Commons Sitting of 4 March 1864

MINUTES.
— SELECT COMMITTEE — Report— Committee of Selection, Second Report (No.62).
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—ARMY ESTIMATES—R.P.
Resolution [March 3] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Mutiny*; Marine Mutiny*.
Second Reading—Penal Servitude Acts Amendment* [Bill 23].
Committee—Inclosure* [Bill 26]; Government Annuities* [Bill 11], Debate adjourned.
Report—Inclosure*.

SERVICES OF CAPTAIN SPEKE.

  QUESTION.
  SIR WILLIAM MILESsaid, he wished to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to recognize the great services of Captain Speke in opening Equatorial Africa to the knowledge of the world?
  VISCOUNI PALMERSTON: Sir, I fully acknowledge the merits of Captain Speke. He has shown great sagacity in selecting the point at which he aimed. He displayed great enterprize, courage, endurance, and perseverance in the accomplishment of his purpose. There are people, however, who demur as to the originality of his conception, but at all events it may be admitted that he has settled a very interesting geographical problem—namely, from what source the waters of the Nile are derived. But as to any immediate practical advantage that mankind are to derive from the solution of that problem, I am not particularly aware that any great results are to be expected from it. If, however, we consider Captain Speke simply in the light of an adventurous traveller encountering great dangers for the object he had in view, there are other persons who in Africa and elsewhere have encountered equal, if not greater, dangers, and undergone equal, if not greater, labours, and have obtained results more immediately interesting and advantageous to mankind. I have only to mention those who explored the Niger and proved its navigability into the interior of Africa. I would mention Dr. Livingstone, who for several years has laboured incessantly, and who has discovered vast regions where cotton of the finest description grows, and which might be made available for the commerce of this country if it were not that the Portuguese lay waste that country by encouraging the slave trade. I may mention also Count Strzelecki, who, by incessant labour and at considerable expense to himself, explored important regions in Australia, and pointed out those gold formations which have since become a source of great wealth to the Colony and great advantage to Europe. Therefore, while doing every justice to the merits of
  1454
  Captain Speke, Her Majesty's Government have not thought that he and those brave and enterprising men who accompanied him have done that which so takes them out of the category of successful travellers and explorers as to warrant any particular manifestation of the favour of the Crown.
  SIR WILLIAM MILESsaid, he would at an early day move for papers and make a Motion on the subject.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he wished to ask the noble Lord, whether he was aware that one of the earliest explorers in Africa, who perhaps laid the foundation of these discoveries by Captain. Speke, was Dr. Beke, who had written on that subject, and had pointed out the direction of these investigations.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I alluded to Dr. Beke when I said there were others who disputed the originality of Captain Speke's theory.

THE JEWS IN MOROCCO.

  QUESTION.
  MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONSsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If Her Majesty's Government have received any official information of the result of Sir Moses Montefiore's philanthropic representation to the Sultan of Morocco on the judicial cruelties inflicted on the Jews at Saffi?
  MR. LAYARD: Sir, in answer to my hon. Friend I have to state that Her Majesty's Government yesterday received despatches from Her Majesty's Minister at Morocco, giving an account of the mission of Sir Moses Montefiore, and of his return with a copy of the firman granted to him by the Sultan of Morocco. It is known that last year considerable cruelties were inflicted upon the Jews at Saffi, and that Sir Moses Montefiore desired to go out to Morocco, if possible to obtain justice for the sufferers. The Foreign Office felt the greatest sympathy for his mission, and did all they could by letters of introduction and recommendations to forward it. We have every reason to believe that those cruelties were not committed by any order of the Sultan, who, according to all accounts, is a very liberal, humane, and enlightened sovereign. Sir Moses Montefiore went to Tangiers, and there succeeded in getting the Jews released from prison, but, not satisfied with that, he undertook a journey to the capital of Morocco. When we consider how arduous and perilous a journey that is, and that a

  1455
  man of Sir Moses Montefiore's age, and I fear I must add infirmities, undertook that journey, we must admit that the highest credit is due to him for doing so. After going through many difficulties and much exposure he arrived at the capital and presented a petition to the Sultan, and I feel bound to add that the petition was not confined to the relief of those of his own faith, but extended to all the subjects of the Sultan who were not of the Mahommedan race. The Sultan acted with great generosity and humanity, and granted a firman to Sir Moses Montefiore, in which are these words, which show something of the exaggerated style of Oriental documents—
  "In the Courts of Law the Jews shall occupy a position of perfect equality with all other members of the community, so that not even a fractional portion of the smallest imaginable particle of injustice shall reach any one of them."
  I trust that that is perfectly satisfactory; and when we remember that there are no less than 500,000 Jews in Morocco, the great services rendered by Sir Moses Montefiore must be apparent to all. Having had the honour of acting with Sir Moses Montefiore on various occasions, I can bear my testimony to the noble and generous spirit of humanity and philanthropy which ever animates him, and which has no reference to sect or creed, but is extended to all persons, whoever they may be, who are suffering wrong or injustice.

CATTLE DISEASES PREVENTION BILL,

  QUESTION.
  SIR MICHAEL STEWARTsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, considering the short time that has been afforded for the consideration of the "Cattle Diseases Prevention," and "Cattle, &c, Importation" Bills, and the importance of the interests concerned, he will postpone until after Easter, the Second Reading of these Bills?
  MR. H. A. BRUCEsaid, the Bills might be more satisfactorily discussed in Committee than on the second reading, and therefore, after Easter, it was his intention to refer the Bills to a Select Committee.

GALWAY PACKET SERVICE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BAXTERsaid, he rose to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether there
  1456
  is any truth in the following statement, extracted from the Galway Gazette:—
  "The Directors of the Atlantic Company have applied to the Post Office authorities for permission to discontinue the Mail Service between Galway and America until June next. They have also intimated their intention of entering upon negotiations with another Company for the use of steamers to commence the service at that time, as he ships of the Company will not be in readiness to sail even then. The Directors are reported to be of opinion that they can never carry out their contract with the ships at present in their possession, and will, in all probability, endeavour to effect a sale of their interest in the project, with a transfer of the Mail Subsidy, to some existing Company more capable of carrying out the project than they are;"
  also, in how many instances the vessels of the Company kept contract time; and if Her Majesty's Government is still of opinion that this service is a great public benefit to Ireland?
  MR. PEEL: Sir, the part of the statement I know to be true is this, that the Atlantic Company have asked the Government to allow the contract to be suspended until the beginning of the month of June, stating that they are carrying on negotiations with certain parties, which they hope will result in enabling them to make arrangements to carry on the service effectually after that time. They have not stated, however, that they are in communication with any particular Company, and they have no power under the Contract to transfer the Mail Subsidy. With regard to the manner in which the Contract has been performed up to this time, I have to state that it has now been in operation for six months, and that during that time the Company have omitted four voyages from each side. As regards the eleven voyages each way which they have performed, I find that as between Galway and St. John's, which they are bound to reach in six days, the Contract time has been exceeded in every instance; but that between this country and America, the Contract time has been kept in six instances, and that in five instances the time allowed has been exceeded; but in two out of the five of these instances the Company were, by the terms of the Contract, exempt, under the circumstances, from responsibility for the delay. With regard to the return voyages, the Contract time has been kept in two instances; in nine instances the time allowed was exceeded, but in two of these instances owing to causes over which the Company had no control. With respect to the last portion of the question, I must

  1457
  state that, regarding it in a postal point of view, and speaking of it in that sense only, I do not think that the Contract can be considered to have been of much benefit.

  VACCINATION.—QUESTION.
  MR. BAINESsaid, he wished to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, Whether it is intended to introduce any measure to make the Law relative to Vaccination more effectual?
  MR. LOWE: I am not aware of any such intention.

GRAND JURIES BILL.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL FORDEsaid, he would beg to ask the hon. Member for Waterford, If the Grand Juries (Ireland) Bill will be printed and distributed in sufficient time to be laid before the Grand Juries in Ireland, now about to assemble?
  MR. BLAKE, in reply, said, he hoped the Bill would be in the hands of hon. Members before this day week. The delay which had arisen was owing to the absence of an hon. Friend now on Circuit, who had consented to aid in preparing the Bill

LEGISLATION OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA.

  QUESTION.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether any despatch has been received by a recent Mail from South Australia, intimating that Mr. Justice Boothby (one of the Judges of the Supreme Court of that Province) has decided that all local Legislation of the Colony since 1850 is invalid, and has on that ground refused to administer one of such Acts; and, if so, what course Her Majesty's Government intend to take to remedy the evils which must arise from such a decision?
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, in reply, that news to the effect stated by the hon. Gentleman, with respect to Mr. Justice Boothby, had reached the Colonial Office. But the decision of Mr. Justice Boothby was of the less importance, seeing that it was not concurred in by his two learned brethren, the Chief Justice and the other Puisne Judge. His noble Friend the Secretary of State, at the same time, was quite aware of the importance of setting any doubts which might have arisen on the subject at rest, and he had it in
  1458
  contemplation to introduce a measure with that object.

CHAIN CABLES AND ANCHORS—MESSRS, BROWN, LENNOX, & CO.

  QUESTION.
  MR. LAIRDsaid, he rose to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, If the Lords' Commissioners of the Admiralty were aware, when they issued the advertisement dated 19th January, 1864, announcing that the Transport Board had no objection to the reception of Messrs. Brown, Lennox, and Co.'s certificate of proof of cables for ships hired by that Department up to the 1st July, 1864, instead of those required by Lloyd's Committee, that Lloyd's Committee had extended the same privileges to many other manufacturers as they had done to Brown, Lennox, and Co.; and whether the Admiralty will, therefore, on application being made by any of the chain makers whose certificates are recognized by Lloyd's, be prepared to extend to such chain makers the same privilege as they have granted to Messrs. Brown, Lennox, and Co., and to notify the same by public advertisement, as they did in January last in respect to Messrs. Brown, Lennox, and Co.?
  SIR FREDERIC SMITHwished to ask, whether the Navy Estimates will be proceeded with on Monday next?
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETreplied, that they would not proceed with the Navy Estimates on Monday, With reference to the question put by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Laird), he had to state, that he was not aware that there had been any instances in which other firms besides Messrs. Brown, Lennox, and Co., had been allowed to test anchors and chains up to the 1st of July. But with respect to the latter part of the question, he had to say, if other chain makers would be good enough to make application to the Admiralty, the question would be fairly considered and judged upon its merits.

AUSTRIA AND THE ZOLLVEREIN.

  QUESTION.
  MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALD: Sir, at the commencement of the Session a question was asked by an hon. Gentleman, whether the Board of Trade were in possession of a proposed Treaty between Austria and the Zollverein; and the answer was, that the Board of Trade were not in possession of such Treaty. I have

  1459
  reason to know that some of the Chambers of Commerce have been in possession of that Treaty for the last six weeks, and I wish to know, Whether the Board of Trade are now in possession of the draft of a Commercial Treaty between Austria and the Zollverein; secondly, whether the Board of Trade have entered into communication with Chambers of Commerce in this country as to the articles to be affected by the new tariff; and thirdly, whether the Government have taken any steps to protect British interests that may be affected by the new arrangements?
  MR. MILNER, GIBSON: The Board of Trade, Sir, are in possession of a project of tariff which is said to be under consideration by the Austrian Government and the Zollverein. Whether it will be subsequently agreed to, I, of course, cannot say. But Her Majesty's Government have not taken any steps with regard to the negotiations which appear to be going on between Austria and the Zollverein, as British interests are not directly concerned. But should the opportunity arise of asking for any inquiry with a view to the protection of British interests, such inquiry will be made. At present no such step has been taken, but the project of tariff is in our possession.

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

STAMP ON PROXY PAPERS.

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. DARBY GBIFFITHsaid, he took that opportunity of again bringing forward a subject which he had had the honour of submitting to the House last year, and which, he was bound to say, had been treated in a fair and straightforward manner by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The question involved considerations of great importance, but for that he would not have troubled the House to consider it. When a franchise was granted it was right it should be exercised as freely as possible. The system of taking votes by proxy, though altogether unknown in that House, was yet in full operation elsewhere. In the case of railway companies, for instance, a voter, if he intended to vote, and was not able to attend a meeting perso-
  1460
  nally, had no means of exercising his vote except by proxy, and he must either provide himself with a particular kind of stamp at his own expense, or he must depend upon the Board of Directors for it. He was aware that directors had been in the habit of paying for these proxy stamps out of the funds of the railway companies, and of requesting the proprietors who did not make use of them to return them. It appeared, however, that some directors had at length felt doubts as to the legality of that practice. The expense of the proxies, at the present price of the stamp, was very considerable. The number of the shareholders in the Great Western Railway Company was 15,000, and proxy stamps for that number, at the present six-penny rate, would cost about £370. In addition there was the penny postage stamp on the envelope containing the proxy, together with another penny stamp enclosed for the purpose of franking the return of the proxy, so that between £400 and £500 might be expended for the purpose of obtaining an expression of opinion on the part of the shareholders. If there existed a difference of opinion between the directors and shareholders, it became a serious matter to a few shareholders to find £400 or £500 for the proxy stamps, while the directors paid for the proxies which they issued out of the funds of the company. If he had sufficient influence, he would attack the whole system of voting by proxy, for nothing could be more anomalous than that such a privilege as that enjoyed by the Members of the other House of Parliament should be exercised in reference to the affairs of a private commercial company. A law had been passed allowing electors in the case of the Universities to vote for Members of Parliament by means of voting papers, but no tax was required for those papers; and the proxy papers used in the case of charities also paid no tax, though it was a remarkable anomaly that proxies for the election of the officers of those very charities were subject to the tax. The proxy stamp operated as a great inconvenience, for when a person wanted to obtain one he scarcely knew where to go to buy it; probably nothing less than a law stationer could supply it; and the Excise Department had decided that the use of six penny stamps was not allowable in lieu of one six-penny stamp. The maximum loss to the revenue in consequence of the change which he advocated, would be, perhaps,

  1461
  £19,500, but the actual loss would probably be much less. Even if it were some £10,000 or £15,000 a year, he thought the sacrifice would not be too great, in order to secure to railway and other shareholders the opportunity of exercising more effectual control over the management of their affairs. He, therefore, begged to move that the Stamp on Proxy Papers, used for the purpose of voting in Public Companies, Associations, and Charities, being a Tax which impeded the exercise of a franchise, might be conveniently reduced to one penny.
  MR. HADFIELDbegged to second the Motion. He believed that at that moment the sum of £400,000,000 was invested in railway and other joint stock companies in this country, and with the view of enabling shareholders to exercise their right of voting with greater facility, which would infuse more spirit into those companies, he would recommend the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reduce the amount of the stamp to a penny. He believed that such a reduction would occasion no loss to the revenue, because thousands of shareholders who hitherto had not used the sixpenny proxy stamp would then avail themselves of their privilege of voting through the medium of a penny stamp.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the Stamp on Proxy Papers, used for the purpose of voting in Public Companies, Associations, and Charities, being a Tax which impedes the exercise of a franchise, might conveniently be reduced to one penny,"—(Mr. Darby Griffith,) —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. DUTTONsaid, it would not, in his opinion, be expedient to reduce the amount of the stamp, as such reduction would have little influence upon the holders of property of the description to which these stamps applied. He thought, however, that the suggestion of his hon. Friend with regard to the substitution of stamps of another denomination, if adopted by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, would be a great convenience to shareholders generally.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he had referred to the discussion which took place on this subject towards the close of last Session. It was a
  1462
  matter of secondary importance, as far as finance was concerned, but he thought it-was one which the House might well consider with reference to its bearing on another matter which was becoming of increasing weight, he meant the administration of joint stock companies. As the principles of joint stock association spread from one description of business to another, and as those companies were largely multiplied, it became most material to consider the best means for securing the internal order and good administration of such concerns. He was very desirous of being favoured with the views of hon. Gentlemen in that House having practical experience on the subject. He had, on a previous occasion, tendered his acknowledgments to the hon. Member for the manner in which he had brought the question before the House. To-night he had very properly pointed out that there were two distinct matters to be dealt with—one being the amount of the stamp, and the other the increased facility of access to that stamp. He had already taken into consideration, as far as very small stamps were concerned, the possibility of rendering them interchangeable. He trusted, however, that the hon. Member and the House would permit him to adhere to the usual and convenient rule of reserving anything he had to say until he made his financial statement. If that rule were once broken it would lead to other inquiries and cause much inconvenience. He could assure the hon. Member that he was very desirous of dealing in the best manner in his power with the real merits and bearings of the question.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he would, with the permission of the House, withdraw his Motion.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  UNITED STATES—CAPTURE OF THE "TUSCALOOSA."—OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. PEACOCKE,who had placed on the paper a notice to the effect, that he would call the attention of the House to the capture of the Tuscaloosa by the naval authorities at the Cape of Good Hope, said, that as the papers relating to that subject had not yet been presented, he would postpone any statement he might have to make with respect to it. But he begged to express a hope that those papers, which had been promised some time since, would be

  1463
  laid before the House without any further delay.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that no unnecessary delay would be allowed to take place in producing these papers. The only reason why the House had as yet received no portion of the Correspondence was, that Her Majesty's Government were anxious that it should be published in a complete form.

  CHINA—SOOCHOW.—OBSERVATIONS.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, he rose to call the attention of the House to the following Resolution, passed unanimously at a meeting of the Consuls representing European nations at Shanghai, on the 16th day of December, 1863, at the British Consulate, moved by Mr. Markham, the British Acting Consul, and seconded by Mr. Keswick, Danish Consul—
  "That this meeting, as representing the whole foreign community, views with unqualified disapprobation the late proceedings of the Footai at Soochow as an act of extreme treachery, abhorrent to human nature, calculated to withdraw from the Imperial cause the sympathies of Western Nations, and the aid of the gallant officers who have hitherto assisted them;"
  and to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, with this renewed instance of perfidy in Imperial officials, it is intended by Her Majesty's Government to pass unnoticed further violations of the instructions of the Foreign Office to British authorities in China, to be strictly neutral in the civil war which has so long raged in China. In November last he received from Soochow a statement to the effect, that a force consisting of 200 men of the 67th regiment, 100 men of the Royal Artillery, and 100 men of the 22nd Native Infantry had left, under the command of Captain Murray, R.A., for Tait-sang; that 200 Beloochees, under the command of Captain Hogg, had also been thrown into Quinsan, that those cities were considerably beyond the thirty mile radius round Shanghai; that the garrisoning of these two cities by the British would enable Major Gordon to advance with almost his entire force from Quinsan to Soochow, and would secure his retreat in the unexpected event of a reverse; and that it was believed that, as the capture of Soochow was considered essential to the tranquillity of Shanghai, Sir Frederick Bruce looked favourably on the conjoint action of native and foreign troops if such should be found necessary. From Hong-
  1464
  kong by the same mail he received a communication to the same effect—namely, that British troops had been sent by the General commanding the forces in China —Major General Brown—to places beyond the thirty miles radius, in order to enable Major Gordon to advance upon Soochow. Now, the House had been informed more than once by the noble Lord the Prime Minister, the hon. Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, and the noble Lord the Secretary of the Admiralty, that the Government had issued instructions to the effect that strict neutrality would be maintained in China beyond the thirty-mile limit from the treaty ports, which it was thought advisable to maintain in order to secure those ports from the effects of the contest between the rebels and the Tartar Government. Moreover, the Members bad seen in the China blue-books, the despatches from Earl Russell to Mr. Bruce to the same effect. The moment he received that communication from China, knowing the orders which had been issued from the Foreign Office, and recollecting the statements which had been made on the part of the Government, he addressed a letter to Earl Russell, stating the facts he had mentioned, and intimating at the same time that he should consider it his duty to bring the violation of the orders of the Foreign Office by Major General Brown to the notice of the House of Commons. On the next day—the 23rd of November— Earl Russell acknowledged the receipt of his letter, and his object on the present occasion was to redeem the pledge he had given to the noble Lord. The first remark he had to make was, that the meeting of the representatives of European nations at Shanghai was caused by a horrid butchery, which, accompanied by perfidy, had been perpetrated at Soochow by the Imperialist authorities on the 5th December last. Probably the hon. Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, who had always been the champion of the Tartar Government, would tell the House that the occurrences at Soochow had been greatly exaggerated in the accounts which had come over, and the hon. Gentleman would probably quote Major Gordon. But he would tell his hon. Friend that Major Gordon did not witness the butchery. Indeed, he had not an opportunity of witnessing it, for he was next to a prisoner when it took place and he had no means of preventing it, having sent his troops back from Soochow to his head-quarters. Great events some-

  1465
  times spring from trivial causes, and so it had been on that occasion in China. Had not Major General Brown violated his orders by garrisoning two cities far beyond the thirty-mile radius—one, in fact, being more than forty miles, and the other nearly one hundred miles from Shanghai—Major Gordon could not have withdrawn the whole of his troops from those places to enable him to undertake the siege of Soochow and give assistance to the Imperial General. Without the auxiliaries thus obtained the Tartar General could not have made that impression upon Soochow which led to the surrender of the town by treachery—an enterprize in which he was sorry to say Major Gordon himself took part. Prom a report of the meeting of the Consuls at Shanghai, he observed that Major General Brown was the chief denouncer of the butchery at Soochow, although, in fact, his own violation of instructions had led to it. At that meeting the Resolution included in his (Colonel Sykes's) notice was carried unanimously. The proceedings of the Consuls he found reported in the North China Herald, a paper which had always been an uncompromising advocate of the Tartar Government in most of its proceedings. Under date the 12th of December, 1863, it contained a memorandum communicated by Major Gordon himself, stating that, after the failure of the attack by night on the Low-mum stockade, the Tartar General Ching came to him and said that the rebel chief Lar and other chiefs had opened negotiations for the coming over of their troops. "I consented (says Major Gordon) to the defections with a good deal of pleasure, as I considered that if the rebels fought we should lose heavily." On the 1st December, after La-wang and other leaders had opened negotiations with the Footai for the coming over of the troops, the Tartar General brought to him (Major Gordon) the chiefs of the traitors, and said he thought the garrison were willing to give the city up to the Imperial Government on condition that their lives and property should be guaranteed. Major Gordon added that he conversed with La-wang, who seemed to have some doubts, from past experience of Tartar perfidy, and told him that it would be an exceedingly acceptable thing to bring together the conflicting parties in China; and, moreover, that the Imperialists were not the people they had been in former days, thus leading the unfortunate chief to believe that any
  1466
  arrangement made with the Footai would be carried out under the guarantee of Major Gordon himself. The Tartar General said it would be very acceptable if the place surrendered, for a great number of men would be lost in attacks on the gates, which were well fortified. But there was a difficulty with the Governor (Mo Wang) who was a man of high distinction and much respected by Major Gordon himself, and who resolved to defend the place. To secure his life, Major Gordon stipulated that he should be placed in his hands as a prisoner after Soochow surrendered. The strength of the position at the Low-mum gate was such, that great loss was anticipated in attacking it. The proposal to evacuate the city was therefore eagerly entertained by Major Gordon and the Imperialists. Major Gordon returned to his quarters before Soochow, when General Ching sent him over two Frenchmen who had just come into the lines from the city, and they said that at 2 p.m. on the 4th of December all the chiefs had been assembled in Mo-wang's palace, and after they had offered up prayers (to the Christian's God it should be remarked), they had sat down to dinner, and subsequently they adjourned to the great Court, where they put on their robes, crowns, &c.; that the Governor mounted his throne and began an address, in which he stated their difficulties. The other Wangs answered him. and the discussion, grew higher and higher, till Kung-wang drew a dagger and stabbed Mo-wang in the neck, and the other Wangs seized him and decapitated him, his head being afterwards sent to the Imperialist General Ching. On the night of the 4th, after the assassination of the Governor, Ching's men having taken possession of the gate, the rebels within the city shaved their heads. The House was aware that when the Tartars conquered China they required the population at large, who were their hair long, as was the practice with the Taepings, to shave their heads and wear the queue in token of their submission. Major Gordon went to the Footai, and represented to him the danger of keeping the disciplined Chinese in a state of inactivity, also requesting that, in recognition of their services, a gratuity of two months pay might be given to each inferior officer and man. The Footai refused, but after much wrangling Gordon induced the men to accept one month's pay as a present. This was given to them as the result

  1467
  of Gordon's negotiation in lieu of their alleged right to go in and plunder the city if it had been taken by assault. The troops were then ordered back to Quinsan. On the 5th, Ching announced that the Footai had -written to Pekin stating that he had extended mercy to the rebels. The morning after the troops left, Gordon started for the city, sending for his two steamers to meet him, as from information he obtained in Mo-wang's house, he expected to have recaptured the Firefly, which had been taken from the Imperialists by the Taepings. He saw the chief conspirator, Lar-wang, and the other chiefs riding in the city to the Deputy Viceroy's camp to make his submission, and he then endeavoured to while away the time till the steamers arrived. From, the top of one of the gates he noticed a large crowd near the Imperial General's stockade, where the Deputy Viceroy was staying, but thought the Imperialist soldiers were merely gratifying their curiosity by a glimpse of the rebel chiefs doing obeisance to the Footai. In a few minutes more a large body of men came up, and, passing the gate, rushed cheering into the city, firing their muskets in the air, and yelling. At that moment, the decapitation of the princes was taking place in the crowd before his eyes. In a short time the Imperialist General Ching came to him, and, after much equivocation on Ching's part, Gordon at length became uneasy about Lar-wang (the chief conspirator), and went to his palace. He arrived there after dark, and found it completely ransacked. He entered the house of the prince, who had been butchered, and remained all night, defending himself. His troops were gone, and he was helpless. He tried next day to make his way back to his garrison; he was intercepted and detained an hour as a prisoner; he was then allowed to go away, and from that moment he saw nothing of what took place in Soochow. The House ought to know what did take place. He had in his hand the account, dated 12th December, of a European eye-witness of the Governor's assassination at Soochow. This person's narrative stated, that after the rebel Commander-in-chief, Chung-wang, left Soochow, the Europeans all lived together in the Mo-wang's palace, and were well treated; that on the 4th of December the Mo-wang had invited several of the other wangs to a large dinner, after which it was understood they were to
  1468
  discuss what was to be done; that the Mo-wang had no idea of the treachery which was in store; that he was standing up saying something loud when all at once a man belonging to the Lar-wang party went behind him, and with a long knife which he had concealed up to that time stabbed the Mo-wang in the body; that the chiefs immediately jumped towards the body and cut the head off. He had also a statement from one of Major Gordon's own officers, dated the 14th December. The writer said, that having been at Soochow on the day that "the Viceroy, the type of all that is detestable and infernal, glutted his vengeance on the unfortunate inhabitants, men and women, who had surrendered on terms that should have been held sacred," he felt it his duty to write his regrets at the treachery which had taken place, "dishonouring as it was to the cause for which so many brave and honourable men"—generally Englishmen mixed with other foreigners —"had shed their blood." The writer suggested, as Major Gordon's defence, that the withdrawal of the troops from Soochow totally disabled Major Gordon from preventing what had occurred, and which (as he could show the House) continued to occur for twenty successive days; but the writer forgot that the assassination of Mo-wang, the murder of the confiding wangs, and the commencement of the pillage took place before Major Gordon withdrew his disciplined force, and he therefore rendered himself powerless. The North China Herald, speaking of the horrors of Soochow, said—
  "During the campaign of the last two years against the rebels of this province the Imperialists have availed themselves of every opportunity of gratifying their taste for indiscriminate slaughter which was ever found among uncivilized nations."
  That remark came from the organ and agent of Her Majesty's diplomatists in China, and hitherto the friend of the Imperialists. The account then went on to detail the facts as they had occurred. It added—
  "We believe, however, that the recent events in Soochow have cast an indelible stain on the Chinese as a nation, and this was the more to be regretted because, up to the time of their occurrence, an English officer was in command."
  Finally, it was stated that guns and ammunition had been freely supplied to the Imperialists by the English and French authorities. In a word, everything that could be done by one nation for another

  1469
  was done by the English and French for the Chinese. The British Government at home, notwithstanding its professed neutrality, had not been less ready than its agents abroad, as the House had learnt the other day that three vessels out of English dockyards had been sold at a loss to the Chinese Government. What! After the declarations of neutrality and in spite of the instructions from the Foreign Office? Yet our aid ended in "indiscriminate slaughter." Nor was the account thus given exaggerated. Another eye-witness in an account of a visit to Major Gordon's camp, stated that it pained him to see the artillery, which the British had lent, were in position before the walls of Soochow. He then confirmed in detail the accounts of the treachery and butchery. The writer visited the Mo-wang's palace. On the stone steps of the reception hall lay the body of the truly brave and noble-minded Mo-wang; his head was outside the city in the hands of Ching. On raising the cloak that covered this body a stab was seen in the stomach and nine in the back. The writer added that the fate in store for the other wangs, one could not but think was a just retribution for so cowardly an assassination of one who had gained the respect and admiration even of his enemies. The same officer described how
  "Ching's brave celestials ran to do their cowardly work of slaughtering unarmed men. Those who came down the street to leave the city were stopped by the guards and looted. If resistance was offered there was work for the knife and sword. May the Footai have a miserable end for being the author of that cowardly act!"
  Several fires were then raging. That was on the 5th of December. He (Colonel Sykes) had the account of another visitor to Soochow on the 26th of December, twenty-one days later—
  "We mounted the great tower, one of the finest in China, and we saw in many places the flames and smoke ascending from numerous burning houses."
  So that, in fact, the burnings had gone on from the 5th to the 26th, while Major Gordon's force was lying inactive at Quinsan, within twenty miles. Soochow was another Venice, many streets having a canal, affording defensible positions. The walls extended twenty miles in circumference. Another account, dated Shanghai, January 2, is in fact a diary running over some weeks. The author says—
  "The country is generally untenanted, but the crop3 raised by the Taepings were in a flourishing
  1470
  condition, and, of course, very acceptable to the Imperialists."
  The author had an interview with the Secretary of the Footai, in the palace of Chung-wang, the Taeping general. He found the house had not only been looted, but the valuable furniture it contained had been literally smashed to atoms by the Imperialist soldiery. He expressed his indignation at the treachery that had been perpetrated, upon which the Secretary replied he knew that the conduct of the Footai would be approved of at Pekin. And so it has turned out, for the Footai has had conferred upon him the yellow jacket, which raises him above all other mandarins, and gives him great distinction and authority. On the walls of Mo-wang's palace the author found a series of pictures representing the sad journey of Jesus from the house of Pilate to the place of his crucifixion, known in Catholic countries as the "Eight Stations;" as well as other evidences of Christian associations, and some English books. On the 20th of December he went to the Padi-cho gate, where he saw the pieces of heavy artillery just outside, which must have been lent by Major General Brown in violation of his instructions from home.
  "We looked," he said, "with regret upon those splendid 'peacemakers,' that they should have been loaned to the butcher of Soochow, being the property of the British Government."
  The author describes also the execution ground of the Taeping chiefs, and their followers—
  "The ground was soaked with human blood, and the creek forming the drain of the ground was still, after twenty days of slaughter, reddish with blood, as the officers of Dr. Macartney's force can testify."
  The author adds—
  "Our Chinese informant told us that 30,000' rebels had been led to these shambles."
  He had now given the House in detail an account of the treachery and butchery practised by the Tartar authorities at Soochow, which had excited the indignation of all the representatives of foreign nations at Shanghai. He had also shown how those horrors had occurred, consequent upon the violation of his instructions by General Brown, who, by garrisoning Taitsan and Quinsan, had enabled Major Gordon to attack Soochow, without whose aid the Footai would not have had an opportunity of perpetrating his butchery. The House might, perhaps, think that these horrors were not premeditated,

  1471
  but resulted from the force of circumstances; but he assured the House that it was not so, but that such proceedings had ever characterized the Tartar rule in China. The Jesuit Martini, who was in China at the time of the Tartar conquest in 1645, stated, that after the first capture of Canton 100,000 persons were put to death, and it is stated that the Viceroy Yeh, who had been our prisoner in Calcutta and died there, while ruler at Canton had beheaded more than 60,000 people. When we more recently took possession of Canton we found in the execution ground a cross, to which criminals were fastened, and then hacked into pieces. That cross was of course removed under British rule, and while we remained in possession of the city, executions were conducted in a less horrible manner. When, however, we ceased to exercise control in Canton the cross was restored, and all the former atrocities were renewed. The House had no doubt a painful recollection of the treachery which led to the murder of Brabazon and Bowlby, and the tortures to which their companions were subjected on their way to Pekin. Neither would they forget the seven Taeping prisoners who were fastened to stakes, and who had arrows with little flags attached to them stuck in their bodies, and who were left exposed all day to the sun, and in the evening hacked to pieces within a short distance of the British camp at Wy-con-sin; the details of which are given in the North China Herald, dated 13th June, 1863, and which caused the indignant inquiries of the Bishop of Victoria. A gentleman of credit, recently arrived from Amoy at Shanghai, published the case of an old man and his wife who were accused of robbing a man to whom they had given a lodging. In spite of their denials they were condemned and executed, the old man being nailed hands and feet to a cross and left to die, the narrator adding that he saw the poor creature alive on the fourth day. The woman was put to death under circumstances too horrible to be detailed. The editor of the Friend of China described his visit to a prison in Shanghai, in January last, where he found in the yard the body of a man fastened to a stake, where he had been left in torturing agony. Al these examples proved that the treachery at Soochow was not an accidental occurrence, but in keeping with the ordinary habits of the Tartar Government; and yet that was the Government which this coun-
  1472
  try had been supporting with her blood and treasure, and on behalf of which we had imperilled our national honour. What must be the effect of such proceedings upon our unfortunate countrymen who were serving such a Government? In he five regiments under Major Gordon there were perhaps 180 Europeans. The effect of constantly witnessing such horrors committed by the Government they were serving must necessarily be to brutalize their minds and to destroy all humane and Christian feeling among them. In conclusion, he would ask the noble Lord at the head of the Government, whether, with this renewed instance of perfidy and cruelty in Imperial Tartar officials, it was intended by Her Majesty's Government to pass unnoticed further violations of the instructions of the Foreign Office to British authorities in China to be strictly neutral in the Civil War, which had so long raged in China?
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, upon the general question I cannot entirely concur with my hon. and gallant Friend, because my opinion is that it is for our interest that the rebellion should cease, and that the authority of the Imperial Government should be maintained and re-established in China. It cannot be for the advantage of those who trade with China that the country should be in a state of civil war. If there were any possibility that the rebels would succeed in overthrowing the Imperial authority and in establishing some other Government in lieu thereof, then there might be a choice between the two Governments; and persons, according to the views they took, might think it desirable or not that the present dynasty should be maintained, or the rebel authority established in its place. But there is no chance of that. The rebellion has not within itself any elements either of organization or of success, and therefore I think it is very important for the commercial interests of this country as connected with China, that order and peace should be re-established there, that commerce may revive, and be carried on without impediment. It was with that object that permission was given to Captain Osborn and Mr. Lay to organize a naval force for the purpose of co-operating with the Imperial troops. With that view an Order in Council was passed permitting British subjects generally to enter into the service of the Emperor of China. Unfortunately, neither of those arrangements has answered its purpose.

  1473
  The expedition under Captain Osborn is returning to this country; that gallant officer, having had a difference with the Imperial Government, has felt it to be his duty to retire from the service of that Government. One Order in Council was passed to authorize that expedition; the other Order in Council, authorizing generally British subjects to enter the service of the Chinese Government, has been taken advantage of only by Major Gordon and one or two other persons. The expedition under Captain Osborn having entirely failed, that Order in Council has been revoked, and as the conduct of the Chinese officials has been so disgraceful, as stated by my hon. and gallant Friend, the other Order in Council has also been revoked, leaving it, of course, to the discretion of the Crown, according to its standing prerogative, to grant, if it should think fit, permission to individuals to enter into the service of the Emperor of China, upon application duly made in each case by the individual. Nothing can be more abhorrent to our feelings or deserving of condemnation than the conduct of the Footai at Soochow. I am afraid we must admit that all nations have their faults, and there are two faults which must be matter of reproach to the Chinese—one is cruelty, and the other is perfidy. They certainly have shown, on this occasion, most lamentable instances of both. We do not know exactly what was done in consequence of that barbarous act of treachery. Major Gordon, according to our accounts, was only waiting to know what course the Imperial Government would take He had made a representation to Sir Frederick Bruce, who, no doubt, would truly represent to Prince Kung the abominable conduct of the Footai. The result of his representation is still unknown, but we hope for the honour of humanity that adequate punishment will be inflicted upon the Footai for his barbarity upon that occasion—an act which we are entitled to resent, because Major Gordon was made the unwilling instrument to lure these people into the power of the Footai, and was of course, so far, an instrument in their barbarous execution. Not only shall we endeavour to prevent any further acts of the sort, but we shall make strong representations with regard to that particular act of treachery. At the same time, I can only repeat that Her Majesty's Government deeply lament and indignantly condemn the conduct of the Footai, but that we do not know as yet what the Chinese
  1474
  Government have done. There are some papers relating to the subject which will be ready in the course of a few days, and it is far better, as the Government are in possession of information, that that information should be laid before the House.
  MR. WHITEsaid, that the announcement just made with regard to the Orders in Council was very satisfactory as far as it went. He presumed that if permission were given in future to British subjects to enter the Chinese service, it would be only for the purpose of training Chinamen to a knowledge of military tactics, and not of taking personally any part in the war. The policy of Her Majesty's Government in reference to the civil war had excited the astonishment of those who were acquainted with the Chinese, and these persons declared that the Government had not adopted in China the principle of non-intervention which they took so much credit for upholding on this side of the Cape. Whatever the acts of the rebels had been, it was evident that the Imperialists were not one whit superior to them in their conduct of the war. The late transactions showed what disgrace and dishonour might be brought on the British name by the unfortunate permissions granted by Her Majesty's Government. He thought that Government would do well to follow out the principle of non-intervention in those matters. He did not gather from the noble Lord's observations whether the Government meant to adhere to that principle, or whether the troops at Shanghai were to be sent beyond the thirty-mile radius. But he was satisfied that if it had not been for the inopportune course of action taken by the Government, that portion of the Chinese empire to which we had access would now be in a state of flourishing prosperity. The Taeping rebellion was successful until it came into contact with British power. The wish of the rebel leaders was to be on friendly terms with us, and not to injure British interests. When they sent to tell us that they meant on a certain day to take Shanghai, asking the British authorities there to adopt the necessary measures for the safety of Europeans, no fighting would have taken place but for our troops, for the Imperialists would have withdrawn, and the British forces would have protected the British settlement. The rebels, however, were driven back by our troops; yet, to show their friendly feeling towards us, no violence was offered to the many English merchants who were at that time within

  1475
  the rebel lines, carrying on their trade and having large sums of money in their possession; and although the rebels had been repulsed from before Shanghai by our shot and shell, not one of these merchants was harmed, and not one penny of their property was touched. He thought it evident that the policy of Her Majesty's Government in China had hitherto been strikingly detrimental to British interests; and his belief was, that but for our injudicious interference, that part of the country to which our trade was chiefly confined, instead of being in a state of anarchy, would be by this time prosperous and peaceful.
  MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he could not agree in opinion with the hon. Member as to the policy to be adopted by Her Majesty's Government. The policy which was sanctioned by the Government was one for the protection of the ports, and in carrying that out they took the best means to secure British interests. He regretted the terms in which reference had been made to Captain Dew. In his opinion the service had not a braver or more able officer.

  UNITED STATES—THE CONFEDERATE CRUISERS.—PAPERS MOVED FOR.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he rose to call the attention of the House to the course pursued by the agents of the Confederate States of America in fitting out vessels of war and enlisting seamen in the ports of this country, in violation of the laws of neutrality. He hoped he should not be considered as obtruding himself on the notice of the House in bringing before it a subject of so much importance. He should not have ventured to do so had he perceived that any other Member was prepared to present the subject from the point of view which, in his opinion, the House should view it. He did not propose to re-open the question of the detention of the iron-clad rams, nor to discuss the meaning of the Foreign Enlistment Act. He intended to point his observations not at the offenders against that Act within the jurisdiction of this country, but at offenders beyond that jurisdiction, for whose benefit and by whose direction the Acts we have to complain of were done. He should show, beyond all question, that the authorities and agents of the Confederate Government had deliberately and systematically violated our neutrality by fitting out hostile expeditions from this country to make war upon our allies, to cut up the commerce of the United States;
  1476
  and he should maintain that it is our right, our duty, and our interest to take such steps as would vindicate our neutrality, and prevent the possibility of a recurrence of such acts. The papers before the House and before the Congress of the United States proved that the Confederate Government had for the last two years been occupied in building vessels of war in this country; that they had sent over several officers to superintend them, had raised money for the same purpose, had enlisted seamen in our ports to man them, and had in too many cases been successful in sending out these war ships. They had, at the present moment, but five vessels of war on the high seas; of these four were built, armed, and manned in and from this country, and the fifth, the Tuscaloosa, being a prize of the Alabama, was affected by the same taint. The first vessel sent out by the Confederates was the Florida, which left Liverpool early in 1862. That vessel was undoubtedly commissioned in this country by the Confederate Government. He should not have dwelt upon that point had it not been for the observations made the other night by the hon. and learned Member for Belfast (Sir Hugh Cairns). That hon. and learned Gentleman had said that that vessel had undergone a judicial investigation, which showed that she was free from any suspicion of being a Confederate war vessel when she left this country. Such might have been the result of the investigation, but he submitted that the papers which had since been published in the United States and in this country showed conclusively that at the time she left England she was a vessel commissioned by the Confederate Government. On the 12th of July, 1862, Mr. Mallory, Secretary of the Confederate Navy, wrote from Richmond the following letter to Captain North, of the Confederate naval service, who was then in London:—
  "Sir—The department notified you on the 11th of January last that you would receive orders to command the second vessel then being built in England, but for reasons satisfactory to the department you were subsequently assigned to the command of the first vessel, the Florida, now at Nassau; and any just ground for the surprise and astonishment in this respect at the department's action is not perceived. A commission as commander for the war was sent you on the 5th of May, and your failure to follow the Oreto, which left England about the 21st of March, and to take command of her as was contemplated, and as you were apprized by Captain Bullock on the 26th of March, is not understood, and has been productive of some embarrassment."
  From the same papers it would be observed that, as early as the 11th of January, 1862,

  1477
  Captain Bullock was employed in Liverpool by the Confederate Government to superintend the fitting out of two vessels of war. One of those vessels was the Florida. She left this country on the 2nd of March, and proceeded to Nassau, where she underwent the judicial investigation. Now, although there was no evidence before that court upon which she could be legally condemned, subsequent events showed what was her real character. She took in her armament at Nassau, and hoisted the Confederate flag on leaving that port, and ever since she had been preying on the commerce of the United Slates. The other vessel referred to in the letter of Mr. Mallory was, no doubt, the Alabama, or "290," which was built by the Messrs. Laird, of Birkenhead, and left this country on the 1st of July. A month before she left, the Commissioners of Customs at Liverpool wrote to say that she was in every respect a vessel of war, a fact not denied by the builders, though they would not give the name of her owners. He would not go into the question why she had not been stopped by Her Majesty's Government, as that would come before the House on a discussion of the claims made by the Government of the Federal States in respect of the vessel; but it was, in his opinion, a very great misfortune for this country that she had not been stopped. He thought the Government ought in her case to have adopted the course which they afterwards followed in the case of the steam rams—that they ought to have detained her on suspicion. He had, however, no doubt that at the time the Alabama left Birkenhead, neither the Government nor the country duly appreciated the importance of stopping such vessels. When she left Birkenhead in July she had a party of visitors, including the Messrs. Laird and several ladies, on board—the pretence being that she was going on a trial trip—but she subsequently evaded the Custom House officers, and forfeited her bonds. The hon. Member for Birken head had aptly described her course in saying, "she sneaked from the country as a fox leaves the cover scenting the hounds." She had a crew of 50 men, whom she took on board in Beaumaris Bay; and afterwards, at Terceira, met two vessels which brought her armament, the remainder of her crew, and her future commander, Captain Semmes, who re-enlisted the crew, and the Confederate flag was hoisted. Though the farce the vessel went through at Birkenhead and
  1478
  Terceira might have baffled the authorities, when hon. Members looked back at all the circumstances they could not doubt that from the first this was a Confederate vessel. The Alabama had been ever since that time occupied in burning and destroying commerce. She had not followed the ordinary course of sending her prizes into port for condemnation, nor had she confined herself to burning American properly. She had also destroyed British property on board American ships. She even had destroyed a British vessel — the Martaban — off the Straits of Malacca. The latter was originally an American vessel, but had been transferred to the British flag. He mentioned these facts merely to show the lawless character of the operations undertaken by the Alabama. Before the Alabama left this country, the Messrs. Laird had already commenced laying down the two iron rams which, after producing a most profound feeling of suspicion and alarm in America, had been seized by our Government in October last. He would not go into the question whether these vessels had been lawfully detained or not; but this he would say, that not one hon. Member who spoke on the discussion on the subject a few nights ago, ventured to assert that they were not intended for the Confederate Government. The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Laird) was in his place during that discussion, and he could have thrown every light on the subject; but he was silent. He did not think, therefore, he was wrong in concluding that these rams were intended for the Confederate Government. A few months after the date of the sailing of the Alabama, a correspondence of that Government which had been found in a blockade runner, fell into the hands of the Federal Government, and was forwarded to our Government. The correspondence was dated October, 1862, and showed conclusively the nature of the plans of the Confederate Government, and the organized system which they carried out in this country. On the 27th of October, 1862, Mr. Mallory, Secretary of the Confederate Navy, wrote to Mr. Memminger, Secretary of the Confederate Treasury, in these terms—
  "Sir,—I have the honour to call your attention to the copy of the recent joint resolution of Congress which was sent you on Saturday. Under this authority, contracts have been made with Mr. George W. Sanders, by this department, for six ships, to be paid for in cotton, a copy of which contract is herewith enclosed."

  1479
  On the 30th of October, Mr. Memminger wrote to Mr. Mallory—
  "Sir,—I approve the suggestions made by you of making your contracts for building iron-clad vessels in Europe conform to the arrangements of the cotton certificates sent to the Hon. T. M. Mason. I enclose a form of each of these certificates. Upon the meeting of Congress an appropriation must be made to meet your contracts.… The only limit to these combined operations will be the quantity of cotton which the Government can purchase, which I hope will be found ample."
  The next letter of the same date was from. Mr. Mallory to Mr. Mason, who at that time represented the Confederate Government in this country—
  "Mr. Sanders has, as you are aware, contracted with this department for the construction in England of six iron-clad steamers, combining the capacities of freighting and the fighting ships in a manner which will enable them to force the blockade of our ports. The interests of the country will be much benefited by the prompt construction of these vessels; and I beg leave to invoke your interests, not only on behalf of enterprises already in progress, but in behalf of this also."
  In a letter from Mr. G. W. Sanders it was observed—
  "Bunglers entering the European market might endanger the whole scheme. Great skill and diplomacy must be exercised to avoid the interference of European Governments."
  And in a letter unsigned, but directed to Mr. Mallory, and enclosed to Mr. Mason, this passage occurs—
  "I am satisfied that with the professional knowledge of these gentlemen (Commodore Forrest and Commander Sinclair, who are mentioned as being sent to England), we cannot fail to subserve our interests, and render high and important service to our cause, both in superintending and constructing the vessels built to cut up the enemy's commerce."
  It appeared that some of the vessels mentioned in the correspondence were to be built at Glasgow, and others at Liverpool, and that officers were appointed to superintend what was being done in those places. Fortunately the iron rams building in Liverpool and Glasgow had been seized by the Government. The Alexandra had also been detained, but the Japan, afterwards called the Georgia or Virginia, got off much in the same way as the Alabama. She was built at Glasgow, and sailed on pretence of making a trial trip; she shipped her crew at Greenock; and afterwards, on the high seas, somewhere between Alderney and Brest, a similar farce to that enacted in the case of the Alabama at Terceira was gone through, and she became an avowedly Confederate vessel. A prosecution wag pending against a Mr. Jones for re-
  1480
  cruiting men for the Georgia, and he could not but presume, therefore, that there was very strong evidence before the Government showing that the Georgia from the time she left this country belonged to the Confederate Government. It was discovered that two other vessels were building in Glasgow—the Pampero, which had been stopped, and therefore he would not further allude to the case; the other had since been sold to the Danish Government. Then there was the Rappahannock, formerly called the Victor in the Royal Navy, a vessel which had been sold by order of the Admiralty. She had been bought by Confederate agents in Sheerness. She was actually fitted out in one of Her Majesty's dockyards, and the day on which the Government got an intimation of her destination, she left Sheerness in an unfinished state. She hoisted the Confederate flag within sight of Sheerness dockyard, and went over to Calais, where she claimed admission, on the pretence of being injured at sea, and requiring repairs. A large number of men had been enlisted in this country for that vessel, and a prosecution was pending on that account. He thought there could be no doubt that she was a Confederate vessel. About 100 men had been sent over to Calais to her; but as she had at present only eight men on board, and as he was informed these were all confined in irons, there seemed to be not much chance of her sailing. That circumstance did not, however, make the offence of the Confederate Government the less. He did not think it necessary to say anything about the report of Mr. Mallory, the Secretary of the Treasury, quoted in that House by the hon. and learned Attorney General; for he did not think it added much to the facts already before them. The genuineness of that report had been denied by Lieutenant Maury; but that gentleman, who was himself employed here in superintending the building of vessels for the Confederate Government, had not said that the facts mentioned in Mr. Mallory's account were not true. Another vessel had escaped from the Clyde, but she was driven on shore by the blockading squadron before she could do any mischief. Pour Confederate vessels had escaped from this country and four had been detained. He was right, therefore, in saying that there had been an organized scheme on the part of the Confederate Government to send men over here and carry on operations for the purpose of building and manning these vessels in the ports of this country, and

  1481
  sending them out as privateers. That scheme was a gross violation of our neutrality and an evasion, if not a breach, of our laws. He had the authority of a writer on international law for saying that an evasion of the laws of a country by the Government of another country was quite as bad as a direct breach of them. The result of the operations of these four vessels on American commerce had been the destruction of 187 vessels and upwards of £3,000,000 worth of property. For that purpose they had gone over the seas, burning and destroying. They had never attempted to send their prizes into port for condemnation in prize courts, according to the law of nations and the usages of war; they had made a constant practice of flying the British flag for the purpose of decoying and destroying innocent merchant vessels; they had made use of British ports, they had been coaled from British ships, and in every respect but one they were virtually British ships. They were armed by Englishmen, built by Englishmen, manned by Englishmen, coaled by Englishmen, paid for by money raised in England, and the half-pay of many of their men was regularly paid in English seaports. They had a few Confederate officers on board, and they had received Confederate commissions; but in everything but a technical point of view they were essentially British ships. He was not aware whether any question had been raised as to what would be their position since the Declaration of Paris, but in his opinion they were privateers—and British privateers. It was a farce and a sham to call them Confederate men-of-war. Looking through the correspondence laid before Parliament, it must be allowed that Her Majesty's Government had endeavoured honestly and in good faith to carry out the Foreign Enlistment Act, though it was to be regretted they had not detained the Alabama. The insufficiency of that Act, however, was so complete, that something more ought to be done to prevent these breaches of neutrality. In his opinion we ought to go direct to the Confederate Government. [Lord ROBERT CECIL: Hear!] He had shown that that Government had entered into a direct conspiracy, and had sent agents over here for the express purpose of breaking our neutrality and evading our laws, and we ought to go to them and say, "We will stand this no longer; we have acknowledged you as belligerents, and as belligerents you have duties as well as
  1482
  rights, and unless you desist from these violations of our neutrality we will take some other measures to stop these vessels." He did not propose direct hostilities, but there were other ways in which it could be done. The Confederates were not entiled to do wrong because they were not recognized as a nation. There was no greater difficulty in dealing with a Government which had not been recognized than there was in dealing with a country with whom we had broken off diplomatic correspondence. From the very first we ought to have prevented these ships from coming into British ports. In 1794 the American Government, although great sympathy for France was felt at that time by the American people, did not content itself with passing a Foreign Enlistment Act and dismissing M. Genêt, but it dismissed all the French privateers from its ports and told them not to return. If we had taken that course long ago we should have deprived these vessels of most of their opportunities of doing mischief. Another course we might adopt would be to say to the Confederates, "We have evidence of your plans, and unless you desist from them we will send our cruisers and take these vessels." In so doing we should only be following the precedent of the Duke of Wellington's Government, which sent out cruisers after an expedition which had been despatched from our shores to Terceira by some Portuguese in this country —a step which was afterwards defended in that House on the ground that our neutrality laws had been fraudulently violated. Thirdly, we might say to the Confederate Government, "We have acknowledged you as belligerents, but only for so long as you observe the law of nations; if you do not we shall withdraw that recognition, and your ships will then sink into the character which properly belongs to them"—that of pirates, he apprehended. There could be no doubt that they had broken the law of nations, for no belligerent had a right to send out hostile expeditions from a neutral country without the consent of that country. It was our duty to the American Government—not, perhaps, a perfect duty, such as they could call upon us to perform, but morally binding—to take some steps for the purpose of putting a stop to the violation of our neutrality. The conduct of the American Government towards us in 1794, and during the Crimean war, had been deservedly praised. An impression

  1483
  had got abroad that vessels had been fitted out for Russia, and particularly one —the Maury—in American ports, but it was a complete error. Looking at the facts, it was distinctly and conclusively shown by the evidence given in the course of a judicial investigation, that the Maury never was intended for the Russian Government; and the merchants of New York held a meeting, at which they came to a resolution expressing their dissatisfaction that the owners of the Maury had not been compensated for the litigation they had had to undergo, nor any apology made for the imputation thrown on them, which, "if it had been true, would have rendered them for ever infamous." He doubted whether the shipbuilders of Liverpool and Glasgow were of that opinion, but he commended the sentiment to their attention. Considering what might be our position in any future war, it was certainly to our interest to take some steps. Supposing we were at war with Germany, he was afraid they would see German privateers fitted out in American ports. There, as here, the law could be evaded, and he feared that there would no longer be the same feeling of honour among New York merchants which they evinced during the Crimean war. Hundreds of American merchants, who had been losers by the Confederate vessels, were yearning for the first opportunity of fitting out privateers to prey on British commerce. One of the first vessels which the Alabama burnt was an American vessel which had been sent with a cargo of corn as a present to relieve the distressed operatives of Lancashire. She wits burnt on her return voyage, and the House could well imagine what were the feelings of the owners of that vessel and other New York merchants when they heard of such an act. It was only the other day, when we were supposed to be on the verge of a war with Germany, he saw it stated in the papers that some of the German States, who were not parties to the Treaty of Paris, and who had no ports, no navy, no seamen, and no flag, were prepared to adopt the principle of the Alabama, and to fit out privateers in neutral ports. They might send out privateers manned by American seamen, and flying a flag unknown to nautical men, in the same way as the Alabama and other vessels. It was therefore not only right, but our interest to do all we could to prevent such ships issuing from our ports. He had shown the insufficiency of the municipal law, and he contended
  1484
  that the Government ought to go to the fountain head to put a stop to these proceedings. There was no need of Envoys or Ministers for that purpose. If the Government would only state in that House the course which they intended to take, it would, no doubt, be reported to the Ministers of the Confederate States, and a temptation would be taken away from Glasgow and Liverpool shipbuilders which they were little able to resist. He made his Motion from no hostility to the Government. He believed they were actuated by a sincere desire to carry out the policy of neutrality, which had been approved by the country, and he hoped to hear that they had taken steps to remonstrate with the Confederate Ministers, or Confederate agents, with a view to putting a stop to such proceedings. The hon. and learned Member concluded by moving his Amendment.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, that She will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House, Copy of any Correspondence between Her. Majesty's Government and the Agents of the Confederate States of America, relative to the building and equipment of ships of war in this country,"—(Mr. G. Shaw Lefevre,) —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGU: It is too early and the House is too thin for the learned Solicitor General to reply to the speech we have just heard, and therefore I rise to address the House, hoping that in the meantime some other hon. Member will be prepared to prolong the discussion, so that there may be a full House when the hon. and learned Gentleman replies. The hon. and learned Gentleman who has just addressed the House has referred to the Foreign Enlistment Act, and it appears to me that Her Majesty's Government cannot be aware what is covered by that Act. They have still to learn that; for we have had but one trial under it in this country, and that one has not been decided—that of the Alexandra. The Americans, however, have had several. Yet it is only by the decisions of the Courts that the scope of an Act can be determined, and in this case our only precedents are those of American Courts. The hon. and learned Gentleman seems to have misunderstood what took place in America when their Fo-

  1485
  reign Enlistment Act was passed in 1794. M. Genét was sent from France to fit out privateers in America against Great Britain. Washington sent down a message to Congress to have them stopped. Jefferson was then Minister for Foreign Affairs, and brought in the Foreign Enlistment Act, which was passed. The hon. Member said Her Majesty's Government should have seized the Alabama and the other ships before they left this country, and his argument in support of this position was—see what the Americans did in 1794, when France wanted to equip privateers there for the purpose of using them against England. But what did the American Government do? Why, they merely sent the privateers away—they did not detain them—they made them all put to sea. So that the argument (that the Alabama and others should have been seized,) seems rather suicidal, according to the hon. Member's own account. The American law is, that American citizens shall not be allowed themselves to fit out privateers, nor be concerned in equipping expeditions against a country which is at peace with America. That is the very case in point, and I ask you, whether you can show that those who built and fitted out the Alabama and Florida intended to commence hostile expeditions against America? Not at all. They built them as commercial speculations, as I believe, and the hon. and learned Gentleman has failed to prove otherwise. He has alluded to the American law upon this case, and has quoted the Terceira case. There are other cases besides that. There is the case of the Santissima Trinidad, for instance, which was fitted out, armed, and equipped in America as a vessel of war, and was laden with munitions of war. She sailed from an American port with the ostensible object of going to the north-west, but she went to Buenos Ayres. She was seized, tried, and acquitted. Judge Story, one of the greatest American lawyers, in his able judgment, said it was not contrary to the Law of Nations or the American Foreign Enlistment Act, to send out armed ships as well as munitions of war, to foreign ports for sale. There is also the case of the Bolivar, another vessel, which was fitted out as a privateer, armed, and equipped by Americans. She was sent to sea and seized, and afterwards tried and acquitted, the learned Judge before whom the trial took place holding the same opinion as Judge Story, that a vessel might be fitted out, equipped, and sent to sea, because it was a
  1486
  mercantile adventure, and not an hostile act. The law, said Judge Thompson, does not prohibit this, even in the case of vessels built manifestly for warlike purposes, unless it can be clearly proved that the owners intended to commit hostile acts with them. Our Foreign Enlistment Act is a municipal law, it appears to me, and does not apply to other nations. It is only a law of our own, and was framed to give the Government the power to protect our own neutrality. It is, in fact, to prevent our people from levying war against other nations, that being the prerogative of the Queen alone. It was not intended to interfere with commercial speculation. War is supposed to animate the trade of neutrals. And as you may sell shot and powder, why not ships, even when they are actually armed and equipped? Any person may build a ship without intending to commit a hostile act against the North or South, and sell it to the first person who chooses to give the price for it. Surely that is not a hostile act. He sells the ship and gets for it that which he values more than the ship—namely, money. He therefore does not choose one side and give assistance to that belligerent. It is merely a commercial speculation. I do not suppose that the hon. and learned Attorney General could, upon those grounds, have advised Her Majesty's Government to seize the Alabama. As to the damage she is doing to the North American commerce, does the hon. and learned Gentleman imagine that the North American Government can establish claims on us on this ground, and go on multiplying and increasing these claims for all that the Alabama has burnt or will burn from this day till she is destroyed? If we are answerable for the Alabama, we must have a remedy. But how can we have a remedy against the Southern States until we recognize them as a nation? It seems to me that it is the Federals who are bound to stop the depredations of the Alabama. Why, have they not a ship quick enough to catch her, and strong enough to destroy her? It is, I contend, to them that the hon. and learned Gentleman should apply, and not to Her Majesty's Government. I have troubled the House with these few remarks, hoping that other hon. Members will follow and express their opinion upon the question. It appears to me the hon. and learned Gentleman has totally and entirely failed to make out his case.
  MR. BAXTERsaid, he had not intended to take any part in the discussion, but

  1487
  having been invited to do so by the noble Lord the Member for Huntingdon, he must Bay, that to his mind a speech more marked by force of expression and continuity of argument than that of the hon. and learned Baronet the Member for Reading they had not often heard in that House. The noble Lord treated the matter as a mere question of municipal law, intended to prevent Her Majesty's subjects making war against friendly Powers, but altogether ignored the higher and greater principle of international obligation.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGU: On the contrary, I distinguished the Foreign Enlistment Act from international law.
  MR. BAXTERcontinued. He understood the noble Lord's argument to be, that unless it was proved that the Foreign Enlistment Act was broken, the Government ought not to take any steps against any of these ships. Irrespective of the mere wording of the Foreign Enlistment Act, we had a duty to fulfil to the other nations of the world, and Her Majesty's Government deserved the thanks of the country for taking the steps they had lately done. He deeply regretted that the Alabama was ever allowed to go to sea, and he honoured Earl Russell for those words in his despatch which had been so much sneered at on a former evening. The escape of the Alabama was certainly a scandal. At first, he believed, the eyes of the country were not opened fully to the danger of permitting vessels of such a character to issue from our ports, although, in times past, we never had tolerated such a system ourselves, and if it were sanctioned in future, the effect must be to set the world in flames and put an end to all friendly inter-course between nations. The feeling of sympathy entertained for the Confederates, merely because they were the weaker party, had prevented many from seeing the matter in its true light, and they rather laughed at the escape of the Alabama and her subsequent career; but those very persons now recognized how deeply bur own commercial interests were involved in such transactions. The noble Lord the Member for Huntingdon poohpoohed the remedies suggested by the hon. Member for Reading, and ascribed to him a proposal that we should go to war with the Confederates—a course directly the reverse of what he had really advocated. We might very fairly adopt one of the suggested courses, because at that moment the Confederates had paid agents in the country superintending the purchase and
  1488
  building of ships for that country. He rejoiced that the Government had at last awakened to the full importance of the question, and in stopping the steam rams on the Mersey, they had performed a great public duty. It was idle to urge that these vessels might have been built purely as a commercial speculation. Avowedly and confessedly, they were built for the Confederate States; and no hon. Member had been or would be so foolish as to insinuate a doubt on the subject. That being so, Her Majesty's Government would have been wanting in their duty had they allowed the taunts of political opponents, or the representations of interested shipbuilders, to divert them from the course they believed necessary to the honour of England, which was certainly for the interest of England, and which, he believed, a Court of Law would ultimately approve.
  MR. P. A. TAYLORsaid, the country attached the greatest importance to the maintenance of a course of strict neutrality, but the main element of neutrality was impartiality. Expressions, however, had been made use of from time to time in debate which he would not say encouraged the breaking of the law, but certainly tended towards a stretching of the law. To use a common phrase, we had declared that the South might steal a horse, while the North would not be allowed to look over the hedge. When the war broke out both parties considered that we should give them our support: the North because we were opposed to slavery, and the South because cotton was king. But both had been disappointed. And what since the war had been the attitude of the two parties towards England in regard to her rights as a neutral? The Federal Government had behaved most loyally towards us. The House had been told by the Attorney General, that he was not aware of any decision in the American prize courts which did not bear on the face of it signs of an honest intention to fairly administer the law. That testimony possessed all the more force, inasmuch as the British Government was not at first influenced in favour of the Northern States, as was clearly made manifest from time to time. The Government had, however, ventured to take a more honest course, evidently led by the necessity for upholding the honour of England and by a regard for the future security of the country when hereafter she would no longer be a neutral, but a belligerent. The tone, he complained, which had characterized some of the speeches in

  1489
  that House with respect to the United States was unfair and impolitic, while sufficient allowance had not been made for the provocation received by them. He put it to hon. Gentlemen, what would they think, supposing we were at war with France, and a vessel, built in an American port with American money, manned by American seamen, and all but equipped under the American flag, were let loose upon our commerce? Would time have been given for explanation or negotiation, or would there not rather have been an immediate declaration of war? What made the case more exasperating was, that a hon. Gentleman, associated or connected with the builders of such a vessel, actually got up in that House and boasted of the building of it. With respect to the steam rams, which he thanked the Government for having stopped, no question had been raised on any side as to the intention with which they were built, nor was it disputed that they were destined to attack Federal shipping. Supposing the Government could not legally have stopped them, what ought to have been the language of those who objected to the detention? They ought to have said, "We are sorry to our hearts that we cannot stop them." But what was the language used in reference to the detention of vessels directed against an ally? It was said, "There is something ridiculous in stretching the law in order to vindicate the law." He, however, thought that nothing was more rational than to stretch the municipal law to vindicate the higher international law. The detention of the rams was only like the detention of a burglar, who, though not actually caught in the fact, was found going about his work with his implements sticking out of his pocket. He thought, therefore, that it would have been the duty of the Government to stop these ships even if they had had to come to Parliament for a Bill of Indemnity. Contrasting the honourable course taken by the United States' Government in respect of vessels fitted out in their ports to act against this country with the tone assumed by hon. Members in respect of the Alabama, he would ask, how had the Confederate States treated us? They only existed upon the ocean by the systematic violation of our neutrality, and had no locus standi upon the sea but by the evasion of our laws. What, again, was the conduct of the Danish Government when a vessel was fitting out in one of their ports with an alleged hostile intent against the Germans? That Government
  1490
  did not indulge in cheatery or evasion. When appealed to, they gave their word that the vessel should not be employed against the Germans throughout the war. Again, it was a principle of international law that property captured at sea must be submitted to a prize court before it could become the property of the captors; and, if that were not so, such property would be at the mercy of any one who might be strong enough to take it. But Confederate cruisers had recourse to no prize court; they simply seized property and burnt it. Whether it was true or not that British property had been destroyed in that way, the British Government was interested in putting a stop to such a breach of international law. It had been said by the noble Lord, and he believed the hon. Member for Sheffield cheered the statement, that no justice could be got from the Confederate States until we recognized them. What was that but saying that a pirate could hoist his flag on any rock, and do any amount of damage without incurring punishment until recognized as a Power? He wished to know, whether Her Majesty's Government had made any reclamations to the Confederate Government on this subject? The tone of discussion in that House was tainted too much with sympathy for a cause which he was surprised hon. Gentlemen opposite should support, since it was the cause of unjustifiable rebellion, even if it did not stand condemned by the common hatred of slavery.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, that Her Majesty's Government had up to that time been attacked for unduly favouring the Federals, and it was said that, having acted under their dictation, the Government had borne very hardly upon the Confederates. It was now alleged that the Government had not taken sufficient steps to vindicate the law in favour of the Federals and against the Confederates. These counter-statements might be left to answer each other, and might be taken as a proof of the neutrality of the Government. In truth, it was with nations as individuals—impartiality of conduct towards two irritated antagonists gave offence to both. His hon. and learned Friend had complained that the Government had permitted the escape of four vessels that ought not to have left these ports, and they were also accused of not taking means to repair the mischief thus done. Without entering into a formal statement of our relations with America, he would offer a few remarks on those vessels.

  1491
  First, with respect to the Florida. Before she left the shores of this country the Government had no sufficient information— no evidence—that she was destined for the Confederate service. She was, however, detained at Nassau, and inquiries were made there by the Consular Court, which acquitted her. That might have been, as his hon. and learned Friend had said, for want of evidence, but in the face of that acquittal the Government could not declare that her equipment was a violation of the Foreign Enlistment Act. Nor was there any reason to suppose that she was manned from this country. There were some few Englishmen among her crew, but there was no ground for believing that the greater part of her crew did not belong to the Confederate States. It was, therefore, impossible for Her Majesty's Government to have stopped the Florida, or to treat her now otherwise than as the properly commissioned vessel of a belligerent they had recognized. In the case of the Georgia, there was no sufficient evidence before she left that she was intended for the Confederate States. The Government, however, had since received information that she was manned in a great measure from Liverpool, and proceedings had been taken against a firm of that town who were charged—he would not saw whether rightly or otherwise— with having organized a system of enlisting men for the Georgia and other vessels. As the inquiry was pending, he would say no more, but he mentioned so much for the purpose of showing that the attention of the Government was directed to the question. The next case was that of the Alabama, which was different from those of the Florida and the Georgia, and also differed from that of the Alexandra, which was also before the Courts, and to which it would be unbecoming in him to allude. Although the Alabama was not armed, yet a portion at least of her equipment might be called exclusively warlike in its character—such as sockets for guns. Depositions were made and laid before the Law Officers of the Crown, that the Alabama was manned at Liverpool, that the agents of the Confederate States at Liverpool enlisted men for her as fighting seamen, and that forty or fifty embarked, some knowing their destination and others being ignorant of it. Now, the Law Officers of the Crown at that time were of opinion that the Alabama ought not to be allowed to leave Liverpool, and in that opinion he had only to say that he entirely
  1492
  concurred. But the vessel escaped, and he quite agreed with his hon. Friend who spoke last that her escape was a misfortune. But, at the same time, it was not a misfortune for which Her Majesty's Government could fairly be held responsible. As soon as the evidence was presented to Government it was laid before the Law Officers of the Crown, their opinion was given without delay, and immediately it was given a telegram was sent to Liverpool directing that the vessel should be stopped. She escaped by a ruse, under pretence that she was going on a trial trip. Her Majesty's Government could not give assurance to other countries that no vessel could possibly escape, or that our laws would not be evaded. All they were bound to do was, to bring a fair and reasonable amount of vigilance to bear in order to prevent violations or evasions of the law. But if it turned out that not merely the Alabama had escaped by a ruse, but a number of other vessels—if several steam rams—and to the subject of the steam rams he should not further allude—had been permitted to escape by similar means, so that the American Government could have said to Her Majesty's Government, "You are maintaining not a real but a fraudulent neutrality; you are conniving at violations of your laws which are notorious to everybody; you won't put your Foreign Enlistment Act into effect"—then they might have just ground of complaint. But the answer to all their complaints, and to all their claims—and that there might be no doubt upon the matter, these claims the Government distinctly resisted—was, "We have fairly and honestly enforced the Foreign Enlistment Act, and have done our bust to preserve our neutrality." With respect to the Rappahannock, his hon. and learned Friend was not correct in saying that she was fitted out in one of Her Majesty's dockyards. She was certainly fitted out in the proximity of one of the dockyards. She was bought by agents of the Confederate States, and was equipped at Sheerness, and the authorities of the dockyard were so much imposed upon as to lend artificers to equip her. But he could say that neither Her Majesty's Government nor the Law Officers of the Crown—so secretly was the equipment managed — had any information that the vessel was being-fitted out for the service of the Confederate States until she escaped. He believed that her equipment was managed with so much secresy as to elude the vigilance of

  1493
  Mr. Adams. It was, therefore, unreasonable to blame the Government for not having prevented her departure. The greater part of the men on board were not aware of the purpose for which they were enlisted, and therefore it would have been extremely harsh to have instituted a prosecution against them. But he regretted to say Her Majesty's Government had too much reason to suppose that an officer in their employment, whose name he need not mention, was more seriously compromised. They had, therefore, thought it their duty to institute a prosecution against him, which would shortly come before the Queen's Bench, and he need not say it would give Her Majesty's Government great pleasure if that gentleman could prove his innocence. He could not agree with the position of his hon. and learned Friend that those ships should be treated as English vessels. He denied they were English vessels. They were not officered by British officers. They were Confederate vessels having Confederate commissions; and because some Englishmen had enlisted in them, and some more might have been employed in fitting them up, that was no ground for calling them British vessels. His hon. and learned Friend had said, in the first place, that they ought to pursue and capture those ships. Capture the Alabama! But they should catch her first. He would remind his hon. and learned Friend, that when a vessel was commissioned by a recognized belligerent, no inquiry could be made into her previous history. It had been decided in the American Courts that a commission from a recognized belligerent obliterated the past offences of the vessel. Therefore, as they had every reason to suppose that the Alabama and the other vessels referred to were public vessels of war, commissioned by a recognized belligerent, it would not be in accordance with the law of nations to pursue and capture them on account of the original illegality in their proceedings. An act of that kind might be construed as no less than an act of war against the Confederate States. That, therefore, was a course which the Law Officers of the Crown could not advise Her Majesty's Government to pursue. But, secondly, his hon. and learned Friend had said, "You ought to keep them out of your ports." No doubt there was more to be said for that. Her Majesty had a right to prohibit the entrance of any vessel into her ports. But, at the same time, Her Majesty's Government thought that, while
  1494
  preserving neutrality and admitting Federal vessels into our ports, if Confederate vessels, or even a limited number of them, were to be excluded, they would be accused of oppressing the weak and truckling to the strong. On the whole, therefore, it was thought more consistent with a fair neutrality to allow the vessels of both parties to come into our ports. There might, however, be conduct on the part of the Confederate Government and of those vessels which would justify Her Majesty's Government in revoking that permission. His hon. and learned Friend next said, that they ought to make the attempts to violate the neutrality of this country by using our ports for the building and equipping of vessels of war the subject of remonstrance to the Confederate Government. He did not understand his hon. and learned Friend to have recommended war. On the contrary, he deprecated any such idea. "Because," as he said, "you do not recognize the Confederates as an independent State, but as a belligerent merely, that is no reason for allowing them to pursue any course of wrong-doing." He agreed with that opinion. They did not recognize the Confederates as an independent Power, and for the simple reason that they were not. They had recognized them as belligerents because they were belligerents. But that was no reason why they should allow wrong to be done to the neutrality of this country. There was, however, some difficulty in approaching the Confederates. It was by no means so easy to make communications to the Confederate Government, nor was the difficulty lightened by their having expelled our consuls. But that was a matter which was under the consideration of the Government, and he believed steps would be very shortly taken for the purpose of conveying to the Confederate Government the remonstrances of this country, and giving them an opportunity of explaining why their agents had acted in the manner described. Her Majesty's Government trusted they would be able to repudiate the conduct of their agents, and to state that what had been done was done against their authority.[Laughter.] The hon. Member would not surely advise any stronger measures until they had made their remonstrances. He did not propose to go at length into the Question, and he had avoided matters which had been from time to time alluded to in the course of the debate, but which were not directly before the House. He had

  1495
  made a statement which he trusted would in the main be satisfactory to his hon. Friends, and he would say, in conclusion, that it had been the most anxious desire of his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General and himself, as well as of Her Majesty's Government, to maintain a strict and impartial neutrality, under very delicate and difficult circumstances, because nothing could be more difficult than to preserve a perfect neutrality between two jealous and exasperated belligerents.
  SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEsaid, that if shipbuilders at Liverpool or Glasgow built vessels of war with an intention to evade the Foreign Enlistment Act, he would not stand up to defend them; but the hon. and learned Member for Reading (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) seemed to maintain that those who bonâ fide built vessels of war, and sold them to a belligerent, were guilty under that Act.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I did not intend to say that they were guilty under the Act, but I conceive that they would be virtually and morally breaking the law if they knew that they were selling the vessels to a belligerent.
  SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEbegged to remind the hon. Member, that that was a point sub judice, and that up to that time many persons competent to give a legal opinion on the subject considered that an act which a British shipowner might fairly do without any breach either of the laws of this country or of international law. Unless he was mistaken, the same doctrine had been upheld by those who represented the United States in former times. If the law was ambiguous, it might be a question whether it should not be made more clear; but until the law was either altered or amended, he contended that those who did such an act were not liable to the animadversion of that House or of Foreign Governments. It would be unfair to interfere with the law unless at the same time the wholesale supply to the other belligerent of the means of carrying on war were prevented.
  MR. J. C. EWARTwas understood to express his conviction, that no shipbuilder or merchant of Liverpool had broken the law, and he hoped that the most strict neutrality would be preserved.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE ISLAND OF SAN JUAN.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. HALIBURTONsaid, he would postpone until after Easter the question
  1496
  which he had given notice of his intention to ask, as to the present state of the negotiations with the United States on the subject of their forcible possession of the Island of San Juan. It had been stated in the journals of the United States that the conduct of a gallant officer, General Doyle, which had been referred to the other evening, had been disapproved by Her Majesty's Government, and that he had been recalled. Any one who knew the United States as well as he did, was aware that there was very little printed in any of the public journals there that was to be believed; but it might be satisfactory to an honourable and sensitive mind if the next mail took out an authoritative contradiction to that report.
  MR. LATARDsaid, that to the best of his belief the conduct of General Doyle, so far from having been disapproved, had received the entire approval of Her Majesty's Government, and he had no reason to believe that that officer was recalled.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.

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

PENAL SERVITUDE ACTS AMENDMENT BILL— [BILL 23.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir George Grey.)
  MR. ADDERLEYsaid, he rose to move that the Bill should be read a second time that day six months. In the event of that Motion being carried, he should submit to the House another Bill, which he did not intend to be in any way a rival measure to the present Bill, but the object of which would be to consolidate the Acts which would then be mutilated and imperfect, by the abolition of the whole ticket-of-leave system in England and Scotland. One grave objection to the measure before the House was the slovenly manner in which it dealt with the important subject of penal legislation. The law as it existed was little better than a piece of patchwork, and the Bill of the right hon. Baronet merely proposed to add another patch. Our legislation for the last fifty years had been a repeated attempt to make

  1497
  the one specific of transportation serve as our highest secondary punishment, in spite of the increasing difficulty of rendering it compatible with the changed condition of the world. And when it became obviously impossible to carry on transportation any longer, and we were obliged to substitute another punishment, (which was done under the name of penal servitude in 1853), we could think of no device, but that of casting the new punishment upon the model of that which had become obsolete. The Acts of 1853 and 1857 enacted nothing specifically or distinctly in themselves. They were simply an attempt, by the most slovenly legislation, to transfer to the new punishment of penal servitude, all the provisions and expressions which were scattered over the statute book in relation to transportation, with the saving words added, "so far as they may be consistent with this Act." The consolidating Acts of 1861 had, besides, rendered much of these Acts superfluous, and some of the Acts recited in these Acts were since partially repealed. There was no hon. Member of that House who would not allow that the most essential features of penal legislation were clearness and precision; but these Acts which embodied the highest penalty next to death, so far from having any clearness or precision about them, were a mere snare and a misty speculation. The right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary, the other evening, bore somewhat unwilling testimony to the signal success of a penal Act, which was passed in the last Session, and which had at least this contrasting feature, that it imposed a clear and tangible consequence upon one species of crime. The right hon. Baronet gave the statistics of the remarkable diminution of that species of crime since the passing of the Act in question, but he sought to disconnect that diminution from the Act which bore upon the subject. The right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary asked how often the Act had been enforced. It had been enforced some five or six times. [Sir GEORGE GREY: No, no!] He bowed to the superior authority of the right hon. Gentleman, but he certainly thought his own information was accurate. At any rate, there were three sentences imposing corporal punishment upon garotters during the winter assize, and only the previous day he was present at Warwick Assizes, when Mr. Justice Byles ordered two men to receive thirty lashes apiece. However, he was himself better satisfied with the
  1498
  proof which had been afforded that good penal laws were economical of punishment, and that they produced a diminution of crime without any need for their enforcement. The right hon. Baronet was wrong in supposing that the proof of the goodness of a law was the multiplicity of its enforcements. If that were the test of merit, he would allow the very highest merit to penal servitude. He believed that penal servitude as carried out under the present law would, with the additional patchwork which would be introduced into it by the Bill before the House, multiply punishment to the choking up of the gaols of the country. But, abstaining from further remarks on that point, he would at once proceed to deal with the actual principle of the present measure. The first question raised by it was that of the wisdom of remissibility of punishment. It was proposed to amend the ticket-of-leave system as it had been carried out in England for the last eleven years, simply modifying a scheme which had been proved to be bad, and avowedly not removing the cause of that badness. The length or shortness of the term of penal servitude was not the main question before the House, and he must say he thought, that while long and short terms of imprisonment were both requisite and useful in their way, the right hon. Gentleman would have done better, if, instead of abolishing the shortest term of penal servitude, he had made it a short term of real punishment. The shortest term was supposed to fill up the interval between the punishment of imprisonment and that of penal servitude, and by its abolition the right hon. Gentleman had left open a space which he had not even attempted to occupy. True, the longest term of imprisonment was far severer than the shortest of penal servitude, which was meant to be an aggravation of punishment. But the true intention might be realized. It seemed, he might add, somewhat remarkable that both the right hon. Gentleman and those who entertained the same views on the subject, while generally showing so great a deference to the opinions of the Judges, yet condemned the extensive use made by them of the shortest terms without ever considering the reasons which might have induced them to take that course. But, to return to the main question involved in the Bill, he would briefly discuss the points whether, in the first place, there should be any remission of punishment at all; and, if so, whether it should be conditional or abso-

  1499
  lute. The reasons assigned for the remissibility of certain fixed portions of punishment were, first, that it gave hope to the prisoner, and, secondly, that it facilitated the task of keeping control over him. In support of the former reason, it was urged that a chief part of the punishment must consist of labour, and that labour without hope would brutalize. Earl Grey, in the Report, put the point more philosophically, observing that aversion to labour was the principal cause of crime, and that, therefore, incentives to labour would be the most appropriate remedy in the reformation of criminals. The noble Earl was in favour of making labour attractive, as necessary to the reformation of criminals, but it was only necessary to look a page or two further on to find him contending, that in the process of punishment labour must be irksome and distasteful; so that, in order to carry out the theory of remissible punishment, labour must be made at once attractive and repulsive. The fact, however, was, that the Report was full of contradictions, and that the right hon. Baronet (Sir George Grey), in seeking to introduce a Bill founded upon it, ought either to have divided his measure into two, or admitted that the arguments against his proposal, drawn from the Report, were as strong as those in its favour. For his own part, he was prepared to allow that labour, if made punitive, as it ought to be, in our prisons, must be distasteful; while he was willing to concede that it should not be made so distasteful as to shut out all the influences of hope. Hope should be held out, but that might be done better by means of classification and promotion in prison than by destroying the stringency of the sentence, as the Bill proposed. Indeed, he felt perfectly satisfied that the perpetual changes and experiments which had been made in our sys tem of secondary punishment had, so far from operating beneficially on the prisoner's mind, kept him rather in a state of constant irritation and suspicion of wrong which had often led to outbreaks in our gaols. Having said thus much on that point, he should proceed to deal with the second reason given for the remission of punishment—namely, that it facilitated the control over prisoners while in confinement. On that point he would say, "Make your system of punishment what it ought to be—not of a nature to brutalize by any means—but when you have made it what it ought to be, trust rather to the strength than to the discre-
  1500
  tion of your sub-officials for its administration. If the number of those officials be too small, make the aggregate of prisoners in each goal smaller, or the staff of your warders larger; but, at all events, let everybody see that you have power to carry out the discipline you have imposed, and do not trust to humouring and coaxing to enforce the sentence which has been formally and judicially pronounced." The right hon. Baronet, however, contended that there would be no uncertainty in punishment under the Bill, inasmuch as the portion which it made remissible was a fixed proportion of one-fourth. But the proportion remissible up to the present time has also been fixed, not indeed by Act of Parliament, but by circulars, in every gaol, so that whatever failure had hitherto been found to attend the system would be no less likely, on the score of fixity, to continue under the operation of the right hon. Baronet's scheme. For his own part, he felt assured that so long as any portion of the punishment was subject to remission, the whole would, to a criminal's calculations, be characterized by uncertainty. Any man would fear more the certainty of dying in twelve years than the possibility of dying in less. But there was another kind of uncertainty which was even more objectionable than the interference with the sentence, and it was that which arose from the feeling that punishment might depend, more or less, for its continuance or abridgment on the caprice, the want of judgment, or the cowardice or dishonesty of any one of a number of subordinate officials. So strongly had that objection been felt, that it was said the remission of a sentence should no longer be made dependent on the report by warders of the conduct of a man, but on the actual amount of work done by him, for which there should be a specific test. What would be the result so gained? Why, that the strongest villain in the gaol would get off with the lightest punishment, while his miserable fellow prisoner, who had, perhaps, been led by him into crime, would suffer most. Earl Grey, in another place, spoke very strongly in favour of the remission of punishments, contending that those who were opposed to it were taking steps to retrograde from the position which enlightened men had taken on the subject of criminal legislation for the last fifty years. But he added, "there is great difficulty in carrying out the system, for this reason—that there is no fair measure of conduct, and that the greatest hy-

  1501
  pocrite gets off the best." Supposing, however, that the House was determined to continue the remission of punishments, the next thing they had to consider seriously was, whether it should be conditional or absolute. If the remission was conditional, it was so simply on the convict committing no fresh crime; but would not a severer punishment, in the event of a second conviction, have an equal, if not a greater effect? The only value of conditional remission was, that it afforded a pretext for police supervision. That suggested two questions—would such supervision be advantageous, and, if it were advantageous, was it possible? Great objections had been raised against it. It, was a system quite un-English, and which could be thoroughly carried out only in a country like France, and which was not much approved of there. If it had succeeded in any degree in Ireland, it was only because the circumstances of Ireland resembled those of France rather than England in the centralized police. At all events, he had a very strong conviction that; supervision would not be beneficial. All agreed that it very much impeded the liberated convict in returning to an honest course and in obtaining employment; and he knew of no compensating good which it produced to set against that great evil. But, whether advantageous or not, was supervision possible? They had had eleven years' experience in England to convince them that it was impossible in this country. Even the author of the present Bill himself told the House that he did not believe supervision to be practicable here; and neither in the schedule of the measure, nor by means of provisions outside that House, did he mean to attempt to carry it out. Well, then, if police supervision in such a placeas London is of doubtful utility and more doubtful practicability, and conditions of remission have no value except for this purpose, he hoped no one would support a sham condition. If it could not be made a reality, any condition ought to be dispensed with. The right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary had confessed that he entertained a strong feeling against attaching any conditions to the remission of punishment, and was personally rather in favour of making the remission absolute. He had not been able exactly to gather the counter reasons which had led the right hon. Baronet to give up that opinion. He intimated, indeed, that without supervision we might seem to be
  1502
  letting out criminals to emigrate; but that seemed a reason in favour of remission without supervision. It was very significant, however, that after so many years of experiment they were invited to try a new one which, its author and advocate told them plainly was intended only for the present and was not to prejudge the future. In his opinion, it would be better to make the remission of punishment absolute rather than conditional, if the conditions are shams; but it would be better still to have no remission at all. He might add his regret that the Bill should have been extended to Ireland, because whatever they did, they ought to leave well alone. Ireland had been very successfully treated under the existing system, and there was no reason for a change. There was sufficient difference between the conditions of Ireland and England to account for such a law being successful in the former which might not be suitable for the latter country. He hoped that, whether or not the measure was passed for England, Ireland would be exempted from it. Before he concluded, he might, perhaps, be allowed to say a word in his own personal defence. A friend had charged him with inconsistency in advocating fixed and simple punishment for men, and mixed treatment for juvenile criminals. He thought he was justified in drawing a distinction between the two classes. The young who fell into criminal life by the default of tutelage were not altogether responsible for their actions, and there was some hope of reforming them. It was justifiable, therefore, to give them short punishments, and afterwards to attempt their reformation at school. Such a speculative effort, however, was out of place when one had to deal with hardened adult criminals, who were fully responsible for their deeds. It was with diffidence that he ventured to oppose his opinion to that of the Home Secretary, who had had such great experience on the subject, and had so long occupied a high place in the councils of the country and in the estimation of his fellow-countrymen. He entertained, however, very strong and deliberate convictions on the subject, and held that, after the repeated failures they had witnessed, they ought to be very cautious in committing themselves to such a measure as that before them, and he thought, moreover, that the success of the Bill he had introduced in the previous year entitled him to express his convictions. He

  1503
  begged to give notice that, in the event of his Motion on the present occasion not being successful, he would on a subsequent stage, and by a specific Resolution, raise the question of retaining tickets-of-leave without police supervision. He begged now to move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
  MR. BEACHbegged to second the Motion. He said, that the time was come when the House must face the great and embarrassing question of penal servitude for our criminals in all its bearings. To send convicts to Australia under present circumstances would be inexpedient, and would, moreover, be only a temporary remedy for a growing difficulty. They must also consider the system of punishment in county and borough gaols, for Sir Joshua Jebb said, that a very large proportion of the inmates of convict prisons had found their way there after suffering frequent imprisonment in county and borough gaols. The system in county and borough gaols should be changed, so as to make it more punitive, that criminals might dread imprisonment there. In Hampshire, at the instance of the Earl of Carnarvon, certain changes in the penal discipline of the county prison had been made. Alterations had been made in the hard labour, in the diet, in the hours of sleep, and in other matters. They had made their discipline more stringent and more irksome to the prisoners, though without undue severity; and it was to be hoped that other counties would take example by what had been done, for it was of paramount importance that uniformity of punishment should prevail in the various counties. But what would be the use of stricter discipline in county prisons, if the Government establishments were so conducted that prisoners actually longed to be sent there, and committed crimes with that very object? The Governor of Gloucester Gaol had supplied very interesting information on that head, and had brought forward several cases of criminals who had broken the law in order to enjoy the advantages of the Government prisons. One, for instance, declared that it was not worth while stealing bread or committing any small offence, and that it paid much better to go in for the burning of a rick or something serious at once. He feared that the present system of penal servitude was not as deterrent from crime as it should be; and the Commissioners agreed in this view. It was dangerous that such a slate of things should exist.
  1504
  The principle that the counties should deter and the Government reform, had been carried to a most unwise and injurious extreme, as was proved by the number of prisoners against whom previous convictions were recorded. There must be some mistake in a system which allowed such a vast increase in crime. The immense expenditure which it entailed was an additional reason for looking into the question. It was a fact, proved in evidence, that many ticket-of-leave men were re-convicted without detection. Hence it was impossible to tell how much any calculation fell below the proper average; but if we gave our convicts in gaols light labour, an ample diet, large gratuities, and a tolerable certainty of revision of sentence, we need not wonder that many looked forward to imprisonment as rather an indulgence than anything else. He did not mean to say that the labour was nothing. The evidence showed that three convicts did the work of two ordinary labourers. That was a fair amount, but it did not demand the large and ample diet which was supplied. Men suffering for crime should not be treated better than honest and industrious labourers. The average cost of the keep of a pauper was 2s. 3¾d. per week and 2s. 6¾d., while that of a convict was 3s. 10¼d. It had been said that diet was simply a medical question. What view did the doctors take of it? The question was, whether 39oz. of meat per week, which was the allowance of a convict, were absolutely necessary. To some paupers the allowance did not exceed 4oz. Mr. Gye, an eminent surgeon, whose opinion was entitled to great consideration, said he should consider the diet excessive for any amount of work that could be got out of prisoners by any contrivance. As for gratuities, it might be said that some incentive should be held out to convicts for good conduct and industry, but he thought the gratuities were rather high. Those given in Ireland were about half that were allowed in English prisons, and he believed they operated well. The question of remission of sentence was a very difficult one. The Lord Chief Justice had ably argued, that under no circumstances should there be a remission of sentence, but the evidence generally was rather opposed to that view. It was said that the discipline of a gaol was promoted by the prospect of a remission being held out. He would say, however, that remission should not be made

  1505
  certain, but should depend upon the good conduct of the prisoner, who ought to be taught to regard it as something to be earned. Hitherto, unless a man had behaved himself very badly, he might almost reasonably look forward to a remission at a certain period. Let them change that, but in changing it something more must be done. The ticket-of-leave system was established for a good purpose, but the provisions of the Act had been systematically disregarded. There had been no supervision of any sort over discharged prisoners. The present Bill provided that holders of tickets-of-leave should be severely punished on reconviction, but how were the police to prove that they were ticket-of-leave men if they did not know them? If men were to be discharged with tickets-of-leave, there ought to be an active supervision by the proper authorities. He did not agree with the right hon. Member for Staffordshire (Mr. C. B. Adderley), that police supervision would be difficult to carry out, or was un-English. No doubt, as the Commissioners said, there were difficulties in the way, but the object was one of such extreme importance, that it ought to be attempted. Sir Richard Mayne was of opinion that the arrangements adopted in Ireland might be introduced into England. At first sight it might appear that police supervision would interfere with the employment of discharged prisoners, but that would be the case only when the duty was performed without either tact or discretion. If the police performed their duties properly, no such consequence need ensue. The evidence showed that in Ireland, where the officials certainly were very able, police supervision had actually assisted convicts in obtaining employment; and if the Irish plan were introduced into England, we should have no reason to regret it. The great fault of our criminal system was indicated by Sir W. Crofton, one of the highest authorities on the subject, when he said that the success of the Irish system was due mainly to a feeling on the part of the convicts from the commencement of their sentence, that they could not follow crime as a vocation with impunity, and that the great evils which had occurred in England, and the great expenditure consequent on crime, had arisen from our believing that the majority of convicts in Government gaols were casual offenders. They were dealing more with hardened criminals than with casual offenders, and he thought the Government
  1506
  might have adopted the recommendation of the Lord Chief Justice, that there should be no remission of sentences at all. Although he did not himself agree entirely with that recommendation, still it would have been a definite course to pursue; but, in the next place, if the remission of sentences were to be retained, it should be retained under particular safeguards, and, above all, a prisoner once discharged should be entirely free. That, he was inclined to think, would be the best principle to adopt, and then the convict should be obliged to earn the remission by a regular gradation. The system of "marks" which obtained in some of the Irish prisons might be introduced into the English prisons, and then, if the prisoner were discharged quite free, he would be more likely to conduct himself well than if he were released under a ticket-of-leave. If, however, tickets-of-leave were maintained, there ought to be an active supervision by the police. But, instead of taking either of these courses, the Government appeared to have come to the conclusion, that the best thing was for them to do nothing. They had, indeed, increased from three to five years the minimum term of penal servitude; but then the mass of the evidence was in favour of not less than seven years. In conclusion, he concurred in the hope that that House would emphatically express its opinion on this subject, and he trusted the result would be the introduction of a measure more adequate to the occasion than the one now before the House. For these reasons, he would cordially second the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Adderley.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, that the question before the House was no party question, and he had no hesitation in rising thus early in the debate to express his dissent from the views advocated by his right hon. Friend the Member for North Staffordshire (Mr. Adderley). The opinions entertained by his right hon. Friend were purely theoretical, and were opposed to those of persons who had special experience of the working of our convict system. His right hon. Friend objected to Ireland being brought within

  1507
  the purview of the Bill, because the system was working so well there. Well, Ireland was exempted; but the object of the Bill was to introduce that system as far as practicable into England. No doubt the Bill might be amended with public advantage, but the principle of the partial remission of a sentence, to be earned not upon the easy terms of submission to the authorities of the prison, but by hard work and actual good conduct, was, he thought, a salutary one. His right hon. Friend said that, under such a principle, the strongest man would have the best chance, but of course those who had the care of prisoners would have to apportion the tasks imposed upon them according to their varied physical capacities; and then, if the work so allotted were not honestly done, the convicts would not earn the proffered remission. His right hon. Friend objected also to what he called experiments in the matter; but in the treatment of human beings there would never be anything but experiments. His right hon. Friend had propounded his own theories, and had laid down certain rules to be adopted in the prisons, and he should certainly not like to be in a gaol in which the system proposed by his right hon. Friend was adopted. His right hon. Friend said the system of punishment should be uniform, deterrent, and bitter; and he was not disposed to dissent from that statement. He trusted that during the nine months which convicts were to pass in prison before going upon public works, they would be subject to the same strict and bitter discipline which was to be enforced in county prisons. There must be something wrong in the present system under which a man sentenced to what was nominally the lighter sentence of eighteen months' imprisonment considered himself more hardly used than a man who was sentenced to three years' penal servitude. It was clear that a Judge, in directing what was supposed to be a heavier sentence, ought not to be obliged to impose what was in reality felt to be a lighter one. It was, however, stated that prisoners had expressed that preference. "Well, that ought to be amended. He could not agree with the right hon. Gentleman that punishment, when lengthy and severe, was not also to be treated as a curative and reformatory process. The hon. Member for Hampshire (Mr. Beach) had spoken of the ticket-of-leave men obtaining the assistance of the
  1508
  police in, procuring employment. These men must have been impressible, if they would thus go to the police for counsel and advice. Doubtless men who had gone on in a long career of crime were almost hopeless, but their reformation should not be given up altogether. He did not think we should use our punishments merely as instruments of terror. If that were adopted as a principle we ought to go back to the obsolete system which prevailed before our prisons underwent visitation, and even to others of a more horrible nature than anything that was ever likely to be adopted in this country. We had heard much of Neapolitan prisons, in which prisoners were chained together by night and by day. If any punishment would be deterrent that would seem to be so; but such punishment was too penal, and inflicted injury on the minds and the hearts of the prisoners as well as on their bodies. Such punishments were physically, intellectually, and morally evil; and they ought to be entirely discountenanced. He believed that the prison diet had been too good; but that question was not involved in the principle of the Bill. Where the diet had been too good it ought to be modified. In 1852 the expense of a prisoner's diet at Portland amounted to £7 10 s. a year; whereas in 1857 it had risen to £12. That was an enormous increase, and, contemporaneously with such increase, crime had risen, though not to the height at which it stood before the diminution which was antecedent to that increase. Then as to the gratuities, it was his opinion that they ought to be diminished. He understood the right hon. Baronet to say they were to be diminished. [Sir GEORGE GREY: They have been.] He believed they were to be £3 as a maximum. Of this he approved. That amount was liable to diminution, but there could be no increase. Of course, it was absolutely necessary that prisoners should have some means when they left prison, or they must of necessity return to their former courses. His right hon. Friend had stated, that the Bill he was influential in passing last year had had a very great effect. He trusted it might have a good effect; but he was not one of those who supported it, because he did not believe in its efficacy as a deterrent from crime, nor in its efficacy as a punishment except when sharply and immediately applied for offences in prison. His right hon. Friend objected

  1509
  to remission of punishment altogether, or he objected to it unless accompanied by a very stringent supervision. In his objection to remission altogether, he certainly was not very consistent. He said it was necessary to hold out moral incentives; it was necessary to have classification. Well, he (Mr. Hardy) went from his right hon. Friend as a theorist to practical men; and said that the system recommended by his right hon. Friend had not succeeded, and that something more was wanted than increase of diet, elevation in classes, and marks of honour, and that what a prisoner sighed for was the time when he would be his own master again—when he would be free from that strict supervision and task-mastership under which he was suffering. All those who were connected with prisons knew that the only real incentive on which they could rely for effecting a moral influence on the conduct of convicts was the prospect of shortening the term of their imprisonment. The directors of convict prisons told them that if they relied solely on moral incentives, or upon coercion alone, or on both together, they might send the convict out of the prison worse than he went in, in a hardened state, fitted for any crime. Having received no kindness, they would return none; and when they went forth among their fellow-creatures it would be to prey upon them, as they had done before they entered prison. His right hon. Friend had said that remissions introduced uncertainty, and that changes were undesirable, because no one would know what his punishment really was. But if change was undesirable, the changes which his right hon. Friend proposed were much larger than that of the right hon. Baronet. His right hon. Friend proposed that sentence should be pronounced by the Judge, and that there should be no diminution at all. The right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department proposed that sentence should be given, but that there should be a certain known remission to be earned by the hardworking and good conduct of the convict. There was no uncertainty there, except in the man himself. That element might also be made certain if he chose. He could make his punishment nine years, instead of twelve or thirteen, as pronounced by the Judge. Where, then, was the uncertainty? It had been suggested by the Directors of Prisons that convicts should not go immediately into liberty from the public works, but that they
  1510
  should undergo a short imprisonment separately before they finally left the custody in which they had been. It was very desirable that they should be taken away from their associates on public works for some time; but that was a matter of mere arrangement for the Home Office, not for the Legislature. Suppose they were to have remission, what sort of remission was it to be? He thought the period assigned by the Secretary of State not an unreasonable one—that by hard, continuous work, and good moral conduct, a convict might have one-fourth of his original sentence remitted. This could not well be done without efficacious supervision. Unless the supervision were efficacious, it would be better to let the prisoners go free at once. Supervision was, indeed, said by his right hon. Friend to be un-English. He agreed with the noble Viscount at the head of the Government, that a favourite proposition of some hon. Gentlemen on the noble Viscount's side of the House was un-English. But when he was told that supervision was un-English, he denied the allegation. On the contrary, it was an English duty to supervise criminals. Talk of depriving a man of his civil rights! It was the convict who had deprived himself of civil rights. Even the most imaginative chartist of former years insisted that the acquisition of the franchise should be restricted to those who were not convicted of crime. The men to be dealt with under the Bill had not only committed crime, but part of their sentence was unexpired. He understood that an hon. Member had given notice of an Amendment to let the men go absolutely without supervision, provided, however, that if they committed a new offence they should be recommitted to undergo the remainder of the original sentence. Well, that was not an absolute remission. It was conditional, after all. But what was the dreadful supervision his right hon. Friend seemed so much afraid of? When the man left prison, it was necessary that the police should know where he went, and that he should receive, at all events, a portion of his gratuity in the place to which he removed. He would be satisfied with the supervision of a Prisoner's Aid Society where one existed. But in. places where there was no such society in existence, the prisoner must go and report himself to the police. Not that he should say to every policeman whom he might meet, "I am a ticket-of-leave man, and

  1511
  you must keep a close watch, on my movements;" but he would report himself to the head police officer in the place, and it would be for that officer to use such means as he thought proper to watch over him, and see that he did not again fall into crime. It was objected by some that policemen should not have the power of supervision, but it was well guarded, as in the case of any breach of licence the man must be taken before a magistrate. It was for the same reason as he distrusted the common policeman that he distrusted the common warder; and, therefore, he hoped the Home Secretary would tell them whether in the prisons as they were in future to be carried on, there would be better and more responsible heads over a smaller number of prisoners than had hitherto been the case. What was wanted was a certain limited number of prisoners separated from the rest, as he understood was recommended by the prison directors—of some 300 prisoners, with officers responsible to and in communication with the prison directors, so that the discipline should not be left to persons so incompetent as mere warders, who, as appeared by returns, were being constantly changed. The next point upon which he desired to make a few remarks was transportation. Having been a member of the Transportation Committee which sat two or three years since, he had heard a good deal of evidence about Western Australia. At that time, considerable objections were urged by the other Australian colonies against an extension of transportation system, but the objections were not so extreme as they had since become. Most of those who sat upon that Committee arrived at the conclusion that transportation, if it could be obtained, would be a benefit alike to this country, to the prisoners themselves, and to the colony of Western Australia, and they thought that an exaggerated notion of the evils likely to occur to the other colonies was prevalent. That being so, he was not surprised to find that the Royal Commissioners took the same view as the majority of the Committee. But, knowing that in governing mankind respect must be paid not only to their wishes, but even to their prejudices, he could not help thinking that if the feeling in the other Australian colonies was so strong as it appeared to be, it would be unwise to resist it. Therefore, he reluctantly submitted to the necessity of con-
  1512
  fining the inquiry to discipline at home with a limited amount of transportation such as they now had. The right hon. Gentleman had introduced a new limitation by advancing penal servitude from a minimum of three years to five years. That was an improvement, but he would have been pleased if the limitation had extended to seven years. He could not help thinking that the step to nine months imprisonment, and three years and nine months on public works, was not so great a step as was formerly taken with regard to transportation, and which, with the experience of the course taken by some of our Judges, we ought to take. Some of the sentences recently pronounced for short periods of penal servitude were, having regard to the offences for which they were the punishment, so ludicrous as to make the criminal law a perfect farce. He had recently seen reported a case of violation of a child, accompanied by robbery, in which the sentence was but three years penal servitude. In the case of violation by a number of men—the heaviest, most brutal, and wicked offence that could be committed—the offenders were also sentenced to even penal servitude. Even if he remembered correctly, only three years since the discussion in that House, in which five years had been assented to as the shortest period for penal servitude which could be inflicted with advantage, at the last assizes, in one case for a very heinous offence, the Judge pronounced a sentence of four years penal servitude. It seemed to him that, although there had been faults in carrying out prison discipline in sentences of penal servitude, yet what was chiefly wanted was, that when the Legislature had awarded a certain punishment for a given offence, when that offence had been committed in its worst degree, the heaviest punishment should be inflicted. The contrary practice led to what was called discrepancy of punishment, because there were some Judges who, looking at the statutes under which they were acting, felt bound to award the heaviest punishment for aggravated offences. It was also said, that as prisoners knew one gaol from another, so they knew one Judge from another, and were especially anxious not to come before particular Judges. In the same way, the improved prison discipline in Leicestershire deterred the criminal class from becoming subjects for its operation, while it actually improved those

  1513
  prisoners who underwent that discipline by inducing them to resolve never to risk the ordeal again. He had heard that since the discipline of Winchester Gaol had been altered, the criminals of Hampshire, those who looked upon the prison as an agreeable place to spend six weeks occasionally, now were of opinion that it was not a place to enter again. Penal discipline should commence as severely as was consistent with the maintenance of the physical and mental health of the prisoner. The diet ought not to be such as to injure a man, but, on the other hand, it ought not to be such as would in any way cause envy to those who were leading honest and industrious lives, nor provoke a remark of discrepancy between the destitute poor in workhouses and the criminals in gaols. After the imprisonment there should be a period of employment upon public works—a strict disciplinary punishment, such as would compel a man to work hard to procure a remission of his sentence. Every day's remission thus earned was something gained to the prisoner, by teaching him the value of industry and hard work. His right hon. Friend near him said that the strong man would have the most work to do, but the fact would be that the man who was most anxious to obtain his liberty, who was most improving under the discipline, would be the hardest worker, and his character would be improved by the discipline. He agreed that the practised thief—the man educated to crime—would he found difficult to reform, but there was a large class of prisoners undergoing punishment for what were called crimes of violence—men who had committed offences in moments of hot passion, and to those men such discipline as he had described would be acceptable and beneficial, although it might fail with the hardened thief, the practised burglar, or the receiver of stolen goods. There was one other point of considerable importance upon which he wished to make a remark. At present there was no punishment between the sentence of death and one of penal servitude. In cases where sentence of death was remitted, a sentence of penal servitude under the forms of the law was wholly inapplicable to the crime that had been committed. Sentences of death were only pronounced in cases of murder, and in such cases he thought the criminal's transition from the sentence of death to penal servitude should be one of actual civil
  1514
  death, as far as his friends and relations in this country were concerned. He admitted that that would inflict hardship and suffering upon friends and relations, but that was one of the unhappy consequences of crime; as now, when a prisoner pleaded for mercy on account of his wife and family, the Judge told him he should have thought of them before committing the offence. What was really to be considered was the interest of the public, and he insisted that the punishment for such heinous offences should be sudden and deterrent, by cutting off the offender from all those social and domestic ties, a severance of which in this country was held to he equal to death. Theirs should be a separate and distinct punishment from that inflicted on other criminals. Such men should never be brought into community with those guilty of lesser offences; and it should be proclaimed that in this country the sanctity of life was so great, that a man who wilfully killed another should be cut off from the ordinary society of mankind. He knew the advantage which he would be giving to those who argued that capital punishment should cease altogether by the institution of such a punishment. But there was no more chance of abolishing capital punishment while the present system continued than there was of changing the course of the earth, for it was felt that penal servitude, as now enforced, was a punishment wholly inadequate for so enormous a crime as that of taking a man's life. He thought it would be unwise to reject the Bill upon a second reading. In the main, the House seemed to be agreed that penal discipline was to be carried out more strictly and for a longer time than at present, but that they would not yield to theories as against the experiments of those who were experienced in prison discipline—that they would not take away the remission of sentences, while, at the same time, they would insist on a proper system of police supervision. Criminals who were in fact still undergoing their punishment had not the ordinary privileges of Englishmen, and, having cut themselves off from honest society by their crimes, must expect, while in custody, to be subjected to a uniform and a deterrent discipline, and afterwards, so long as their sentences hung over them, to the supervision which it was alike the right and the duty of the State to enforce.
  THE O'CONOR DONstated, that the difference in the propositions of the right

  1515
  hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Adderley) and those of the Government rested mainly on two points: the advisability of remission, and the advisability of a system of conditional release, and consequent upon that some description of supervision. It was argued that the remission was a departure from the sentence of the Judge, and was a boon granted to certain prisoners. But the fact that, under certain circumstances, this remission would be granted, was a fact which was, or ought to be, well known to the Judge before he passed sentence, and the consequence was that he increased the length of the sentence. There was thus an addition, at present, to the term during which the prisoner would otherwise be confined; and if he were not well conducted and industrious, he would have to pass that period in prison. Thus he was led to adopt a habit of self-control which, to persons accustomed to indulge their passions, was in itself a severe and salutary punishment. It was pretty generally admitted now that they could not, by brute force alone, oblige a man to work as hard as he could work, and to behave himelf as well as he could behave if he liked. "Well, then, the system of remission came into play, and this was how it worked:—Suppose a man sentenced to eight years' imprisonment, with the remission of one-fourth if he conducted himself well. Would he not, with the alternative before him of suffering an additional restraint during two years, be less likely to be idle and misconduct himself than he otherwise would be? "Then," it was said, "by these remissions you introduce a great deal of uncertainty into the punishment of crime." But in the case he had just put, the punishment was equally certain, whether it was suffered for the six or for the eight years. In the able memorandum drawn up by the Lord Chief Justice, his Lordship said that the uncertainty attendant upon remission made the punishment less deterring than it should be; but he highly approved of transportation to "Western Australia and of remission there; and it was difficult to see how, if uncertainty was the result of remission at home, it was not equally so abroad. The Lord Chief Justice, therefore, was inconsistent with himself. The substitutes proposed for remission, if even they were practicable, were objectionable in principle. As to rewards for good conduct, he thought that there were serious objections either to rewards in the shape of a better dietary or to those by way of gra-
  1516
  tuities. The first tended to interfere with the general arrangements of the prison; besides which, the general dietary in convict prisons was notoriously better than that which could be obtained by the honest poor man outside. The system of gratuities was objectionable because, if they discharged a convict with any considerable sum of money in hand, the great probability was that he would spend it in dissipation, which would result in fresh crime. It appeared to him, therefore, that the only safe way of rewarding a convict, was by the remission of a portion of his sentence. Then, on the question, whether the remission should be absolute or conditional, he was in favour of the latter, accompanied by supervision. If they did not put in force the conditions, they ought to abolish tickets-of-leave. If they were not to have supervision, let them discharge the convict absolutely when they sent him out of prison. It was urged against a supervision of convicts by the police, that it would be the introduction of the French system of espionage. He contended that the supervision, obliging the discharged convict to report himself to the police authorities, would not be analogous to that system; but at present there existed in this country something very like the French espionage, for in our criminal statistics there were tables under the heads, "Known thieves," "Receivers of stolen goods," "Tramps and prostitutes," "Suspected characters." The police were directed to watch all discharged criminals, to note their doings, and observe the houses frequented by suspicious characters. Those proceedings of the police had been going on for years without any objection having been taken to them. Again, it was said that if discharged convicts were obliged to report themselves to the police authorities, it would interfere with their obtaining employment. That he denied, and he might refer to the case of Ireland in support of his position. In that country the supervision of the police had greatly facilitated discharged convicts in obtaining employment. Even if such an instance had not existed, he should on theory have expected the same result. The Government seemed to favour the proposition of resorting to photography. And it was proposed to dispense with the necessity for the prisoners reporting themselves, but, at the same time, to afford the police every facility to discover what they did when discharged from prison, and photography was to be

  1517
  used to facilitate their recapture by the police if necessary. If they did that, were they not carrying out that espionage to which they so much objected, and which they sought to abolish? It might, indeed, be said, that by abolishing the system of supervision they were encouraging espionage. He had been greatly amused the other day by reading an article in The Times, which gave a graphic account of the steps taken by the French police to discover what the conspirators were about. In that article the leading journal warned Englishmen against police supervision, hut a proper supervision of criminals discharged before their sentence had expired, would have the effect of rendering the elaborate system of the French police wholly unnecessary. No doubt a proposal to abolish the ticket-of-leave system would, at first sight, be acceptable, but the experiment of conditional release had never really been tried in this country. Men were discharged with a piece of paper, and told not to frequent certain places, but they had been allowed to do it nevertheless. In Ireland the conditional release system had been put into operation in name and in fact, and had been found to work well. This proposal would merely abolish a name here, but in Ireland it would abolish a system which had been most successful there. It would be more reasonable to extend the Irish system to this country. While he agreed in the main with the measure, he could not agree in the proposal contained in the fifth clause, which enacted that for every breach of licence the offender should be brought before two magistrates and sentenced to a special punishment for that offence. He was afraid that in Ireland that provision would lead to a great deal of difficulty in the working out of the system which, up to that time, had worked so well there. He had certainly given his assent to the paragraph in the Report on which the provision was founded, but it was with the intention of giving facilities to the Crown for revoking the licence on the breach of its conditions. It would be simpler on breach of the conditions of licence, to send a man back to suffer the unexpired portion of his sentence. At any rate, he hoped that the Government would consent to except Ireland from the provision. In conclusion, he must express a hope that the right hon. Gentleman would not oppose the second reading of a Bill which was based on right principles,
  1518
  and might be satisfactorily carried into effect.
  SIR WILLIAM MILESsaid, that having acquired a knowledge of criminal law from presiding at Quarter Sessions, he would ask the indulgence of the House while he gave his opinion founded on an experience of thirty years. They had before them three systems which were proposed as an alteration of penal servitude. 1st, The system recommended by the Commissioners; 2nd, that of the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary; 3rd, that of his right hon. Friend the Member for North Staffordshire (Mr. Adderley). He had no hesitation in giving his support to the system of the Commissioner which assigned, as the minimum of penal servitude, the period of seven years. As the right hon. Baronet intended only to send persons under a long sentence to Western Australia, it must be his intention to keep those under the minimum servitude at home; and in this way he would carry out the wishes of the people of Western Australia, and give the community an opportunity of testing the effects of the system. He was sorry that the right hon. Baronet had not, along with the Bill under consideration, laid upon the table his Bill on prison discipline. The two subjects were intimately connected and ought to be discussed together. But unless the right hon. Baronet took the regulation of prison discipline in his own hands, and laid down general rules defining hard labour and the dietary of every prison and house of correction, little would be done to equalize punishment. He should be glad to state what he considered to be the effects of the present system of penal servitude not only upon the prisoner, but upon the country at large. He had read with great care the Report of the Commissioners, and the statements of Sir Richard Mayne and of the chief constable of his own county. A great deal had been said about supervision, but it appeared from what Sir Richard Mayne stated, that no supervision of criminals in the metropolis had been exercised, except in the year 1863. It was an anomaly that whilst the police could warn the employers of old thieves who had served out their term of prison punishment, their mouths were closed against men who had been more recently converted and had obtained tickets-of-leave. That was not fair treatment of the public. Sir Richard Mayne stated, that there was an accumulation of

  1519
  thieves in the metropolis owing to the short periods of penal service, and the system of tickets-of-leave and letters of licence, and gave it as his opinion that the short sentences did not deter either those who had been in penal servitude or those who were likely to be so. Then, again, the chief constable of his own county gave him three instances of criminals recommitted in one year. The first was of a man who committed burglary on his way home from the convict establishment at Chatham, and said he did not mind being sent back to Chatham as he lived better there than in his own house, and if he wanted anything he had only to ring his bell and a servant in livery attended him. The second was that of a notorious burglar, from Birmingham, who had been previously convicted of robbery with violence, and he said he did not care about going back to prison, as the only thing he missed there was his daily paper. The third was the case of a man charged with arson, who expressed a hope that he might be transported, as he lived better during his term of penal service than he had ever done at home, and after the expiration of his former sentence received £15. These instances showed that penal servitude had no deterring effect, and that there was a necessity for carrying it out with greater vigour. It was ridiculous to bring prisoners out to South-sea Common to work and have a band playing for their amusement. Such was not a proper penal servitude. He would refer to the case of a man who, in 1851, committed a crime and was sent to prison on fifteen years' sentence. Long before the completion of his sentence he was at large, and when asked how that had come to pass, his reply was, that he had assisted in saving the life of a warder. That was very good. In 1861 he was tried for murder, and was acquitted, though not morally, and on that he should offer no remark. In 1862 he was again brought up, and was found guilty of two offences, for one of which he was sentenced to a week's imprisonment, on the other to fifteen years' penal servitude. He again got at large, and then was convicted of burglary, for which he was sentenced to ten years' penal servitude, to commence at the expiration of the former sentence. Now, that man was at large again in 1862, although his character was bad in every respect. The man was too knowing a great deal to commit any fresh crime himself, but his occu-
  1520
  pation consisted of training young thieves to commit such offences as might insure their being condemned to penal servitude, instead of mere imprisonment when once convicted. It was the fault of our entire system that it was too tender to the criminal, too oblivious of the public; and yet it was proposed that the minimum sentence should be five years, though the Commissioners had recommended that it should be longer. As to the question of conditional and unconditional pardon, he had always thought that once the Judge had pronounced sentence, no pardon should be granted except under the Royal prerogative. But, looking to the system acted upon since 1853, he was prepared to abandon his own ideas. He thought, however, that the Judge, at the time of passing sentence, ought to be empowered to point out to the criminal how, by industry and good conduct, he might better his position. And that he would certainly do in every ease if the remissions were embodied in an Act of Parliament: the circulars of his right hon. Friend, on the other hand, being only good for one year, were likely to be referred to in addresses to juries, and then to be forgotten. He regretted that the Duke of Newcastle having laid down principles in his despatch which no constitutional lawyer could gainsay, had not felt it right to act up to them. The expectations and desires of the West Australian colonists had been disappointed by the arbitrary limitation to two shiploads of convicts, only 500 or 600 in number. He had listened with great pleasure to the arguments of the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Hardy) whose speech had his approval in all respects, except as to the conditional and unconditional pardon. He believed that when pardons were given they ought to be unconditional, for gangs of men had no objection to work with convicts who by fulfilling their time were supposed to have expiated their offence. Ticket-of-leave men, on the contrary, were shunned and sent away.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he had trespassed so long on the attention of the House when bringing in this Bill, that he should only feel it necessary to offer a few observations, especially as he gathered from the tone of the debate that there was no serious objection to the second reading of the Bill, and many of the points adverted to could be better disposed of in Committee. The Bill was grounded entirely upon the recommendations of

  1521
  the Commission, which sat so long and went so carefully into the whole of the subject, and which was composed of men in whose judgment and experience the House might place every confidence. It had not been practicable to carry into effect all the recommendations of that Commission, but there was no portion of the Bill which was not founded upon some part of their Report. The objection taken to the minimum period of penal servitude was one which could better be discussed in Committee, and he would, therefore, abstain from repeating the considerations which had influenced the decision of the Government. One hon. Member had objected to the measure as it applied to Ireland, but the power given to magistrates to adjudicate in cases of alleged breach of the conditions of licences was in accordance with the Report of the Commissioners, and was the only mode in which the supervision of convicts could be effected. No doubt there was great difficulty in acting on the mere report of a policeman, and where a licence-holder was believed to be acting in violation of his licence, he might, under this Bill, be taken before two magistrates. He would there be entitled to defend himself, the evidence would be given on oath, and the magistrate would adjudicate on the case. In accordance with the recommendations of the Commissioners, when a licence was revoked the holder was not to be subject to go back to prison merely for the unexpired term of his sentence, but would begin at the point when he was discharged, and be liable to serve the whole of the term then unexpired. It was hoped that the provisions of the Bill would make the punishment of penal servitude more deterrent than at present. A photograph of the licence-holder on his discharge would be sent to the police of the place where he goes: he would have to report himself to the police of any county or town to which he might go after his discharge; and when the police had reason to think that he was acting in violation of his licence, they could take him before a magistrate. He had been struck with the difference of the views of the mover and seconder of the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Staffordshire (Mr. Adderley) objected to the punishment of transportation; the hon. Member for North Hants (Mr. Beach) regretted that it was not carried out to a
  1522
  greater extent. The right hon. Gentleman objected to the principle of the remission of sentences; the hon. Gentleman, on the other hand, concurred in the principle of remission. He would not go over the ground again, but both the English and Irish convict directors had found from experience, that the principle of remission was essential to any good system of penal servitude. He agreed with the Chief Justice that the great object of punishment was the protection of society, and that the reformation of the prisoners was but the subsidiary purpose of penal servitude, the primary one being its deterring effect. But he thought that the two principles might be combined. The principle of the remission of punishment had been in operation for some time, and he believed it to be essential where convicts were subject to imprisonment for a long term of sentence. He thought that if his hon. Friend had visited Pentonville he would have been satisfied that the separate imprisonment was sufficiently severe. It was not intended that any remission of the preliminary term of separate imprisonment should take place, and the whole of that punishment would, therefore, be undergone until the removal of the convict to the public works. He could not but think that the account given by his hon. Friend the Member for Somersetshire (Sir William Miles) was rather highly coloured. He could only say that under no regulation of which he was cognizant could a man, who had been sentenced to twenty-five years' transportation, and ten years' penal servitude, have gained his freedom within the time named. If, however, his hon. Friend would give him the man's name he would make an investigation into the facts. It was desirable to remember what the system of punishment was before penal servitude was partly substituted for transportation. At one time convicts who were sentenced to seven years' transportation, were all retained in the country, and discharged without restraint after undergoing less than half the term of their sentence. With regard to the maintenance of the punishment of transportation, it would have been possible for the Government to have disregarded the remonstrances of the colonists, and to have fully carried out the recommendations of the Commissioners. He regretted that the Government did not possess greater facilities for transporting prisoners. It was an advantage to the prisoner by removing

  1523
  him from a country in which the labour market was overstocked, and it was to the advantage of this country to get rid of him. But the Government could not come to any other conclusion than that which they had announced, unless they had been prepared to enter upon a contest that would have led to much had feeling between the colonists and the Home Government, which it was most desirable to avoid. He was glad to find that the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington), who was one of the Commissioners, had come to the conclusion that, under all the circumstances of the case, the Government had no other course to pursue than that which they had taken. With regard to the question of diet, a Committee had been appointed, consisting of three medical gentlemen, who had made careful inquiries into the dietary of prisoners in separate confinement, and had made certain recommendations which would be adopted. They would also investigate the diet of the prisoners employed on public works, with a view of seeing whether any reduction could be made consistently with the health of the convicts, and with enabling them to perform the labour allotted to them. The Committee would also inquire into the dietaries of the county and borough prisons. The principle upon which they would proceed would be, that the diet should not be more than would preserve the prisoners in health, while, on the other hand, it should not be a penal diet, in the sense of being injurious to health and life. The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Hardy) had referred to the classification of convicts under proper officers and in small bodies. That point had not been lost sight of. A classification of convicts had been made, the staff of officers had been increased, and officers of a higher class, in whom confidence might be felt, would be placed over different bodies. The principle of marks also, by which the industry of convicts might be rewarded, had been adopted. If Parliament should sanction the Bill before the House, he thought that a material improvement would be made in convict discipline.
  MAJOR WATERHOUSEsaid, differing as he did with the right hon. Gentleman who had moved an Amendment to this Bill, he concurred in the main with the views to which the right hon. Baronet (Sir George Grey) had given expression, and he begged
  1524
  to record his appreciation of the importance of the measure. It was a source of great congratulation that no party spirit had been evinced in that debate, and he trusted their future discussions on the Bill would be conducted in a similar manner. He was at a loss to conceive why the system which had been adopted in Ireland should not be admitted in this country. It was true the police organization in both countries was not analogous, but he had no doubt that a wise supervision on the part of the police would be eminently successful in mitigating the difficulties with which we had to contend. He hoped the House and the country at large were not prepared to go back in the course upon which they had entered, that they would not revert to fixed sentences, and that, maintaining the system of remission of sentences, but under a due police supervision, they would accomplish the end which they all had in view. It was alleged that in the country districts it would be impossible for the police to exercise a surveillance; but his own experience led him to the contrary conclusion, though he did not believe it could be carried to the same extent as in Ireland. He and some of his fellow-magistrates of the West Riding of Yorkshire had gone over to Ireland with the object of examining into the Irish system, as it had been organized by Sir W. Crofton, whose services he hoped were now so appreciated that he would soon be placed in a position where his eminent talents would have full scope. Upon their return they introduced into that part of the Wakefield Prison over which they had control—they could not do so with regard to the convict prisoners—some of the privileges accorded to prisoners in Dublin, and the consequence was, they succeeded in establishing a much better discipline, and in effecting at the same time a considerable saving of expense. He hoped their success at Wakefield, owing to a well-regulated system of diet and discipline combined, would be an inducement to others to follow their example. He trusted that for the future licences given to convicts would not be a mere matter of form, but that those who held them would be required to act up to the conditions on which they were granted, and that, if they abused the licence, the same would be revoked and the offenders punished accordingly. There were many ticket-of-leave men in the West Riding who, although not committing crime, were living an idle and disso-

  1525
  lute life, and it should be compulsory on the police to take them up accordingly. He should cordially support the Motion for the second reading, should the House go to a division.
  MR. J. BRAMLEY MOOREsaid, he believed the diet given to prisoners in this country was very much in excess of what was necessary for the support of health. It had been stated with truth that the convicts who had been sent out to Australia were far better fed than the sentinels who guarded them. He was not of opinion that a sufficient supervision could not he exercised over ticket-of-leave men in this country. The system which had been adopted by Englishmen in our colonies might equally well be carried out in the great towns and cities at home. If that system were adopted in this country, the police would be able to tell where every one of the dangerous characters was to be found, and that would be a great safeguard in the administration of justice. It was quite impossible to resume transportation to the Australian colonies on any large scale; and, therefore, it had become absolutely necessary to determine how the resources in this country could be best applied to the control of the criminals at home. In his opinion, the only way to provide an effectual control over them was by placing them under the supervision of the police, and making them muster once in every month. With regard to ticket-of-leave men, he was quite sure that it ought not to be necessary to take them before a Judge and jury to ascertain whether they were escaped criminals, but that the magistrates in petty session ought to have power, on the production of the record, to re-subject them to their original sentence. Sympathy with criminals was all very well in theory, but what ought to be looked to was the protection of the honest part of the community. He thought that the present Bill was a step in the right direction, but it did not go far enough. He accepted it as an instalment of a better measure, which he still hoped to see carried out, and would give his vote for the second reading.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read 2°; and committed for Friday next.

GOVERNMENT ANNUITIES BILL.

  [BILL 11.] COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  MR. C. TURNERsaid, there was a strong objection to one of the clauses of this Bill, and he would express a hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not proceed with the Bill at so late an hour (ten minutes past twelve o'clock).
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that he proposed only to proceed with that portion of the Bill which was not objected to, referring to annuities, and to take what related to life assurances on another occasion, when it might commence the business of the evening, and a full discussion might be had on it.
  MR. H. B. SHERIDANbegged to observe that Clause 2 was the debatable part of the measure, for it was one by which the Government proposed to undertake the business of life assurance proper to an amount of £100 and under; a question which excited a large amount of interest, and required full discussion. So far as the Bill related to annuities, he had not the least opposition to make, but he had been solicited to request the right hon. Gentleman to postpone the consideration of the objectionable clause until after Easter.
  MR. F. S. POWELLsaid, he was of opinion that the discussion of an. important measure of that description should not take place at so late an hour. He regretted that the name of the Bill should have been so unfortunately selected as not to convey an idea of the real character of the measure. In his opinion, it was one that trespassed upon the domain of private business, and, therefore, that it ought not to be proceeded with, except with great deliberation. He would, consequently, move the adjournment of the debate.
  MR. THOMSON HANKEYsaid, he could not understand why the House was asked to discuss that measure at that late hour. Before they went into Committee on the Bill, they ought to hear a statement from the right hon. Gentleman, which could not then conveniently be made. He was not prepared" to say that he would oppose any of the clauses of the Bill, but he had a strong prejudice against

  1527
  one of them, which might possibly be removed by the explanations of his right hon. Friend.
  SIR FRANCIS CROSSLEYsaid, he was anxious that that stage of the measure should be postponed. The title of the Bill conveyed no idea of its real meaning. Instead of being a Government Annuities Bill, it was a Bill to enable the Government to set up as life insurers; and it must either prove a dead letter, or destroy the existing life insurance offices. He did not see what object was to be attained by dividing the Bill. If the measure only consisted of three clauses, there would be no difficulty in disposing of those which were unopposed when the measure came on for discussion at a future day. He protested against such a measure being hurried through the House, and would suggest that its further consideration should be deferred until after Easter, or, at all events, for a longer period than until Monday next.
  MR. HARVEY LEWISsaid, he begged to join his entreaties to those which had already been addressed to the right hon. Gentleman to induce him to postpone the further consideration of the Bill. Its effect would be to enable the Government to become a great trading firm, to which the taxpayers of the country would be involuntary parties; and a measure of such importance ought not to be forced on at half-past twelve o'clock at night. The very classes for whose benefit the measure was designed were opposed to it. He had been overwhelmed with letters against the Bill, but had not received a single one in its favour.
  SIR MINTO FARQUHARsaid, he had given notice of his intention to move the omission of the second clause. He did full justice to the desire of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to advance the interest of the industrial classes, but in his opinion the Bill would not promote that object. The measure would not affect the large insurance offices, but there was a vast number of smaller insurance offices of respectability which were immensely interested in the issue, and those persons who were insured in those offices were proportionally interested. There was an office in London in which the policy-holders under £100 were 175,000, while there was a society for insurance at Liverpool in which there were no less than 345,000 members, which might be affected by the provisions of this Bill. The measure had been pressed on in a manner that was altogether unpre-
  1528
  cedented, and lie was quite at a loss to understand the reason for so much haste. If the right hon. Gentleman wished to pass the first clause he would support him, but the second clause touched upon a great principle, and the statement by the right hon. Gentleman respecting it had been misunderstood. They all knew what deferred annuities were, but as to Government insurances, unless the right hon. Gentleman could show how they were to be effected, the whole matter would require much consideration, and the Bill ought to be postponed beyond Monday.
  MR. KINNAIRDsaidthat,in his opinion, the opposition was unreasonable, especially as it related to a mere point of form which they had all understood was to be agreed to in order that a full discussion might take place on Monday. He was sure that the more the measure was discussed the more would its benefits appear.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that either there was a connection between the two parts of the measure or there was not. He was sure that the right hon. Gentleman was animated by the best intentions in introducing the measure, but as it had created considerable alarm he hoped ho would, in justice to himself, proceed with it in a full House.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he had been asked why he had combined two distinct subjects in the same Bill, and his answer was to be found in the history of previous legislation upon the subject. He was prepared to detach the two questions in considering the Bill, in order to give the House an opportunity of fully discussing the main point at a reasonable hour, and if the course which he had proposed were acceded to, he would be prepared on Monday to begin the discussion with the subject of life assurance. He submitted that the course he proposed was the obviously proper one, but if it were desired, he would agree only to go into Committee that night, without passing any of the clauses.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he hoped that the House would agree to the course which his right hon. Friend proposed; for the only object was to go into Committee, so as to secure the position of the Bill on the order for Monday, when a full discussion could take place.
  Debate adjourned, till Monday next.
  House adjourned at One o'clock, till Monday next.