Commons Sitting of 6 December 1867

ESTATES OF THE DEAN AND CHAPTER OF WESTMINSTER.—QUESTION.
MR. GOLDNEY, in the absence of his hon. Friend (Mr. Bentinck), said, he would beg to ask the Judge Advocate General, Whether the Law Officers of the Crown have declined to sanction the scheme for the transfer of the Estates of the Dean and Chapter of Westminster to the Ecclesiastical Commission, and what course the Ecclesiastical Commission propose to take in consequence?
MR. MOWBRAY, in reply, said, the case was not exactly as had been stated by his hon. Friend. What had taken place was this. In the scheme for the commutation of the estates of the Chapter of Norwich, doubts were entertained by the Law Officers of the Crown as to some points. The same objections were also applicable to a similar scheme in reference to the commutation of the estates of the Chapter of Westminster, and it was therefore determined to refer both schemes to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. They were so referred accordingly, and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners had taken steps for the consideration of the questions raised at the earliest moment. He hoped, however, that early in next year the decision of the Judicial Committee would be given.

SPAIN—THE "QUEEN VICTORIA."

  QUESTION.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is the case that no redress has yet been afforded to the owners of the Quèen Victoria, and that they have neither received their Ship, which is still in the harbour of Cadiz, nor any compensation from the Spanish Government?
  LORD STANLEY: Sir, the state of the case as regards the Queen Victoria is as follows:—The Spanish Government have expressed their willingness to grant compensation to the owners, and the only question now in dispute relates to the amount. I am bound to say that the claim made by the owners appears primâ facie to be somewhat excessive, and the Spanish Government have demurred to
  642
  it on that ground. The amount to be awarded is still under consideration. I have written more than once to urge that the affair should be brought to a speedy settlement, and I received a promise that it should be settled without any unreasonable delay.

  THE INDIAN COUNCIL.—QUESTION.
  MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, Whether he can state to the House the names of any Members of the Indian Council who may intend retiring from the Council, and the period at which their retirement will take effect?
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEreplied that he had received no communication on the subject from any Member of the Indian Council.

  TURKEY—MAINTENANCE OF THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE.—QUESTION.
  MR. GOLDNEY, in the absence of his hon. Friend (Mr. Bentinck) said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any fresh understanding has been recently come to between France and Austria for the maintenance of the Ottoman Empire; and, whether Her Majesty's Government has been invited by Baron de Beust to take any, and what, action on the subject?
  LORD STANLEY: I am not aware, Sir, of any understanding of the kind having been come to between the French and the Austrian Governments. It is true that some suggestions were recently made to Her Majesty's Government by Baron de Beust as to the advice which should be given to the Porte, and those suggestions have been listened to with the respect due to any advice coming from that quarter, but no action has been, at present taken on the subject.

  COLLISIONS AT SEA.—QUESTION.
  MR. HOLLANDsaid, he wished to ask the Vice President of the Board of Trade, Whether any alterations are contemplated in the Rules of Road at Sea, with a view of avoiding the constant collisions occurring under the present system?
  MR. STEPHEN CAVE: No, Sir, no alterations are contemplated in the Rules of the Road at Sea. Collisions are not caused by observance, but by neglect or misconception of those rules. The Board

  643
  of Trade has just completed a set of simple diagrams explaining in the clearest manner the way in which vessels should comply with the Rules of the Road under every circumstance. These diagrams are in accordance with the views of the Trinity House, and are now under the consideration of the Admiralty. We are only waiting for their official confirmation, to submit the Papers to the Judge of the Court of Admiralty and the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, by whom questions relating thereto are eventually decided. When an authoritative interpretation of these rules is thus obtained, I believe that accidents resulting from misconception will be very rare. I laid on the table a few days ago Papers which fully elucidate these points. I could not now explain them further without entering into technicalities which hon. Members would find it difficult to follow, and which would carry me beyond the ordinary limits of an answer.

  ABYSSINIA—PRESENTS FROM KING THEODORE.—QUESTION.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the sum of 3,000 dollars in money and the value of presents stated by Mr. Flad in his letter to the Earl of Clarendon, no date, but received 10th of July, 1866, and numbered 30, to have been given to Mr. Consul Cameron by King Theodore, has been credited to the British Exchequer; and, whether the sum of 25,000 German crowns, embracing value in presents, stated by Mr. Flad in the same letter to have been given to Mr. Rassam by King Theodore, has been credited to the British Exchequer; and, if not, whether any Reports of the receipt of these sums by Messrs. Cameron and Rassam has been made to the Government?
  MR. HUNTsaid, in reply, that neither the money stated by Mr. Flad to have been given to Mr. Consul Cameron by King Theodore nor that said to have been received by Mr. Rassam had been credited to Her Majesty's Exchequer. The matter was one which hardly fell within his Department; but he had obtained information from the proper quarter, and found that Mr. Rassam reported to Colonel Merewether and the Foreign Office that he had received 10,000 dollars and other presents from the King; and from Mr. Flad's letter, referred to by the hon. and gallant
  644
  Member, it appeared that when Mr. Rassam was arrested, the money in his possession, 6,800 dollars, was taken from him. The only reference which could be found in Mr. Consul Cameron's report to any money received by him was contained in a des-patch dated October 31, 1862, in which he said that the King had sent him a present of 1,000 dollars, which he had, at great risk of incurring the King's displeasure, refused to accept. He added that in order not to irritate the King he would hand over the 1,000 dollars to the Negaderass of Odona. In the same despatch Mr. Cameron reported that he had accepted certain presents of arms on the behalf of Her Majesty.

DISTRESS IN EAST LONDON.

  QUESTION.
  VISCOUNT ENFIELDsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Poor Law Board, Whether any representations from Boards of Guardians in the East of London relative to the distress prevailing in that district have been received by the Poor Law Board; and, whether the attention of the Board has been directed to the subject; and what is the latest information they have received from that locality?
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, in reply, that since June last, when deputations from the parish of Bow, which was in the Poplar Union, waited upon Lord Devon to complain of the pressure of the poor rates upon that locality, no direct representations had been received by the Poor Law Board from the guardians upon the subject; but, in consequence of a letter addressed to the Secretary of State about two months ago, the attention of the Poor Law Board had been continually directed to that question. It appeared that the number of able-bodied persons employed in the stone yard of that district was less than half what it was twelve months ago. A large number of persons—850 in all—had been assisted to leave the district; partly with a view to emigration, and partly to go to other parts of the country where there had been a demand for their labour. On the other hand, he was sorry to say that the distress was now rather upon the increase, and seemed to have reached a better class of people than those ordinarily in the receipt of parish relief. Various measures had been adopted by the guardians to meet this emergency. In the first place, having ascertained that many poor persons

  645
  were parting with their clothing and bedding in order to avoid applying for relief, the guardians had determined within these few days to make loans of bedding and clothing to persons so circumstanced. Moreover, they had added to their staff of relieving officers and assistants. The Inspector of the district had also been in communication with those gentlemen who on previous occasions had formed themselves into relief committees. No such committees were at present organized, and it was hoped and expected that there would be no necessity for that organization. In the event, however, of circumstances requiring it, arrangements had been made by which the relief committees would act in connection with the Boards of Guardians, and he hoped that the lists of persons to receive assistance would not be made out by them separately—namely, independently—the practice having been found on former occasions to be productive of great inconvenience. The guardians were at present in possession of ample funds to meet all probable contingencies. They had large sums of money in hand, and the rate in the current quarter was only 11 d. in the pound, as compared with 1s. 8d. and 2s. 1d. in the two previous quarters of the year. There was every reason to suppose that, unless a severe frost or some sudden emergency should arise, provision had been made to meet all contingencies during the coming winter.

IRELAND—IRISH CHURCH REVENUES.

  QUESTION.
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether a statement of the Reverend Dr. Alfred Lee, to the effect that a document relative to Irish Church Revenues, entitled "Observations on Dr. Brady's Letter to The Times," has been prepared and issued with the sanction of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for Ireland is accurate; and, if so, will he lay a Copy of it upon the table?
  THE EARL OF MAYOsaid, in reply, that though the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were not under the control of the Irish Government, he had made inquiries on the subject referred to, and was informed by the Commissioners that a Minute was adopted on the 5th of April, 1866, to the following effeot:—
  646
  "The Commissioners having read a paper of observations upon a letter recently published in The Times newspaper respecting the revenues of the Irish Church, by the Rev. William Maziere Brady, D.D., the same was approved, and ordered to be printed for private circulation."
  This was all the information he had upon the subject. With regard to the document referred to, if the hon. Gentleman would move for it, he would ascertain from the Ecclesiastical Commissioners whether they would object to its being laid on the table.

INDIA—IRRIGATION.—QUESTION.
MR. OTWAYsaid, that a letter on the subject of Irrigation in India had appeared in the City Article of The Times, with a signature and address well known at the India Office, and, with reference to the statements therein contained, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, Whether it is true that the East India Irrigation Company is compelled by the regulations in India to charge for their supply of water only one-fifth of the price charged by the Government for its supply; whether he contemplates purchasing the rights and property of this Company, and, if so, from what source he proposes to take the sum necessary for the purchase; whether any negotiations have been entered into with the Chairman or other officers of the Company respecting the sum of £50,000, or any other sum to be paid to them as compensation in the event of the purchase; and, whether it is his intention to obtain the sanction of Parliament before completing their purchase?
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE, in reply, said, he had seen the letter to which the hon. Member referred; but he was not prepared to admit the correctness of the statement that the East India Irrigation Company "was compelled to charge for their supply of water only one fifth of the price charged by the Government for its supply." As he understood the mode in which that calculation was made, it was something to this effect:—The writer took the price at which the Company were required to supply their water. He said they supplied such and such a quantity of it, and calculating the quantity of water supplied in the North-West Provinces under the Government regulations there, the price per gallon was very much lower in Orissa than in the North-West Provinces. Now, that was not the way in which the charge was regulated. It was

647
regulated at so much per acre, and he thought it would be found that the rates prescribed in Orissa and those in the North-West Provinces were substantially tolerably equal. The rates fixed for Orissa were—for a single flooding, 1½ rupees per acre; for one crop 3 rupees per acre; for two crops within the year, 6 rupees per acre, commutable to an annual payment of 5 rupees per acre. In the North-West Provinces a somewhat similar arrangement prevailed, but at rather various rates for different crops—for sugar-cane and gardens, 5 rupees per acre; for rice, tobacco, opium, vegetables, and Singhara nuts, 3 rupees per acre; all other spring crops, indigo, and cotton, 2¼ rupees per acre; and for all other rainy season crops, 1 2–3rds rupees per acre. It was impossible, however, to enter into a full discussion of the subject in answer to a Question of this kind. With regard to the Question whether it was in contemplation to purchase the rights and property of this Company, and, if so, from what source the sum necessary for the purchase was to be taken, he would say that such a purchase was intended. The Government of India had stated to the Secretary of State that, in their opinion, it would be desirable to make an offer to the Company to purchase the whole of their works and plant in Orissa and Behar, and that subject had been under consideration for some time. Ultimately, on the 22nd of November, the Council came to the conclusion that it was desirable to make an offer to purchase those works. Of course, the sum necessary for that purpose must come from the revenues of India, and would be something between £800,000 and £900,000. It was a question whether the money could be provided out of the surplus revenues of India within the present year, or whether it would become a charge upon the Indian revenues in the shape of a debt. If the latter course were decided on, it would only be giving effect to a provision made last year under the auspices of his noble Friend the Member for Stamford (Viscount Cranborne), that irrigation works in India should be carried on to a certain extent with borrowed money; and it might possibly be thought desirable that money should be borrowed for the purpose of taking these important works into the hands of the Government and carrying them on. With regard to the next Question of the hon. Gentleman, he would state the proposal that had been
648
made. The Council proposed to purchase the works on the terms of giving to the Company the par value of their shares in cash, and, in the words of a letter to Mr. Westward, dated November 22, 1867—
"A further sum of £50,000, to be appropriated in any way that a general meeting of the shareholders of the Company, called for the purpose, may decide, whether in compensation of their officers, or otherwise, on the distinct understanding that the Secretary of State will not hereafter recognise any further claim for compensation for the officers and servants of the Company."
The money, therefore, was not to be given by way of compensation to the officers or directors, but to the shareholders, and the Secretary of State clearly said that the officers should have no claim whatever upon the revenues of India. With respect to the last Question, it was not necessary that he should bring the matter before Parliament, and he would not take any exceptional course for that purpose.

PROBATE DUTY.—QUESTION.
MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether it is the intention of the Government to bring in a Bill to carry into effect the recommendations made by the Inland Revenue Commissioners in their last Report, relative to the Assessment of Probate Duty on leasehold property subject to mortgage?
MR. HUNTsaid, he was unable to give an answer. The House had met at an unusually early period, and many questions were still pending which, if the House had met at the usual time, would have been announced.

ARMY—MAJORS IN CAVALRY REGIMENTS.—QUESTION.
MR. BRYANsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether, in the event of vacancies occurring in one or more of the Cavalry Regiments (not on Foreign Service), which have at present two Majors, by the demise of one of those officers, it is his intention to make a fresh appointment, or allow the step to be absorbed?
SIR JOHN PAKINGTON, in reply, said, that the hon. Gentleman did not appear to have very accurately recollected the change which had been made in the course of the last Session. That change was to this effect—that as cavalry regiments returned from foreign service, the second Major would be allowed to remain

649
permanent, so that gradually all cavalry regiments would have two Majors. In the case contemplated, the vacancy would be supplied by promotion in the regiment.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER.

  QUESTION.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, he wished to ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Whether he will undertake that the Office of Prothonotary to the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster, which, since the death of Sir Charles Phipps, has been temporarily held by the clerk to the Duchy, shall not be permanently filled up till Parliament has had the opportunity of considering the question of the application to be made of the fees levied in favour of that office; and, whether the fees collected at present are held for public account in connection with that Court?
  COLONEL WILSON PATTENsaid, in reply, that it was not his intention to make any alteration in the arrangements come to on the death of Sir Charles Phipps with regard to the office of Prothonotary, and the funds arising from the fees remained as they were. If he were to make any change it would only be of a temporary nature, and subject to any alteration which might be thought necessary when the Commissioners should report.

  ABYSSINIA—DR. BEKE AND MR. LAYARD.—QUESTION.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he wished to put a Question to the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, with reference to a Notice which stood in his name on the Paper—that Notice standing before the Notice given by the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Layard). He wished to ask, Whether the noble Lord will think proper to lay before the House the Papers referred to in these Notices?
  MR. LAYARDsaid, that his notice was intended to include that of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate). It was with deep regret that he had given that notice. He should be glad if the noble Lord would answer the Question.
  LORD STANLEY: Sir, I am glad that my hon. Friend (Mr. Newdegate) and the hon. Member (Mr. Layard) have taken the course of putting a Question to me, because I am bound to say in answer that on full consideration I do not think I can refuse
  650
  to give the Papers. One reason why I did not insert them in the blue book was because, in the first place, they relate to private quarrels and disputes, and have no reference to the general course of the Abyssinian negotiations; and, in the next place, I confess that I think it would have been just as well that the matter had been kept from public notice. As, however, the parties on both sides believe their characters to be affected by such disclosures as have been made, I do not see how Her Majesty's Government, who are in no way concerned, can refuse to produce the Papers. I would, however, make one suggestion to my hon. Friend. There are in the letter of Dr. Beke, for which he asks, some passages attacking persons not in England, which I think Dr. Beke would not desire to see in print, and I think these passages would be better withheld. I will consult with my hon. Friend on the matter, and, subject to that reservation only, I will give the Papers.
  MR. LAYARDsaid, that the noble Lord had published in the blue book a despatch referring to that correspondence. He would appeal, therefore, to the noble Lord after what had occurred, and considering the opinion which the House had been led to form with regard to certain expressions, used by him (Mr. Layard) in debate, whether in his own justification he was not entitled to have the whole of that correspondence. If any part of the correspondence was proposed to be omitted, he would divide the House upon the propriety of such a course.
  MR. NEWDEGATErose—
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, that it would not be convenient that a debate should take place on the subject merely on the putting of a Question.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that the noble Lord had put a question to him, and he merely wished to say that he should be very happy to be guided in this matter by the noble Lord.

METROPOLIS—GUARDIANS OF ST. LUKE'S PARISH.—QUESTION.
MR. CHILDERSsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Poor Law Board, Whether his attention has been called to the Report of the proceedings at a meeting of the Guardians of St. Luke's Parish last night, at which the clerk to the Board of Guardians was reported to have said that, if one of the nurses was dismissed as

651
proposed, she would demand an investigation by the Poor Law Board, the result of which would be infinitely damaging to the Guardians, as showing the rotten state of things in the workhouse, and that, in consequence, her dismissal was not insisted on; and, whether the Poor Law Board will cause inquiry to be made as to the state of that workhouse?
MR. SCLATER-BOOTH, in reply, said, his attention had not been called to that paragraph in The Morning Post until he came down to the House this evening. The statement appeared to be of a very extraordinary character, and he would take care that it should be fully inquired into.

CASUAL AND VAGRANT POOR.

  QUESTION.
  LORD ELCHOsaid, he wished to put a Question to the Secretary of the Poor Law Board, of which he had given him private notice—namely, Whether the attention of the Government has been directed to the best mode of dealing with the casual and vagrant poor, so as, if possible, to draw a distinction between the deserving poor and the incurable vagrant class; and, whether it is likely that a Bill will be introduced on the subject?
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHreplied, that the Poor Law Board had received sixty or seventy memorials from unions in various parts of the kingdom respecting the treatment of the casual and vagrant poor, and that they had recently addressed inquiries to their Inspectors as to the success which had attended an experiment which was being tried in Gloucestershire and neighbouring counties with a view to distinguish between the bonâ fide wayfarer and the ordinary vagrant. The Board were considering whether it would be possible to recommend the general adoption of that or any other system; but he was unable to say whether they would think it expedient to bring forward a measure on the subject this Session.

  HOURS OF LABOUR IN NEWSPAPER OFFICES.—QUESTION.
  MR. LANYONsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is his intention to propose to Parliament with regard to newspaper proprietors any exception from the regulation of the Hours of Labour Regulation Act; and whether he has any ob-
  652
  jection to produce Copies of any Correspondence which has taken place with the President of the Provincial Newspaper society on that subject?
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, in reply, that it was not his intention to introduce any new exceptions into the Act. With respect to the correspondence he did not know that there would be any objection to produce it, but he would make inquiries on the subject.

INDIA—GOVERNOR OF BOMBAY.

  QUESTION.
  MR. OTWAYsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, Whether he will lay on the table a Copy of the Patent or Commission under which the Governor of Bombay is appointed?
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he had no objection to do so if the hon. Member would move for the document.

WAR IN THE RIVER PLATE.

  QUESTION.
  In answer to Mr. MAGUIRE,
  LORD STANLEYsaid, he was unable to give any information as to the probable termination of the hostilities in the River Plate. He believed all parties were getting weary of the war but he was not aware that there were at present any prospects of peace. The few additional papers in his possession would be laid on the table on the meeting of the House in February.

METROPOLITAN STREETS ACT (1867) AMENDMENT BILL— [BILL 2.]
(Mr. Secretary Gathorne Hardy, Sir James Fergusson.)

LORDS AMENDMENTS CONSIDERED.
Lords Amendments to be considered forthwith:—
Lords Amendments considered; read a second time:—
MR. AYRTONregretted that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had not offered an explanation of the Amendment, since the task of doing so now devolved upon himself. When the subject was last before the House, he (Mr. Ayrton) commented upon a statement attributed to the right hon. Gentleman to the effect that the Act of last Session had passed without due consideration, and implying neglect on the part of the metropolitan Members. The right hon. Gentleman, however, disclaimed the use of the lan-

653
guage ascribed to him, which had been variously reported in different papers. The right hon. Gentleman had since, however, in receiving a deputation which pressed on him the necessity of this Amendment in the Bill, made another statement, as to the terms of which the different newspapers agreed. He would quote from The Times, but it was not the only journal which had given these as the right hon. Gentleman's words—
"The difficulty the Government was placed in was this—that the Act having been allowed to pass without opposition it was a very difficult matter to alter or rescind that which had become law."
This was tolerably explicit; but the matter did not rest here, for the noble Earl at the head of the Government had undertaken to enlighten the public as to the exact circumstances under which it might be necessary further to amend the Bill. The noble Earl, as reported in The Times of to-day, had said—
"The principal grievance of which the cab proprietors complained, and which appeared to my right hon. Friend, as it does to me, to be a fair and legitimate ground, if not of actual complaint, at least one requiring further investigation consideration, was that in addition to the very heavy duties which they now pay, amounting to £19 or £20 a year upon each cab, an additional burden is now to be thrown upon them which is not inflicted upon other carriages—namely, the expenditure involved in carrying lights. The provision to that effect is found in the Act of last Session, which contained a vast variety of details. It was a great object with both Houses of Parliament that some remedy should be applied to the serious obstructions existing in the streets of the metropolis, and it is possible that some of the details may have passed without that consideration to which they were fairly entitled. But, as far as I am aware, I believe there were not during the passing of that Act any complaints on the part of the cab-drivers and proprietors on this particular point."
These remarks were received with cheers, but what the cheering was for he could not say. If there had been any negligence it certainly rested more with the other House than with this, for in that House a Select Committee was appointed last Session expressly to settle the details of the measure. This House only considered the Bill on the 14th of August, and it was placed in a very unpleasant dilemma, for there was a distinct intimation that the Bill must either be adopted as the Government were disposed to give it, or thrown out altogether. The House, therefore, had either to succumb to the dictation of the Government, or incur the odium of obstructing legislation and leaving
654
crying evils unredressed. Three times during the Session did he press for the reference of the Bill to a Select Committee of this House, but the suggestion was rejected; and when the hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Alderman Lawrence) withdrew his Amendment on the understanding that a certain course would be taken, it appeared afterwards that he had fallen into a misunderstanding. When the Bill was discussed in Committee there was a very thin House, which, was entirely in the hands of the Government, and although he insisted on a division against a clause more than usually extravagant, than clause was adopted. As to the cab question, Lord Derby could not have taken any means of informing himself as to the proceedings of this House, for although, unfortunately, the last number of Hansard had not yet been printed, there was The Times, and where could one refer for such a purpose except to the columns of The Times? It was true that proceedings in Committee were usually very much condensed, and that there was not often the advantage of finding all the details of the discussion given; and this was no ground of complaint, for it was a necessary mode of conducting ducting the Reports of the House. In this instance, however, the noble Earl had not the excuse of the brevity of the Report, for on referring to The Times he found a statement entirely consistent with his own recollection, and he believed with the recollection of every hon. Member present at the time. The Report in The Times of his (Mr. Ayrton's) remarks on the cab clause—not a verbatim Report, but the substance of his speech—was as follows:—
"There was no reason why, with so many lamps in the streets of London, the four-wheeled cab should be made to carry a lamp. If lights were thought necessary for vehicles, they should be required universally, instead of a particular class only being obliged to provide them. He hoped the Home Secretary would consent to strike out the requirement of lamps."
He presented, moreover, a numerously-signed petition on the subject. The noble Earl at the head of the Government gave the public to understand that there were no means by which he could find out that any objection was offered to the clause in question. The petition which he (Mr. Ayrton) held in his hand was signed by 175 cab proprietors, who represented that by Clause 1 it was proposed that between sunset and sunrise every cab should carry

655
one lamp. They stated that this was a very objectionable clause, and would put them to needless expense and confer no public benefit whatever. He maintained that it was the duty of a Minister of the Crown, before undertaking the responsibility of asking the other House to agree to a Bill, to read the petitions presented against it, and to give due weight to them, and not persist, in spite of those petitions and the appeals of the representatives of the petitioners, in passing his Bill under the threat that unless their Lordships passed the measure as it stood it would be withdrawn altogether. He could not hold the noble Earl justified under these circumstances in stating to a deputation and to the country that this clause was passed unadvisedly, and without attention to details. He regretted that instead of the Government assuming the full responsibility of this measure, as they ought to have done, they had thus endeavoured to shift it upon the shoulders of those who were in no degree responsible for what had been done. His hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Mr. Alderman Lawrence), who had presented the petition of the cab proprietors, objected to going on with the clause at all. All was done that could be done by himself and others, and yet the clause was passed by the Government in spite of their opposition. What was the pass to which the country had come? It seemed that the temperate and intelligent expression of the views of the people was disregarded by the Government; but the moment there was a demonstration out of doors and a scene of outrage the Government were ready, under the influence of their fears, to do what they would not do when an appeal was made to their sense of what was just. Such a mode of conducting the Government of this country was, to say the least of it, unfortunate. It tended to bring both the Government and the House of Commons into contempt. What was the merit of a representative assembly except that it took the decision of a public question from the hands of the people out of doors and remitted it to the deliberations of Parliament? But here this state of things was reversed. The deliberations of Parliament were treated with contempt by the Government, and if they acted at all it was when they were terrified by popular combinations. It was not the first time of late that this had happened. They knew that the clause affecting the
656
use of street spaces was equally objected to, but without effect; yet when 50,000 costermongers were said to be in a state of excitement, then, and not before, the Government were prepared to give an intelligent attention to the subject. The misfortune was that it was impossible to get these matters properly considered. The other day, when Members in that House desired to have these matters considered, they were told by the Secretary of State that unless the clauses were agreed to be should withdraw the Bill. Let the House listen to one of the clauses of the Bill of last Session. It was provided—
"No picture, print, board, placard, or notice, except in such form or manner as may be approved of by the Commissioner of Police, shall, by way of advertisement, be carried or distributed in any street within the general limits of this Act by any person riding in any vehicle, or on horseback, or being on foot."
A tradesman who was not one of the class who got up demonstrations asked him the meaning of this clause, whether it was not incumbent upon persons to send the proof sheets of their advertisements to the Commissioner of Police, and whether the clause did not make him the censor of a certain portion of the Press of this metropolis, because it seemed that both the form and the manner of these advertisements were to be approved by the Commissioner of Police. And many other of the clauses were equally ridiculous. Perhaps the best thing for the House to do was to make an Amendment on the Lords' Amendment as to lamps, and to place upon the Secretary of State the responsibility of carrying out his own measure. What the public objected to in this legislation was referring everything to the arbitrium of the Commissioner of Police, who was not responsible to any one, because he did not sit upon that (the Treasury) Bench, and over whom the inhabitants of the metropolis had no control whatever. It was beneath the dignity of the House to pass the clause as now proposed. The House should enact that all the rules and regulations should be approved by the Secretary of State, and then the inhabitants of the metropolis, if they were given up to the loosest legislation that ever was seen, would not at all events be handed over to an irresponsible officer like the Commissioner of Police. He thought these observations were justified by the course which the Government had taken. He regretted that a Member of the other House, holding the exalted position of First Minister of

657
the Crown, without taking the trouble to ascertain what had been done, should have misrepresented what had taken place and thus entirely misled the public mind.
MR. GATHORNEHARDY: I am glad I did not make any statement when the Motion was put to agree to the Amendments of the other House; but if the hon. and learned Gentleman had not got up I was prepared to make a statement on that Motion. The hon. Member's remarks were utterly unwarranted by anything I said on receiving the deputation. I do not know what reporter was present at the deputation, but I understood no regular reporter was present, and there was none on my behalf to take any note of what was said. But the hon. Member for Dundalk (Sir George Bowyer) was present, and will bear me out in stating that I did not use a single word to throw any obloquy upon the metropolitan or any other Members of this House. [Sir GEORGE BOWYER: Hear!] I am perfectly content to take the responsibility which I incurred in going on with the Bill—not only of the present, but of the late Government—at a late period of the Session. And I regret the course which the hon. Gentleman has taken in saying that because of the late period of the Session the Bill was forced upon the House by the present Government. The Bill was supported by many Members on the hon. Gentleman's own side of the House, and if the division list is examined it will be found that the question was not between the two parties in the House. The hon. Member has intimated that the Government have been intimidated by the costermongers. Now, the only deputation I saw on the subject consisted of a clergyman and three or four other persons, and neither threats nor intimidation was used, for more respectable and quiet persons I never saw, nor have I heard one single threat on the part of the costermongers in respect to that measure. I knew, however, that it was a question of doubt whether the clause applied to the costermongers. It never was intended to do so, and when I saw there was a misconception which promised to do an injury to this body of men, I brought in a clause to remove it. With respect to cabs, the noble Lord (Lord Elcho) will remember that long prior to the meeting which took place, I had conversed with him, and suggested some amendment in the lamp clause [Lord ELCHO: Hear, hear!], and my only
658
difficulty in making a concession, was the meeting and the outrage which took place afterwards. So far from any intimidation having been practised on the Government, I did not yield to what they required; and the suggestion was made by myself that they should leave the matter to my discretion, but I wholly refused to suspend a law passed by Parliament, as those know who were present. The hon. Member has called attention to a clause which he calls very ridiculous; but that clause received the sanction of both branches of the Legislature. The Bill was before the House for four months. It is true that the hon. Member proposed at a late period of the Session to refer the Bill to a Committee which was then sitting, and of which he was Chairman—the Local Management of the Metropolis Bill. I spoke to one of the Members of the Committee, and I found that they did not wish to meet again. I therefore concluded that the suggestion emanated from the hon. Member himself, and that the Committee could not fairly be called upon to take up the measure. The Amendment is a very simple one. It is to leave to the discretion of the Home Secretary the arrangement with respect to these lamps. That point seemed to me fairly open to consideration, and upon this, among other grounds, that there is considerable difficulty in placing the lamp properly in these four-wheeled cabs. It may seem simple, but if any hon. Member tries, he will find it by no means easy to fix upon the proper mode of doing it. Feeling that, and having expressed that, I did not at all set myself against a further inquiry. Even on the occasion when the hon. Member for the City (Mr. Alderman Lawrence) spoke on the subject in this House, it was in reference to one point only, and I think that both he and the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) will recollect that when the matter was discussed in the last Session of Parliament, it was said, "We are dealing with one isolated point in reference to hackney carriages, and the general subject will be open to further consideration. This only relates to the traffic in the streets." Now, I quite concur in that. With regard to what has fallen from the hon. Member as to my having objected to any improvement of the Bill as originally brought in, it happens that the reports of what is said in this House are sent by the Editor of the Debates to the various speakers, with a view to their being revised and corrected. I

659
have had the report of the remarks I then made placed before me in the course of this morning, and I find that, instead of having objected to all improvement of the Bill, I called upon the House to consider it carefully, and stated my readiness to accept any Amendment which would effect a real improvement, although I said at a subsequent period I would withdraw the Bill if a proposal were carried which would have altered its whole complexion, and done away with clauses which I deemed useful. I said that if such a step were taken it would be my province to withdraw the Bill, instead of accepting Amendments from which I totally disagreed. I do not wish to introduce any personal feeling into this matter. The hon. Member has, however, spoken in a tone which was not called for by any remarks of mine either on the former or the present occasion. As respects what has passed in "another place," my attention has not been called to it, and it is rather unusual to discuss it in this House; but I am quite sure that if the noble Earl who has been referred to had possessed the information, he would not have concealed it in any way. What I referred to myself, and what, I have no doubt, the noble Earl referred to, was the circumstance that a cab proprietor went before the Committee of the House of Lords, and said that he did not object to the use of lamps. Indeed, that appears upon the evidence, as the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets very well knows. I think it was very unfortunate that attention was not more particularly directed to this point when the Committee of the House of Lords was sitting, and when it might have been thoroughly discussed. That Committee sat seven or eight times, and those who wished to give evidence had free access to it. It is true there was no Committee here; but I have never said that the question was not discussed in this House, for had I done so, I should have been not only forgetful, but worse, as I knew the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City had called attention to it more than once openly in the House, and that he had also spoken to me privately on the subject. Therefore, I can say that I did not utter a single word at the deputation about the metropolitan Members, or about any other Members of this House. What I said was, that the proprietors had not taken steps to have the matter brought before the House of Lords' Committee. I am sorry that my
660
remarks were not properly reported; but I believe that no regular reporter was present, and that the published account was based on the recollection of some person after leaving the room. I think it will not be necessary for me to detain the House any longer. I have moved an Amendment which I believe will satisfy the cab proprietors without derogating from the dignity of this House.
MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he thought the right hon. Gentleman ought to feel obliged to the hon. Member (Mr. Ayrton) for bringing this subject forward, as great misconception, in which he had himself at one time shared, existed out of doors. In the previous discussion he had certainly understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that he could not make any alteration in the measure. He was glad, however, that the impression then made had been removed by the right hon. Gentleman on the present occasion. In his opinion it was a serious evil that a temperate discussion of the subject in that House should have been delayed, and that concessions should have immediately followed a great public demonstration. This was not the first instance of such a course being pursued. At the same time, he thanked the right hon. Gentleman for having granted a concession which had put an end to the discontent that had been prevalent.
LORD ELCHOsaid, that having been present when the deputation waited upon the Home Secretary, he could confirm the account given by the right hon. Gentleman of what had then passed. He could bear testimony that the course adopted by the right hon. Gentleman on that occasion was perfectly consistent with his own dignity and that of the Government, while it was in no way injurious to the dignity of that House. At the same time, the right hon. Gentleman met in a fair and reasonable spirit the strong views expressed by the body of men represented at the deputation. He was also in a position, in consequence of his communications with his right hon. Friend and the First Lord of the Treasury, to state that the Government had not yielded to intimidation, as had been alleged by the hon. Gentleman behind him. It was said at the meeting of the proprietors and drivers that the holding out of a threat would be a difficulty in the way of inducing the Government to make a concession, and it was agreed that no threatening expressions should be used. He was certain, from the

661
interviews which he had had with the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister, that if any threats had been made there would have been an end to anything like conciliation at the hands of the Government. In conclusion, he wished to express the pleasure with which he had listened to the remarks just made by his right hon. Friend.
MR. CHILDERSdesired to remark, in reference to what his noble Friend had said respecting a threat not having been made, that the concession was made by the Government the day after the strike took place, and on the reception of a deputation from those who organized that strike. However, he was of opinion that the right hon. Gentleman had taken the proper course. The debates on this subject last Session, and during the present, would, he trusted, leave an impression on the minds of some hon. Gentlemen that the regulation of cab fares was not the first duty of the House, and that it might be better to leave the control of public vehicles to municipal management, as was done in other countries. When the right hon. Gentleman took up this question as a whole, and produced a comprehensive measure, it was to be hoped that he would bear this in mind, and would leave the arrangement of the details respecting hackney carriages to some body managing the affairs of the metropolis, who would deal with a matter of that kind much better than the House of Commons.
LORD ELCHOexplained that he had referred to interviews with the right hon. Gentleman before what was called the strike had taken place.
MR. ALDERMAN LUSKsaid, it was as well to speak the truth when one knew something of it. It was only fair to the Government to state that a week or ten days ago he had a conversation with the Member for Ayrshire (Sir James Fergusson) on this subject, and the hon. Baronet stated that it was the intention of the Government to treat the question as fairly and liberally as possible in the spring after the Recess. He did not agree that the Bill had been passed without consideration; and he might mention that he had himself called attention to and protested against the clause respecting 1s. on the stand and 6d. off the stand fare. He believed that most hon. Members knew very well what were the contents of the Bill, and mentioned several points alluded to during its discussion to show that they
662
did know. He was pleased to find that the whole subject would come under review so soon.
SIR GEORGE BOWYER, said, he was present at the Office of the Home Secretary when the deputation from the cab-owners was received, and he desired, therefore, to express his concurrence with every word that had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary in his account of what had passed there. With regard to the remark of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) about the costermongers, he wished to say that it was he (Sir George Bowyer) who had mentioned them as numbering 50,000, for he said that if the Bill passed as it stood, 50,000 costermongers would be deprived of their livelihood; but neither he nor any one on their behalf had said anything about the excitement occasioned among them. He was very much surprised at the feelings which had been manifested on the Opposition side of the House, and especially at the cheering from the front Opposition Bench at the statement made by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets that the Government had yielded to popular demonstration. He certainly did feel some surprise at that manifestation, and his only regret was that the right hon. Member for South Lancashire (Mr. Gladstone) was not in his place to give the House his views on the subject of popular demonstration.
MR. NEATEbore testimony to the accuracy of the statements which had fallen from the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Tower Hamlets. He had taken part in the former debate, and he protested then, as he protested now, against any legislation imposing on hired carriages any obligation of the kind that was not imposed on private carriages.
MR. GOSCHENsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had now made a concession in this matter, which he would not make in response to the representations of Members of that House when the Bill was discussed last Session, and he wished to know what argument had lately been used other than those arguments used before, of sufficient strength to convert the right hon. Gentleman. The question was not simply one between the right hon. Gentleman and the metropolitan Members, but between the right hon. Gentleman and Members of Parliament expressing their views in that House. It would be a most deplorable thing if the

663
public should be led to believe that the opinions put forward in that House were passed over and allowed to have no effect until deputations from public meetings should wait upon the Home Secretary. Those who had taken part in the discussion on the Bill when it was before the House were considerably hurried by hon. Members on the opposite side of the House. Upon one point—whether the regulations of the police were to be sanctioned either by the Home Secretary or by Parliament—he himself had asked a Question; but the right hon. Gentleman had replied to him in the curtest possible manner, and said that he did not think that would be done.
SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid, the answer to the question of the hon. Member was very simple. The alteration promised by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary to the deputation was, that the discretion as to enforcing a certain clause should be left in the hands of the Home Secretary, instead of those of the Commissioners of Police. That alteration was not made previously, because it had not previously been asked for or proposed. The discretion as to dealing with costermongers was also left to the Secretary of State. With regard to the question of general legislation, it had been stated over and over again that the main question was reserved.
MR. ALDERMAN LAWRENCEsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary seemed to be under the impression that the Bill had been introduced by the late Government, which was not the case. [Mr. GATHORNE HARDY: I said a Bill was introduced last Session.] This particular Bill was not introduced by the late Government, but it was launched in the other House by the Under Secretary for the Home Department. The right hon. Gentleman was aware when the Bill was under consideration what was the opinion of the metropolitan Members, and that numerous petitions had been presented against the various clauses of the Bill. The Committee to which it was sent in the other House was not an open Committee, and it only sat four or five days, no one being allowed to be present during the sittings except the witnesses under examination, and many persons who were anxious to be heard had had the doors closed against them. He regretted the course which had been taken with regard to this Bill, for it was impossible to deal with the trade
664
and commerce of this metropolis upon a Report of a Select Committee of the House of Lords sitting in private. And although the Bill was sent down to that House in March or April, it was not brought forward until the 14th of August, when from the state of the House it could not be opposed with any hope of success. The House had never heard a word of the measure having been one of the late Government's Bills until it got into difficulties, and then the Home Secretary said "unfortunately it is a Bill which we took up from the late Government." [Mr. GATHORNE HARDY: I did not say "unfortunately."] When the Bill was prepared by the late Government it was fully understood that it was to go before a Select Committee of the House of Commons; but it had not been so committed. The clauses with respect to the costermongers and the cabs were the only clauses which had yet been put into operation, and they saw with what result. Almost the first day of this Session the costermongers had obtained the introduction of a Bill to amend the measure passed almost on the last day of last Session.
MR. AYRTON, as an Amendment upon the Lords' Amendment, proposed to leave out the words "in respect of the carriage of lamps by hackney carriages," so that the clause would run—
"No regulations shall be made in pursuance of the Metropolitan Streets Act, 1867, except with the approval of one of Her Majesty's principal Secretaries of State."
His intention was that the Amendment should apply to all the clauses of the Bill, so that the police should be unable to make any regulations without the approval of the Home Secretary.
MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, that if this Amendment were carried it would be, in fact, necessary for the Secretary of State to interfere in the smallest minutiœ, and the administration of the law would be so impeded that it would be almost better not to have any law at all. It had been said that the Act of last Session had proved a failure in the only two cases where it had been applied. But in the City the regulations which had been drawn up for the traffic of the streets had been put up for twenty-eight days, as the Act required, and they were found so advantageous that not a single objection had been raised to them. These regulations did require the previous sanction of the Secretary of State.
Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.
Lords Amendment agreed to.

ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE.
On Motion, "That the House, at its rising, do adjourn till To-morrow,"
POST OFFICE—WEST INDIA PACKET STATION—THE ISLAND OF ST. THOMAS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. GILPINasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether there would be any objection to lay upon the table of the House a copy of the correspondence between the Treasury, the authorities of the Post Office, and the Royal Mail Steam Company as to the retention of the Island of St. Thomas as the chief West India Packet Station; and whether the attention of the Government had been called to the lamentable loss of life on board the Royal Mail steamer Tamar, consequent on her calling at the Island of St. Thomas? He had no interest, direct or indirect, in any ocean steamer; but was induced to call attention to this subject from motives of humanity, as he found that the lives of the crews and passengers of the packets were endangered by the continual existence of yellow fever in the Island. As St. Thomas had just changed hands, and had become an American instead of a Danish possession, and the Post Office buildings and the wharves had been destroyed in the late hurricane, this was a suitable time for choosing another mail packet station.
  MR. KINNAIRDalso desired to ask the hon. Gentleman, whether he was in communication with the Admiralty on this question? In the opinion of many St. Thomas was a most inconvenient port of call, as well as unsuitable because of the constant prevalence of yellow fever there. Why not select our own Island of Jamaica, where there was an excellent harbour, and where, in case of detention, there were hills to which passengers might resort? Before re-constructing the buildings destroyed in the storm, he thought it was worth consideration whether it would not be wise to make one of our own islands at any rate the mail packet station, Instead of expending capital in an Island now transferred to the United States. He hoped the attention of the
  666
  noble Duke the Postmaster General would be turned to this subject.
  MR. THOMAS CAVEsaid, that a case had come to his knowledge in which a gentleman who was to have received the wife of a friend on landing had had the painful task of writing to her husband to say that she was dead. The efforts of the magnificent Company so ably presided over by a noble Lord on the other side of the House were entirely neutralized by the fact that we would persist in calling at this hotbed of disease. The vessel of the Panama Company reached Panama from New Zealand three days before her time; the passengers were transferred to the Tamar, and reached St. Thomas in perfect health, but on the voyage thence and before she reached England she had several fatal cases. Occurrences of this kind had almost ruined the Panama Company.
  MR. HUNTsaid, that the subject was undergoing very careful consideration, but there was no correspondence at present to be laid upon the table. The communications between the Treasury, the Colonial Office, and the Admiralty, which had taken place had been entirely unofficial, and the communications with the Company were only verbal. The whole matter would be very carefully considered during the Recess, and he hoped when the House met again he should be able to make some announcement of the decision that would have been come to.
  Motion agreed to.
  House at rising to adjourn, till To-morrow.

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

  PRIVILEGE—PRODUCTION OF PUBLIC DOCUMENTS.—OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITH, seeing the hon. Member for Southwark in his place, rose to call attention to a question of which he had given him public and also private notice, affecting the privileges of hon. Members and the rules of debate in this House. He said that in a debate which was brought on by Lord Cairns, then Sir Hugh Cairns, in June, 1865, on the subject of the proceedings of the late Government in respect to Abyssinia, the

  667
  hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Layard) quoted certain documents in the course of his speech, and when interrupted and asked several times by the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Henry Seymour) and Sir Hugh Cairns whether those documents had been laid upon the table, the hon. Gentleman gave a promise that they should be produced. The papers, however, were not laid upon the table during the whole period in which the hon. Member held office. Late in the Session of 1866 a gentleman came to him (Mr. Darby Griffith), and said that the papers had not been laid upon the table. He accordingly moved for them, and they had been produced on his Motion. The rules of the House on this subject were very important. They required that no paper should be quoted by a Minister which had not been laid upon the table—otherwise a Minister might take advantage of quoting papers of which the House had no knowledge. The hon. Gentleman might represent in explanation of his conduct that, on examination, he found that those papers contained something affecting the character of individuals or injurious to the public, and therefore he did not produce them. But he (Mr. Darby Griffith) submitted that it was the business of the hon. Gentleman, before quoting from papers, to make himself acquainted with their nature.
  MR. LAYARDsaid, he had no reason to complain of the manner in which the hon. Gentleman had brought the subject before the House. No time had been specified for laying the papers on the table, and no Motion had been made for their production. He did not wish, however, to rest his defence on any technicalities. The simple facts of the case were these:—when he spoke on the occasion referred to, the papers were printed with the intention of laying them on the table. A very short time afterwards, however, it was decided that Mr. Rassam should be sent to Abyssinia, and it was thought most advisable by Mr. Rassam, the missionaries, Colonel Merewether, and other gentlemen best acquainted with the subject, that nothing should be allowed to transpire with respect to Mr. Rassam's mission. That was the reason the papers were not produced. They had now been laid upon the table, and hon. Gentlemen knew what they were. So far from containing anything injurious to the Government, their tendency was to justify the Foreign Office in the proceedings which had been taken, and he would
  668
  have been only too glad to have produced them.
  Motion, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," by leave, withdrawn.
  Committee deferred till Friday, 14th of February.

ABYSSINIA—CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN DR. BEKE AND OTHERS AND THE FOREIGN OFFICE.—MOTION FOR PAPERS.
MR. NEWDEGATE, who had given notice, said he would not persist in the Motion on this subject, which he had intended to make, inasmuch as it was included in that of which the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Layard) had given notice.
MR. LAYARDsaid, it was with very deep regret that he felt it his duty to detain the House for a short time. He had already had occasion to mention that a very unusual course had been pursued in preparing the blue book on Abyssinia, which had been recently laid upon the table. In that blue book, letters which had appeared in the public papers containing reflections of a calumnious character had been reprinted on the authority of the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Office, and, consequently, had gained from that authority an importance which would not have attached to them as mere newspaper correpondence. He more particularly referred to a letter from Dr. Beke to the Earl of Clarendon, dated June 11, 1866, which had been reproduced in the blue book, and contained reflections of a very calumnious nature upon himself and others. Why that letter had been published he did not know, for no explanation whatever had been given on the subject. The noble Lord said that evening that there had been a quarrel between certain persons—referring, he presumed, to himself (Mr. Layard) as one of the parties. But there had been no quarrel at all on his part. He had never taken notice of any communications from Dr. Beke, whether to the newspapers or otherwise, as long as those communications did not receive the sanction of the Foreign Office by publication. But the case was entirely altered by the degree of solemnity which was given to them by their publication in the blue book, and he felt that he owed it to himself to bring the matter before the House;

669
especially after what had passed during the last week. The House would allow him to read part of this letter of Dr. Beke to the Earl of Clarendon. Dr. Beke said—
"On my arrival in Alexandria last November, I heard openly repeated, in the presence of several English gentlemen (some of whom I believe to be now in England), matters affecting the personal character of two gentlemen who have unfortunately been named in connection with the subject, of which matters Mr. Palgrave was said to be the promulgator. …… With Mr. Palgrave's statements to me your Lordship has been made acquainted. Those relating to the two gentlemen alluded to were little more than an amplification of what I had previously heard in Alexandria. I therefore owe no apology to any one for repeating what was common talk in Egypt before my arrival in that country; but I do owe it to myself to say that I should not have condescended to advert to such a subject in my correspondence with Mr. Purday had it not been for the apprehension (entertained by others as well as myself) that the alleged ill-feeling towards Mr. Stern, on account of what had occurred in Mesopotamia, might have been carried over into Abyssinia."
He then said that he had heard that Mr. Palgrave's instructions were to ask for the liberation of Consul Cameron alone, and that Mr. Stern was to be neglected because he (Mr. Layard) had a quarrel with him. This was a most serious charge; but he should have taken no notice of it had it not appeared in the blue book. That letter contained accusations against his personal character which were really so shocking and so odious that he would not venture to repeat them in public. There were also accusations against Mr. Rassam of a description which he could not do more than allude to. There were likewise distinct accusations against Mr. Palgrave's character as a gentleman and a public servant. He had ventured the other evening to refer to and refute the charges which had been made against Mr. Rassam; but he should have taken no further notice of the accusations against himself had they not appeared in an official form, and had he not been challenged by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) to move for the production of the correspondence. That challenge he could not but accept, though he did so with regret, not on his own account, but on account of Dr. Beke, whom the publication was calculated to injure. Those letters had been characterized by the noble Lord (Lord Stanley) as they deserved, and if they appeared publicly, it would be only Dr. Beke's character that would suffer. When, however, the noble Lord expressed his willingness
670
to produce the papers on condition of omitting all that related to other persons, and giving only what related to himself, he could not for a moment agree to so unfair a proceeding. As regarded his personal character, indeed, he was quite willing to leave that to the public, for he trusted his reputation would not suffer from any accusation of this kind; but, in order to justify his conduct in the eyes of the House, it was of the utmost importance that it should be shown that Dr. Beke had made similar accusations against other persons—for instance, against Mr. Palgrave—every one of which accusations that gentleman characterized—he was sorry to have to quote the expression—as a "malicious lie." He trusted that the noble Lord, after what had happened in the House, would produce the whole correspondence, as this was only just and fair. If he refused all he could say was that he had done his best, and had invited the fullest publicity, in order to put himself right and justify what he said the other evening. If the whole was given, he should willingly accept it; but he thought the House would see that he was justified in objecting to a partial publication.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, that She will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House a Copy of the Correspondence between Dr. Beke, Mr. Purday, Mr. Palgrave, and the Foreign Office, referred to in the Letter from Dr. Beke to Lord Clarendon, dated the 11th day of June 1866, published in a recent Blue Book.—(Mr. Layard.)
LORD STANLEY: I am sure the House will understand that in the personal part of this question the present Government are entirely disinterested. With regard to Dr. Beke, I have only seen him two or three times. I never saw him before I acceded to my present office, and I have no personal connection with him. I am not in the slightest degree his partizan, nor have I any wish to take his part in the matter. As to the insertion in the blue book of the despatch of which the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Layard) complains, the difficulty I felt as to excluding it was this—it formed a part of that series of transactions which has necessarily come under the notice of the House. When a personal and a public question are mixed up it is difficult to decide what to put in and what to leave out. Only three courses are practicable. If you sup-

671
press the whole correspondence because it has a personal and offensive tendency, you expose yourself to the charge of keeping back what it is material on public grounds the House should know. If you include a part only, you lay yourself open with equal plausibility to the charge of garbling the correspondence and producing only what serves your purpose. If, again, you publish the whole, you leave no room for accusations of that kind, but you give publicity to many things which it would be much better in the public interests to leave out. As to the appeal which the hon. Gentleman has made to me, my wish was to produce anything which was necessary to his defence against any personal attack, but not to publish more of these personal matters than was necessary for that purpose. At the same time, I cannot deny the force of the hon. Gentleman's argument that if accusations were made against him, and are also made by the same person against other individuals, the credibility of one set of accusations is very much affected by the credibility of any other set. On the whole—though I confess that on public grounds I feel some regret—I am bound to say that after the personal appeal of the hon. Member there is no option on my part but to publish the whole correspondence. I need hardly say that as far as the present Government are concerned they can have no motive for suppressing anything whatever.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that that being the noble Lord's conclusion, he rose to move, as a rider to the hon. Gentleman's proposition, for the production of portion of a letter addressed by Dr. Beke to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, dated the 14th day of October, 1867, relative to a conversation between him and Mr. Palgrave, at Cairo, in December, 1865. He was sure the House would believe that he would be the last man to thrust upon it documents which, as the hon. Gentleman's description of them had shown, were unfit for publication. ["Oh!"] There was no other interpretation to be placed upon his words. But though he (Mr. Newdegate) had not seen the letter for which he now moved, he knew there were parts of it which, in justice to Dr. Beke, it was essential to produce, if the Motion of the hon. Member for Southwark were acceded to. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Layard) had said that there was no ill-feeling on his part or on Mr. Rassam's
672
towards Mr. Stern. Now, the hon. Gentleman's memory must surely have failed him, for he held in his hand a letter from Mr. Purday, brother of Mrs. Stern, which showed that the hon. Member had impressed Mr. and Mrs. Stern with the feeling that he was actuated by hostile feelings towards them. [Mr. LAYARD: Oh!] The hon. Member must excuse him; but after the remarks he had offered it was necessary that he should read a portion of the letter. [Mr. LAYARD: What is the date of it?] It was dated the 17th of January, 1866, and was addressed by Mr. C. H. Purday, from 24, Great Marlborough Street, to Mr. Stern. The hon. Member read a passage from the letter, to the effect that Mr. Stern knew both Mr. Layard and Mr. Rassam at Mossul; that a remonstrance he offered on some matter led to an open rupture with them; that on Mr. Stern seeing Mr. Layard some time afterwards, the latter behaved in a very disagreeable way, and that there was an old grudge on Mr. Layard's part against Mr. Stern. This letter proved that Mr. and Mrs. Stern were impressed with the opinion that the hon. Member did not feel kindly and had not acted kindly towards them. His sincere wish was that the hon. Gentleman would withdraw his Motion; but unless he did so, he (Mr. Newdegate) was bound, injustice to Dr. Beke, to press his Amendment. He would not, however, be a party to the production of anything which it was unbecoming to produce.
Amendment proposed,
At the end of the Question, to add the words "and such portions of a Letter, addressed by Dr. Beke to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, dated the 14th day of October 1867, relative to a conversation between him and Mr. Palgrave at Cairo, in December 1865, as bear upon the foregoing Correspondence."—(Mr. Newdegate.)
MR. LAYARDsaid, this was only an instance of the manner in which this miserable question had arisen. In the first place, he had never met with Mr. Palgrave in his life until he saw him for the first time three years ago in this country, and it is a pure invention that I met him at Mossul. That he ever had the slightest difference with Mr. Stern was also a pure invention. He knew him as a missionary at Bagdad, but he knew very little of him; and it was absurd to suppose that Mr. Stern, a captive, thousands of miles away, could have given

673
Mr. Purday any information on the subject. The whole thing was utterly and completely without foundation. But suppose that he did quarrel with Mr. Stern twenty years ago at Bagdad, did the House imagine that he or any other English gentleman would allow him on that account to be left in captivity? He appealed to the sense of honour and justice of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire. He could not, and he would not, consent to the proposal of the hon. Member opposite that the letters should be mutilated and only those parts produced which suited the purpose of Dr. Beke. In his opinion, either the whole or none of the correspondence should be produced.
LORD STANLEY: The circumstances have altered since the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) first put his Motion upon the Paper. I then understood that the intention of the hon. Member was merely to ask for such portions of the correspondence as would enable Dr. Beke to vindicate his character from certain charges that had been brought against him. Acting upon that belief, I urged on the hon. Member the propriety of omitting those portions of the correspondence which appeared to convey imputations upon other persons. As the matter now stands, however, the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Layard) having expressed a desire that the whole of the letters should be published, the responsibility would lie upon me were I to withhold any part of them. I regret very much that we should have got into these discussions at all. For my own part, I have never attached the slightest importance to the imputations that have been thrown out against the hon. Member for Southwark. I sincerely hope that the matter will now end, as the whole of the papers will be laid upon the table.
MR. OTWAYobjected altogether to the country being put to the expense of printing and circulating a correspondence like that referred to, merely for the gratification of certain individuals. The whole thing appeared to him to be nothing more than malicious and ill-digested gossip. He objected altogether to the Motion of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, or that we should mix ourselves up with the quarrels of parties of whom we know nothing, and in whom we have not the slightest interest.
MR. NEWDEGATErose to address the House—
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman has no reply.
MR. NEWDEGATE: I am aware I have no reply; I rose to explain. When an hon. Member has had words put into his mouth he is usually permitted by the Speaker to correct the misrepresentation. The hon. Member has stated that I did not desire the production of these papers.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member (Mr. Newdegate) has moved for these papers, and therefore it is to be presumed that he desires their production. He is out of order in endeavouring to address the House.
Question, "That those words be there added," put, and negatived.
MR. NEWDEGATE: Not having spoken upon the original Question, I am now entitled to address the House.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must wait until the original Question is put before he can speak.
Original Question again proposed.
MR. NEWDEGATEagain rose—
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is out of order. Having moved an Amendment upon the original Question, he cannot speak again upon that Question.
MR. NEWDEGATE: What is the Motion before the House?
MR. SPEAKER: I have just stated what the original Question is. Upon that Question the hon. Member moved an Amendment, which has been negatived, and the House will now therefore proceed to divide on the original Question. In moving the Amendment the hon. Member spoke upon the original Question, and therefore he cannot speak again.
MR. NEWDEGATE: Sir, I beg your pardon. I rise on a question of order. During this Session—["Order, order!"]—If the House will permit me for one moment—During this Session you have debated order with me four or five times. If I have transgressed order I can only express my regret, as I never intended to do so. You have on four occasions, when I have brought this subject before the House, interrupted me, and the House has afterwards on those occasions consented to hear me. I do therefore most humbly and most respectfully express a hope that you will show me more consideration hereafter.
MR. SPEAKER: It would be very fitting, if the hon. Member thinks he has been improperly interrupted by me, that

675
he should state the occasions of which he complains. I have to state that on the present occasion I have felt myself bound to enforce the Rules of Order with more stringency than is my desire, in consequence of the hon. Member persisting in his desire to speak contrary to the Rules of the House. I have been compelled to state what the Rules of the House are, and that the hon. Member cannot make a second speech upon this Question.
Main Question put, and agreed to.
Resolved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, that she will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House, a Copy of the Correspondence between Dr. Beke, Mr. Purday, Mr. Palgrave, and the Foreign Office, referred to in the Letter from Dr. Beke to Lord Clarendon, dated the 11th day of June 1866, published in a recent Blue Book.
House adjourned at Seven o'clock.