colony was deficient that that House was asked to defray the expense. He had received no information as to why the tanks had been suffered to go out of repair. They ought to have been kept in repair out of the revenue of the colony itself. The salary of Mr. Freeman, at Lagos, was made up in this way—£500 was taken for him as Consul in the Consular Estimate, and £500 for him as Governor in that Vote.
MR. ARTHUR MILLSasked, whether the right hon. Gentleman could give the Committee an estimate of what the revenue of Lagos was?
MR. CARDWELLsaid, that in 1862, the last year of which he had any account, it was £7,120. The Estimate for the present year was considerably larger.
LORD HARRY VANEquite agreed with the noble Marquess, that an exact estimate of the war expenses could not be furnished, but he did not see why an approximate estimate could not. It might be right or wrong to pursue the policy which we had adopted on the Gold Coast, but then it had been followed ever since 1842.
MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, his belief was that in the matter between Lagos and Abbeokuta the former was more sinned against than sinning. He held out hopes last year that Lagos would this year be able to pay its own expenses, and such was his belief at the time. But the reason why they were now obliged to ask a slight assistance for the colony was mainly because the neighbouring tribes had persisted in waging war among themselves,

1681
and because Abbeokuta, in spite of our advice, had carried on hostilities against its neighbours. He hoped that people would not be too elated by their recent victory over the King of Dahomey to adopt a policy of peace, that the trade of Lagos would make great advances, and that the colony would become self-supporting,
MR. HENRY SEYMOURsaid, it was a personal question with the people of Lagos.
MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, they were not fighting with Mr. Freeman—it was their neighbours that were fighting.
MR. HENRY SEYMOURsaid, that the people of Abbeokuta had not been on good terms with them since Mr. Freeman had become Governor.
SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he understood that the military correspondence was to have been laid upon the table, but it had not as yet been produced.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he was not aware that the military correspondence had been promised.
SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he should move for it.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Original Question put, and agreed to,
(4.) £220,000, Ironclad ships El Tousson and El Monassir.
LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, the Committee was perfectly aware of all the circumstances which had led the Government to recommend this purchase to Parliament, and therefore he would not take up time by making any statement upon the subject. He should be very happy, however, to answer any questions which might be put to him.
Vote agreed to.
House resumed.
Resolutions to be reported To-morrow, at twelve of the clock.

NEW ZEALAND GUARANTEE OF LOAN BILL— [BILL, 150)—COMMITTEE.
Order for Committee read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
SIR JOHN TRELAWNYsaid, he hoped they should receive from the Colonial Secretary a more satisfactory statement than had yet been given as to the nature of the security which was to be good enough for that House but was not good enough for the merchants of the City. Unless he could elicit some such statement from the
1682
right hon. Gentleman, he felt disposed to move that a Select Committee be now appointed to inquire into the relative financial position of Great Britain and New Zealand, with a view to a final adjustment of any outstanding balance of accounts between them, and to a fair understanding as to how the liabilities of either country were to be borne in future. When a former loan of £500,000 was asked, in 1857, a Committee of Inquiry was appointed; but now, at the end of the Session, when there was little opportunity for discussion, the Government came down with a highhanded proposal, without giving the House a proper account of the security on which that guarantee was to rest. As soon as the guaranteed part of the loan was put upon the market nobody would have anything to do with the unguaranteed part of it; so that this proposal would not really effect its professed object. He must tell the Government frankly that their colonial policy of late years had not been such as to entitle them to the blind confidence of the House of Commons for the next six months. He was prepared to incur the expense of defending New Zealand against any foreign attack; but when such extensive powers of self-government had been placed in the hands]of the colonists, he was not ready to consent to undertake the responsibility of internal wars like the present. The House was bound in duty not to leave such a question open for the future; and unless the Government gave some satisfactory explanation of the course they intended to pursue during the next six months he would, by way of precaution, move the appointment of a Select Committee.
Amendment proposed,
To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "a Select Committee be appointed to inquire what is the relative financial position of Great Britain and New Zealand, with a view of a definite and final adjustment of any outstanding balance, and coming to an understanding as to the liabilities to be borne in future by the Government of either Country,"—(Sir John Trelawny,
—instead thereof.
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
GENERAL PEEL: Sir, before the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cardwell) answers the hon. Baronet, I wish to put this question to him:—What power has the Government of New Zealand in directing the movement of the British troops in that

1683
colony? I ask that question in consequence of having seen a private letter from New Zealand, and which, being private, I cannot read to the House. The first question raised by the writer is—Why were we in Taranga at all? and he says it was because it was so willed by three lawyers, members of the Colonial Government, contrary to the direct wishes of the Governor; because this triumvirate, under the fiction of responsible Government, overrules the representative of the Queen, overrules the commander of 10,000 troops, overrules the expenditure of £1,500,000 of other people's money, and overrules the wishes of the Native race which is not represented at all in the political system. And this is the Colonial self-government which the Duke of Newcastle upholds! The writer then goes on to inquire, how it is that the representatives of 100,000 colonists, consisting of Englishmen, Irishmen, Scotchmen, Germans, and Yankees, have the control over an unlimited expenditure of British money and British blood? He says the war has proceeded from these representatives themselves—that it arose in consequence of their calling upon Colonel Browne in the first instance to use British troops for the purpose of taking the land of the Native British subjects—a measure that roused that rebellion which you are now required to put down. He says in respect to the military operations—and I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he can to answer this—he says that our going to Taranga was the greatest mistake that ever was made. He says this place is distant about 150 miles from Auckland; that it is accessible by sea; and we can easily transport our troops thither; but when they have got there they are separated by 50 miles of bad country, a wood of 12 miles, the Thames river and its swampy valley, and the Waikato river, from our posts at Maungatantari; whereas this 50 miles is a two days' march for a light-armed Native force, and the country between is in their hands, On the contrary our men have to come back 150 miles by sea, 35 to the Waikato, and to ascend 100 miles of the river to get back to Maungatantari; so that while our General with his 3,000 men is practically shut up by woods, hills, and swamps, it is in the power of the Maori General (if they have one) to resume the offensive on the Waikato with a concentrated force. The fact, he says, is that—
"If the Maoriea did not make it a point of honour to fight each man for his own land, they
1684
might have led the General from Taranga to Waikato and from Waikato to Taranga, as would have exhausted his patience in command, and Mr. Gladstone's in paying the bill. Instead of this they have dug their intrenched camps on the open ground, sometimes without provisions, once even without water, and then they have braved four or five times their own number, and all our Armstrong guns, mortars, howitzers, and hand grenades, when they might have gone into the bush, and from thence cut off our convoys and orderlies without much loss to themselves, but with vast injury to us. Their one feeling is, if the land dies let us die with it."
I wish, therefore, to know what control the Colonial Government have over the movements of the troops in New Zealand, or whether the control rests with the Governor? When we look at the fearful calamity which has taken place—for I can call it by no other name—when we see the prestige of one of the finest regiments in the British service shaken—of that regiment with respect to which Sir William Napier in his History says he was congratulated by everybody on being placed in command of such a corps—that regiment which stormed the breech of Badajoz—that regiment, as we are now informed, has retired before the Natives of New Zealand. And what was the reason of that? Why, it was because every commanding officer in the regiment was killed upon the spot. Sir, an hon. Member of this House once told us, that if all our generals, our colonels, and other officers were swallowed up by an earthquake, their places could easily be replaced. I only hope that that hon. Gentleman's constituency will find it much easier to supply his place than it will be to supply the place of the lowest officer who fell on this occasion. I have to ask another question—How is the increased expenditure for the war to be met? The great increase in the Army Estimates was put down to the New Zealand war. We were told that, in consequence of that expense, it was necessary to reduce the expense of the Yeomanry force. The Vote against that reduction was carried by a majority of only one. Then came a demonstration from the noble Viscount at the head of the Government, who suddenly announced that, in consequence of the excellent news that had been received from New Zealand, the Government were enabled to forego their determination of not calling out the Yeomanry for exercise or permanent duty. But when the Estimates were brought forward, every one of the Votes was reduced. How, then, are these expenses to be paid? We have heard that

1685
no estimate can be given of the expenditure on the Ashantee war; and I have been trying to impress on the House the necessity of asking some more satisfactory answer than we have yet received. If we cannot have accounts of expenditure within two years, they can be of very little use after. I wish to know from the Colonial Secretary, has the Colonial Government the power of directing the movement of Her Majesty's forces in New Zealand, and how is it proposed to make up for the reduction in the Army Estimates in consequence of the excellent news from New Zealand?
MR. CARDWELL: My right hon. Friend has put to me a Question which I understand to be this—In whom rests the control and command of the Queen's forces in New Zealand?—does it rest with the Colonial Minister or with the Colonial Governor? My right hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State read the other night an extract of the despatch of the Duke of Newcastle, in which the government of Native affairs was given over to the Colonial Minister, but in which the control, command, and management of the Queen's forces was exclusively placed in the Governor of the colony. The Correspondence has been laid on the table. I have stated the views of Her Majesty's Government with reference to the policy that ought to be pursued in reference to the land question, and the feeling of the House appeared to be favourable to those views. But they were already in writing, for it so happened that the post left that very day, and they went by that day's post to New Zealand; and they have been laid on the table of this House. They were intended to obviate the risk and possibility of war arising from a desire of making the forces of the Queen subservient to taking land from the Natives. So much for the general policy; but with regard to the control of the Governor over the troops, I will read an extract from a despatch which I addressed to the Governor, and which is also on the table. It is dated the 26th of May, and is in these words—
"I entirely anticipate that your Ministers will be animated by a just sense of the exertions and sacrifices which have already been made by the mother country for the colony, and that on colonial grounds they will be as anxious as you will be yourself to terminate the present hostilities. But it is my duty to say to you plainly that if, unfortunately, their opinion should be different from your own as to the terms of peace, Her Majesty's Government expect you to act on your own judgment, and to state to your Ministers explicitly that an army of 10,000 English troops
1686
has been placed at your disposal for objects of great Imperial concern, and not for the attainment of any merely local object—that your responsibility to the Crown is paramount, and that you will not continue the expenditure of blood and treasure longer than is absolutely necessary for the establishment of a just and enduring peace."
I do not know how it would be possible for language to express more plainly with whom the control rests, and what is the expectation of the Government with regard to the exercise of that control. But further, by a subsequent mail information reached me of a difference between the Governor and his Ministers with regard to the treatment of 183 prisoners who had been taken in action—not that there was any charge of cruelty in their treatment if they were to be kept as prisoners, but that there was a difference of opinion between the Governor and his Ministers whether they should be treated as prisoners at all. I addressed a despatch to the Governor on the subject. I have not a copy of it with me, but I am quite sure I state it correctly when I say that I told the Governor that I looked to him for determining a question of that kind—that I wished him to obtain the concurrence of his Ministers if he could; but if not, he should decide without their concurrence, and that I should be perfectly prepared to support him if I found from subsequent despatches that he had taken that course. I think I have completely answered the question proposed to me by my right hon. Friend. Now, with regard to the origin of this war. My right hon. Friend read a letter with reference to the origin of the former war, which took place in the time of Governor Browne. I do not mean to say there is no connection between the present and the former war; but this I say—Governor Grey went in 1861 as a governor of peace, and he abstained from insistiag on the terms prescribed by Governor Browne. He was regarded by the Natives as their friend—he told them that the King movement would not be the cause of war, and he withdrew by proclamation that fatal blot which had been the cause of the former war. I stated that Governor Grey held the origin of the war to be a conspiracy of chiefs of a particular district, who had been preparing for an attack on Auckland. But it was no part of Governor Grey's policy, and certainly it was no part of the policy of the Government, to maintain an army and continue a war for any purpose of oppression to the Natives of New Zealand. But I was a little surprised to learn from the hon. Member for Tavistock (Sir John Trelawny) that I had

1687
given no evidence with regard to the security on which this loan was to be raised. I should have been afraid, sitting in judgment on myself, that I had occupied the time of the House too long on the subject of the security for this loan. I certainly stated what was to be the security pledged—that it was to be all the revenue of which the New Zealand Assembly has the command. I stated the ordinary revenue for the year ending June 30, 1863, as it appears in the papers before the House; I also stated the estimated revenue for the following year. I showed, I thought, to the satisfaction of the House, that there was an adequate, ample security in the ordinary revenue of the colony; but in addition to that there was another considerable revenue arising from land sales. The way in which this loan comes to be proposed is this:—Last year an offer was made by my noble Friend the Duke of Newcastle to ask the House to guarantee a loan of £500,000 for New Zealand—£200,000 for the expenses of the former war, £200,000 for compensation to settlers for losses incurred in that war, and £100,000 for the purposes of the colony. That proposal only passed the first stage last Session, and it fell to me to redeem the pledge in the course of the present Session. But in the meantime a further liability of £300,000 had arisen from the circumstances of the present war, and if the guarantee were limited to £500,000, almost the whole of it would come to the Treasury. There is a great expense incurred by the mother country, but there is also a great expense on the part of the colony. They have to pay the expense of a local force of 10,000 men in arms against the Natives. The payment which the colony makes to this country for the Imperial troops in New Zealand is under an arrangement which terminates at the close of the present year. It is, I must admit, an unsatisfactory arrangement. There is a nominal payment of £5 per head per man, but the larger portion of that sum finds its way back to the Treasury of the colony. It is a part of the present proposal that this arrangement shall terminate, and that the payment by New Zealand should be the same as by the Australian colonies—namely, £40 per man per annum, from the beginning of 1865. All this is given in detail in the papers before the House. It will be seen that, in consideration of the arrangements recited in the letters of Sir Frederick Rogers and the repayment of all the
1688
debts due from the colony to the Treasury, it is proposed to guarantee this loan of £1,000,000. I have already stated my belief that the security is quite ample. Of this I am sure, that it is desirable that all running accounts between the Treasury and the colony should be closed, and that a substantial arrangement should be made for the payment of Imperial troops, so that it may be no longer a matter of indifference to the colony whether they provoke a war or not. Considering, however, that the colonists are now engaged in a formidable struggle—that all those of age to bear arms in the province of Auckland are under arms for the defence of their hearths and homes—that they are removed from the productive pursuits of industry—that they are incurring vast expenses, and that this beneficial arrangement has been made between the colony and the mother country, I trust that the hon. Gentleman having fully discharged his public duty, will permit the House to go into Committee on this Bill, on the distinct understanding that the Lords of the Treasury will riot advance any money until the Assembly of New Zealand have formally adopted the terms of the arrangement.
MAJOR HAMILTONsaid, that as the House had been told that a portion of this loan would be employed in compensating the colonists who lost their all in the last war, he trusted that compensation would also be given to those who had lost their property in the present war. There was, for example, the case of Mr. Calvert, who was sitting by his own fireside when his child was murdered by the Natives. He rushed out, was wounded while gallantly fighting, and his property was destroyed. He hoped that a part of the money would be employed in making good these losses.
COLONEL SYKESmust repeat his objections to this Bill, and to the entire policy of guaranteeing colonial loans. The war was part of a system of continued aggression on the Natives for the ultimate purpose of extermination. Then as to the guarantee, what was it? The revenue of the colony was stated to be £700,000 per annum, but the expense of 10,000 troops at £40 per man would be £400,000. Then there were the items of the payment of local troops, the interest of the debt, compensation to sufferers, and the local government expenses. After these charges had been met, what would become of the security? The revenues of the colony, too, were not in the hands of the Treasury but under the control of local Ministries, which

1689
were ephemeral; and although they might have an honest Government now, you might have a democratic one to-morrow and then they would never get their money. [A laugh!] Although he was a Liberal himself, he believed that under such democratic Governments as existed there they could never be certain of the Government, and that their guarantee was good for nothing. If any one would divide with him, he would oppose the Bill.
MR. WHALLEYprotested against it being said that this was a war of aggression against the Natives; the war had nothing to do with land, but originated entirely in the massacre of some of our troops. He wished also to say that Sir George Grey had stated in New Zealand that he had traced the origin of this war to the Roman Catholic Missionaries. He put the question on a former occasion three times in one night, and he received for answer that it was too late to discuss the matter. Too late to put such a question! He spent nearly a whole day at the Colonial Office on the subject, and he was told there were floating recollections in the minds of the officials there that some such communication had been received. He then put the question in the House, and cited the Canadian rebellion and other recent cases; but only got for answer that the loyalty of the Canadians was unimpeachable, and that it was absurd to cite them in reference to New Zealand. He wished for a distinct answer, and if he did not receive it he would ask the House to grant him a return of all the communications which had been received from Sir George Grey relative to the origin and progress of the war.
MR. ARTHUR MILLSsaid, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman (General Peel) had called attention to the immense mischief likely to arise if the practice prevailing in New Zealand were persisted in, of allowing the responsible Ministers of the Governor to dictate to the Commander of the forces with reference to the movement of the troops in that province. It was said by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Card-well), that he had written a despatch which, if attended to, would have the effect of preventing the recurrence of such a bad practice in future. But he (Mr. Arthur Mills) wished to call the attention of the House to the very difficult position in which they were placed with regard to the consequences, or rather probable want of consequences, resulting from that despatch. It was the fact, however, as appeared from the papers before the House, that the prac-
1690
tice had prevailed, and as long as the present system continued it was likely to prevail—the practice of dictation in these matters by the responsible Ministers of the Governor; and it was questionable how far any despatch from the Colonial Office could put an end to it. As an illustration, he might mention that the Deputy Commissary General remonstrated against an attempt made not very long ago—and which, indeed, was carried out—of advancing lump sums from the Treasury chest, as £100,000 at a time, for the payment of the militia of New Zealand, for which ostensibly it was the duty of the Colonial Government to provide. The Governor referred the matter to these Ministers, who said that it was absolutely necessary the sum should be advanced, considering the exigencies of the colony, and that it should be repaid in three months. That sum had never been repaid. The simple fact was that the Ministers dictated to the Governor, who acted under compulsion. He wanted to know what despatch written from the Colonial Office would prevent the continuance of the practice? The despatch might be sent out, but the responsible Ministers of the Governor would say, "We cannot hold office on these terms—we will resign." Their successors would do the same, a succession of crises would occur, and in the end the Governor would be forced to yield. If such practices were allowed to go on, and the responsible Ministers of the Governor were allowed to spend money voted by Parliament, the result would be indefinitely to prolong the war. Then again, in the time, he believed, of Governor Browne, the Commander of the forces said that in his judgment the troops ought to be sent to a certain part of the province. The Minister of New Zealand said, "Oh, I trust you will do nothing of the kind. I have property there, and I shall have to begin life again if you send them there." The Minister was all powerful, and prevented the arrangement which the Commander of the forces wanted to carry out. Now, as to the origin of the war, the right hon. Gentleman said the Natives were the cause of it, and the colonists had nothing to do with it. He had that morning received a letter from Mr. Gorst—a gentleman who had written a very able and intelligent book on these transactions in New Zealand—in which letter Mr. Gorst, speaking of the allegation that the war was the result of a conspiracy of the Maories, expressed his absolute disbelief of it from the personal knowledge derived from a

1691
residence on the spot some time before the war broke out. Tales of such plots, he added, were common during the whole time of his residence in New Zealand, many of them, to his certain knowledge, utterly false. He stated further that he could undertake to disprove the existence of half-a-dozen former plots stated upon evidence as credible as that upon the faith of which Waikato was invaded. This confirmed the opinion which he had formed upon information received from both civil and military authorities; and when distinguished military authorities expressed their opinion that the Queen's troops were being employed in carrying on an unrighteous war, not to protect the lives and property of the people of Auckland, but to enable the colonists to get as much fertile land as they could, and a small knot of persons in Auckland to coin fortunes out of the commissariat, he did think that it behoved the House of Commons to interfere,
MR. WYKEHAM MARTINsaid, he rose at the request of several of his Friends to read an extract from a letter which he had received since the right hon. Gentleman had begun his speech. The writer, who was known to many Members of the House, and for whose shrewdness and ability he could answer, and who, though now within a few miles of the seat of war in New Zealand, till about fifteen months ago knew as little about that country as most hon. Members did now, after describing an engagement in which of 400 Natives 200 had been killed or wounded continued—
"They are a brave race, and it seems a great shame to take their land from them. We all out here consider the war an unjust one. But the cry of the colonists is still for land. Moreover, the troops are the making of Auckland, as contractors and that kind of people are making large fortunes. So long, therefore, as you are fools enough to supply the needful, so long will they keep on the war. General Cameron has captured millions of acres which a few months ago belonged to the Natives."
He then went on, after expressing an opinion that this winter might starve out the Natives, to give a deplorable account of the repulse which our troops had sustained, and stated that the people of England had no idea how many of the valuable lives of our soldiers were lost in every petty skirmish, and declared his belief that if the colonists and the Maories were left to fight it out, so well had the colonists supplied the latter with arms, that probably the Natives would have the best of it. If the right hon. Gentleman wished to be distinguished as the wisest Minister who ever presided at
1692
the Colonial Office, he would by the next mail send out orders to make peace as soon as possible, to wash our hands of an unrighteous and iniquitous war, and leave the colonists to reap the fruit of their own misdeeds.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, that if when the Estimates were passed the Government had foreseen the unfortunate turn which events in New Zealand had subsequently taken, they would not have proposed reduction in any of the votes. At the same time he saw no reason for introducing a supplemental Estimate at the present moment. If the Estimate was exceeded there would be ample time before the close of the financial year to adopt that measure. It, unfortunately, seemed probable that hostilities might continue for some time longer; but, looking at the war from a financial point of view, hon. Members must recollect that the chief source of expense was the cost of transporting commissariat supplies and stores for a large army in the field in the interior of the country. General Cameron had, however, now removed the greater part of his forces from the interior, leaving only a sufficient number of troops to hold the posts from which he had driven the Natives, and had transported them by sea to the eastern shore of the Island, where the operations were likely to be less expensive than those carried on in the interior. Besides this, the Commissariat had, according to the last advices, made arrangements for supplying the troops left in the interior by means of water carriage, which would be much cheaper than the laud transport which they had hitherto had to employ. The House would gain no information from any supplemental Estimate which could now be laid upon the table, founded, as it must be, upon no certain data, and he still hoped that the Estimate already presented would not be materially exceeded.
SIR JOHN HAYsaid, that he had received a letter from that distinguished naval officer Sir William Wiseman, commanding on the New Zealand station, in which he described the excellent service rendered by the naval brigade at Tauranga, where he himself directed the operations, and detailed the particulars of the gallant and noble deaths of Captain Hamilton of the Esk and Commander Hay of the Harrier, and other officers. From the conclusion of his letter he gathered that he was of opinion that the war might be indefinitely prolonged, and that it was totally unjustifiable.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
The House divided:—Ayes 79; Noes 32: Majority 47.
Main Question put, and agreed to.
Bill considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Clause 1 (Sums borrowed under recited Act of General Assembly of New Zealand, not exceeding £1,000,000 and Interest, guaranteed under this Act).
MR. MORRISON MR. MORRISON moved by way of Amendment the substitution of the words "five hundred thousand pounds" for "one million pounds," observing that the proposed guarantee was an Imperial guarantee and ought to be rendered applicable only to Imperial purposes. He did not at all, he said, mean to doubt that the colony would make good the £1,000,000 which it was sought by the Bill to guarantee; he objected to the proposal on principle, and thought it ought not to go beyond the £500,000 in which the colony was indebted to this country. He was also, he might add, opposed to our soldiers being sacrificed in wresting their land from the Native population of New Zealand, his belief being that the colonists were in all likelihood led to persevere in that policy by the fact that their imaginations were fired by the idea that large quantities of gold were to be found in the northern part of the Native territory. We were thus led to throw away many valuable lives in the pursuit of an object not in the least of Imperial importance, and he for one objected to our guaranteeing money for that purpose.
MR. CARDWELLsaid, that in the despatch he had sent to Sir George Grey he had distinctly stated that no portion of the guaranteed loan was to be applied to the purposes of a military settlement.
MR. WALPOLEregarded the war as being most unjust, and he hoped that as soon as it was ended an entirely new policy with reference to New Zealand would be initiated, but it was another question what should be done in the present crisis. Our policy had been quite sufficient to provoke the inhabitants of the colony to the acts which they had committed, but we could not conduct ourselves towards a colony when in a crisis in the same manner as we would deal with that colony at the conclusion of the war.
SIR MORTON PETOsaid, that having engaged in an unjust quarrel, the only
1694
course left for us to pursue was to end it as soon as possible. The proper course would be to allow the colony to obtain their loan without the guarantee at an interest of 6 or 7 per cent. Such a course would practically put an end to the war at once; but if they entered on the course of guaranteeing loans the war would never come to an end.
SIR JOHN TRELAWNYthought it had been shown that the security would not be sufficient for the loan of a million, and he should support the Amendment of his hon. Friend (Mr. Morrison), as he thought it might be good enough for the loan of half that amount.
MR. WHITEwished to know, whether the colonists intended raising a further sum of £2,000,000 upon the security of colonial debentures, and whether they purposed applying it to their grand scheme of colonization?
MR. CARD WELLsaid, that the £2,000,000 had nothing to do with the present loan, which would have a prior claim upon the revenue.
MR. ARTHUR MILLSwould not vote for the Amendment, for he objected altogether to the principle of a guarantee.
MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEcould not sit still and hear the war stigmatized as being unjust. Had the Government concurred in that view, orders would have been issued long since to put an end to it upon any terms. He maintained that any one who would carefully examine the subject could not fail to come to the conclusion that the war was a just and necessary one. The Governor (Sir George Grey) had used every effort to prevent a most warlike, turbulent, and misguided portion of the Natives from renewing hostilities with their neighbours, but had unfortunately failed; and he had been forced by the perversity and unjust and extravagant suspicions of the Natives into a war which was strictly a war of self-defence.
COLONEL SYKESwished to know, if the war had not originated in the objection which some chiefs entertained against the sale of some land by another chief, which they said he had no right to sell without their consent?
MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, that the hon. and gallant Member referred to the former and not to the present war. The Governor in that instance not unjustly refused to submit to the dictation of a Native chief who had usurped the prerogative of the Crown.
MR. AYRTONthought the Under Secretary of the Colonies was mistaken as to the origin of the war. Governor Browne had stated that the colonists were determined to get possession of the land of the Natives, rightly if they could, if not by any other mode.
Amendment negatived.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 2 (Treasury not to approve of the borrowing of £1,000,000 until certain provision is made).
MR. AYRTONasked, whether the arrangement that this country was to pay half the expenses of the war was to be permanent?
MR. CARDWELLsaid, that in the Correspondence it was stated distinctly that the arrangement was subject to revision hereafter.
Clause agreed to.
Remaining Clauses agreed to.
House resumed.
Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

NAVY & ARMY EXPENDITURE (1862–3).

  COMMITTEE.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, that as the proceeding which he was about to ask the Committee to take was a novel one, he felt it his duty to say a few words to explain the object of the Resolutions which he had just handed to the Speaker. Up to last year the Reports of the Army and Navy expenditure were laid upon the table soon after the meeting of Parliament, and they passed, so to speak, sub silentio; but the Committee on Public Accounts had recommended that those Reports should not only be laid on the table, but should be subjected to a confirmatory Vote of the House. The only question was as to the form in which that Vote should be taken, and the same Committee had recommended the pleasure of Parliament should be taken this year in the form which he now proposed. The advances on certain Votes for the Navy were more than covered by the surplus on other Votes; and he was about to ask the Committee to confirm a decision at which the Treasury had arrived, appropriating the surplus on certain Votes of last year to the payment of the advances on certain other Votes of last year.
  MR. LYGONasked whether the Committee was to understand that the further action was to relieve the Commissioners of Audit or the Treasury, or any other body, from any responsibility?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the Appropriation Act as framed last year in conformity with the recommendation of the Committee on Public Accounts gave the Treasury lo do only provisionally what before last Session it had done as a final act. Up to last year the Treasury had power to sanction the application by the Admiralty of any surplus on Votes passed by that House to meet advances on other Votes, and the effect of that arrangement was to pass the money without the transaction being submitted to the further and final approval of the House, though the transfer was brought under the notice of the House, inasmuch as the correspondence between the Departments was printed; but no Vote of the House was asked which would have enabled hon. Members to agree to dissent from the transfer. Under the new arrangement the appropriation was merely a provisional transaction, to be completed only when it was sanctioned by the subsequent Vote of the House. The main question which had arisen was whether the matter should be brought under the notice of the House by a simple Resolution or by a revoting of the money. This Resolution had nothing to do with the payment of money. The transaction was complete, and all that was wanted was the authority of Parliament. The effect of asking the House to pass this Resolution was simply to give them the opportunity, if they thought fit, of disapproving of any of these transfers from one Vote to another.
  MR. CORRYasked what would be the result if the House refused its sanction to these transfers?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the reply to this question must be very much like Speaker Onslow's reply when asked what would be the consequence of his naming a Member? This was a class of transactions which followed the same principle as Votes for Civil Contingencies. It was necessary to intrust the Government with certain discretionary powers of spending money, and if these powers were misused, a Vote of Censure might be moved.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, the effect of the change had been to give to this House a control which they did not possess before

  1697
  Even the Treasury had heretofore no control over the different Departments, which could supply a deficiency in one Vote out of the surplus upon another without check. By the new regulations, however, not a shilling could be so transferred without the sanction of the Treasury. This was a provisional arrangement, and if the House did not approve it they might pass a Vote of Censure.
  SIR GEORGE BOWYERthought that the better arrangement would be to repay into the Exchequer the surplus upon any Vote, and then let Parliament revote it next Session.
  Resolutions agreed to.
  (1.) Resolved,
  That the Expenditure incurred for certain Navy Services in the year ended the 31st day of March, 1863, has fallen short of the sums appropriated to those Services by the sum of £870,100; and that the Expenditure which has been incurred for certain other Navy Services and not provided for in the sums appropriated to those Services for the same year has amounted to the sum of £499,702 7s. 9d.
  (2.) Resolved,
  That the said Expenditure for Navy Services unprovided for as aforesaid, amounting to £499,702 7s. 9d., has been temporarily defrayed, under the authority of the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury, out of the Surpluses which have arisen, as aforesaid, upon other Votes for Navy Services, amounting to £870,100.
  (3.) Resolved,
  That the application of so much of the said Surpluses be sanctioned.
  (4.) Resolved,
  That the Expenditure incurred for certain Army Services in the year ended the 31st day of March, 1863, has fallen short of the sums appropriated to those Services by the sum of £1,097,725 12 s., and that the Expenditure which has been incurred for certain other Army Services and not provided for in the sums appropriated to those Services for the same year, has amounted to the sum of £336,309 15 s. 8d.
  (5.) Resolved,
  That the said Expenditure for Army Services unprovided for, as aforesaid, amounting to £336,309 15 s. 8d., has been temporarily defrayed, under the authority of the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury, out of the Surpluses which have arisen, as aforesaid, upon other Votes for Army Services, amounting to £1,097,725 12 s.
  (6.) Resolved,
  That the application of so much of the said Surpluses be sanctioned.
  House resumed.
  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow, at Twelve of the clock.

WESTMINSTER BRIDGE TRAFFIC BILL.

  [BILL 205.] COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clause 2 (Power to the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Works to make Bye-laws and Orders).
  SIR JOHN SHELLEYasked whether the tramway in the centre would be removed to the side next the curb, and whether the flanges would also be removed?
  MR. COWPERstated that if there was no engineering difficulty he should give instructions for the removal of the tramway as suggested. His desire was that the flanges should continue, but in another place.
  SIR JOHN SHELLEYunderstood from Mr. Page that there would be no difficulty in removing the tramway.
  Clause agreed to.
  Remaining Clauses agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow, at Twelve of the clock.

PUBLIC WORKS (MANUFACTURING DISTRICTS)— [ADVANCES.]

  COMMITTEE.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER moved a Resolution, authorizing the advance from the Consolidated Fund of a sum not exceeding £350,000 on the security of local rates, to be applied to the same purposes as those specified in the Act of last year.
  LORD EDWARD HOWARDthanked the Chancellor of the Exchequer for making this proposition, for the distress in the manufacturing districts had by no means passed away.
  Resolved,
  That the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury be authorized to make further Advances out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, to an amount not exceeding £350,000, upon security of Local Rates, for facilitating the execution of Works in certain Manufacturing Districts.
  House resumed.
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow at Twelve of the clock.

SCOTTISH EPISCOPAL CLERGY DISABILITIES REMOVAL BILL— [BILL 161.]

  CONSIDERATION.
  Bill, as amended, considered.
  SIR WILLIAM HEATHCOTEproposed the addition of the following words to the end of the Bill, "or in Ireland, in any Court of Common Law, in the name of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners."
  MR. WHALLEYwished to know whether the Bill affected the Act of Settlement, It would enable any one single Bishop to inundate this country with clergymen of the Scotch Episcopal Church, who indulged to a considerable extent in the doctrine of Transubstantiation.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that no Scotch clergyman would be admitted to a living or curacy in England under this Bill without taking the declaration required of English clergymen on ordination.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Bill to be read 3o, on Thursday.

  PRIVATE BILL COSTS BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. SCOURFIELD, Bill for awarding Costs in certain cases to opponents and promoters of Private Bills, ordered* to be brought in by Mr. SCOURFIELD and Mr. MASSEY.
  Bill presented, and read 1o.* [Bill 221.]

  POOR REMOVAL BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. VILLIERS, Bill to explain the Statute of Her present Majesty for amending the Laws relating to the removal of the Poor, ordered* to be brought in by Mr. VILLIERS and Mr. GILPIN.
  Bill presented, and read 1o.* [Bill 222.]
  House adjourned at half after One o'clock.