Commons Sitting of 7 December 1867

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILL—Ordered—Public Departments (Extra Receipts)*
First Reading—Public Departments (Extra Receipts)* [26].
The House met at Twelve of the clock.

IRELAND—ILLEGAL PROCESSIONS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. LANYONasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether the attention of the Government has been directed to the accounts of the Procession, with party emblems, which took place at Cork on
  676
  Sunday last, and also to the announcements which have been made of a similar display to take place in Dublin on Sunday next; and what course the Government intend to adopt in reference to same, so as to insure an impartial administration of the Party Emblems Act?
  THE EARL OF MAYO: When the report of the intended procession at Cork reached the Irish Government, the same course was taken with regard to it as had been taken on many similar occasions. That is to say—the constabulary were directed to watch carefully the movements of all parties taking part in the assembly, and to note down their names, and they were also instructed, in the event of any breach of the Party Processions Act or of any other law occurring, to report that circumstance immediately to the Government. It was doubtful, on the information received by the Irish Government, whether there was any breach of this particular Act; but I have directed that all the reports forwarded by the resident magistrates, the local authorities, and the constabulary should be laid before the Attorney General and the other Law Officers of the Crown, with a view to ascertain their opinion as to whether, on the face of those reports, any infringement of the law took place. If it be their opinion that that particular Act has in any way been infringed, every effort will be made to render the parties who are considered to have infringed it amenable to justice. I must, however, remind the House that it is the duty of the Executive Government not to make laws, but to administer them. Our determination is to walk strictly in the course of the law; and in the exercise of those extraordinary powers which Parliament has given us, we shall adhere strictly to the conditions on which those extraordinary powers were placed in our hands. If the law has been broken, we shall not be deterred by threats or displays of force from punishing the violators of it; and, on the other hand, we shall not be driven by misrepresentations or by accusations of mistaken leniency either to strain the law or to act otherwise than in strict conformity with its provisions. In my opinion, these displays are greatly to be deprecated. They have for their object—a very intelligible object, no doubt—the elevation of an act of murder into an act of patriotism. With regard to that portion of the hon. Gentleman's Question which refers to the future, I can only say that

  677
  the Government must be guided by circumstances as they arise. If these displays continue, serious questions may be raised. Every assembly which is deposed to by independent persons as being calculated to lead to riot and disturbance is an illegal assembly, and every meeting which is ostentatiously held for treasonable purposes is an illegal assembly. If information reaches the Government that these displays partake of that character, it will be for the Government to consider how they may best vindicate the law and preserve the general peace of the community.
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, that perhaps the noble Lord would supplement his answer by stating whether the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown had been or would be taken in anticipation of the meetings referred to, so that those who might be about to take part in them might be forewarned?
  THE EARL OF MAYO: The Government will take no action except upon the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown. It is the wish of the Government to act strictly in conformity with the law. If they should find it necessary to do so, they would issue a Proclamation warning the people of the illegality of these displays.

  ABYSSINIAN EXPEDITION—BOUNTY TO VOLUNTEERS.—QUESTION.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITH, seeing the Secretary of State for India in his place, wished to ask. If it is true that Sir William Mansfield is offering a bounty of £9 4s. per man to persons wishing to join the Abyssinian expedition? The reason why he asked the Question was, that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for India had the other night assured them that the military control of the expedition was left entirely in the hands of Sir Robert Napier, which could not be the case if Sir William Mansfield was at liberty to interfere in it.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I have not been able to consult the official correspondence since the hon. Member gave me private notice of his intention to put the Question; but to the best of my recollection there was nothing in the letters received yesterday which referred officially to this subject. It was, however, stated to me in a private letter that Sir William Mansfield was of opinion that a bounty should be given, but that Sir Robert Napier did not think it necessary.

  ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE.
  Moved, "That the House, at its rising, do adjourn till Thursday, 13th February."
ABYSSINIA—MISSION OF MR. RASSAM.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. SCHREIBERrose, pursuant to notice, to call attention to the absence, in the papers laid before Parliament, of all official information respecting Mr. Rassam's Mission between the 28th of January and the 18th of April, 1866. He thought these letters necessary to throw further light on the Abyssinian question. He did not know who was responsible for the preparation of the Abyssinian blue book, but he complained of it as meagre and ill-arranged, and observed that, upon the face of the papers it contained, it would not be difficult to construct a more substantial defence of King Theodore than he liked to contemplate. Where, he asked, was the copy of the Queen's letter to King Theodore, which Mr. Rassam was sent to Abyssinia to deliver?
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, that on coming down to the House he had no intention of re-opening the Abyssinian discussion; but as the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Schreiber) had deemed it necessary to do so, he claimed the noble Lord's (Lord Stanley's) permission to call attention to a matter connected with it, which he had heard mentioned in some circles in London, as to the accuracy of which he was bound to say he was not prepared to vouch, his information depending on hearsay, but in reference to which the noble Lord might be enabled to give information. As he was informed, a French nobleman, the Comte de Buisson, who, before the period of the Neapolitan revolution, had been an officer in the service of the King of Naples, after the capitulation of Gaeta proceeded to Abyssinia, accompanied by some of his countrymen. It was stated that he became popular with some of the tribes in that country, and after a time had attained a position of consequence among them, having formed a kind of colony or small State of which, he was recognised the chief. The story went that, owing to the interference of the Egyptians on the frontier, his settlement had been broken up, and he had to remove into the interior, where he presented himself to the Emperor Theodore and

  679
  established with him the most friendly relastions—to such an extent, he (Sir Patrick O'Brien) was informed, as to leave the country when he pleased, and to visit and return from Paris as occasion required; in short, that Theodore's conduct towards Comte de Buisson was civilized and indulgent rather than otherwise. A person standing in such a relation to that potentate might naturally be supposed to have considerable influence with him, and would be likely to effect more in the way of mediation than those gentlemen who, on the ground of military and adventurous qualifications, had tendered their services as described in the blue book, and had had them declined by the Government. He wished to ask, was it true that Comte de Buisson had so offered his assistance in obtaining the release of the prisoners?—for if he had, he could not imagine that any jealousy of French interference could for a moment affect the action of the Foreign Office in accepting it. The war was a serious matter: of the evils which might arise from it, one at least was certain, it would deeply affect the taxpayers of the kingdom. He (Sir Patrick O'Brien) had heard from a distinguished officer who had served in the war in Affghanistan, and who had the best means of forming a judgment upon the probable cost of the present expedition, that should our stay in Abyssinia be protracted till after April, not £2,000,000, but £10,000,000 or £12,000,000 would be most probably the sum we should have to pay; and he felt that in so serious a question every effort should be made to avert the necessity of an inglorious and costly war.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, it might reasonably be hoped that the expedition would not cost us £10,000,000 or £12,000,000, as the last letter received from Mr. Flad stated that King Theodore had not above 8,000 men with him, and that they were chiefly peasants, who might be easily ridden over by a couple of squadrons of our cavalry. Theodore was also hardly pressed by the King of Shoa, who was at the head of considerable forces. This Prince was asking for aid from us, had sent presents to the Queen, and received in return a number of gifts, some of which were formerly intended for King Theodore.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHcalled attention to the proposed Conference on Italian affairs, pointing out that it was so far satisfactory that the Emperor of the French, though having Italy prostrate at
  680
  his feet, felt bound to consult in a Conference the enlightened opinion of Europe.
  LORD STANLEY: I have stated more than once the position which Her Majesty's Government hold with respect to this proposal for a Conference, and I do not know that there is any necessity that I should repeat what I have said. Of course, if the question with which the Conference would have to deal could be settled in a satisfactory manner it would be a great gain to Europe; but so far from that being probable, there is no certainty that the Conference will meet at all. For my own part, I do not see how the opposite and conflicting claims of the Pope on the one hand, and the Italian Government on the other, can be adjusted. If any plan for the purpose can be proposed we shall be bound to consider it; but I have seen no such plan up to the present time. That is the situation of affairs just now, and I have nothing more to say on the subject. With regard to the appeal made to me by my hon. Friend (Mr. Schreiber) as to letters or despatches from Mr. Rassam, there is one dated the 12th of February, 1866 (enclosed in a letter from Colonel Merewether), not included in the blue book which has been moved for, and which will be laid on the table. There has been no other despatch from Mr. Rassam during the time that I have been in office of which I am aware. I believe the explanation of that is partly that the information sent home was to a great extent conveyed in private letters, and partly also that Mr. Rassam found considerable difficulty in communicating with the Foreign Office. I may, perhaps, take this opportunity of stating that it is my intention during the Recess to have all the papers relating to Abyssinia carefully examined; inasmuch as there may probably be in the archives of the Foreign Office some papers of importance of an earlier date than those published in the blue books. The House has already every information with respect to those which have been received since I came into office; but in the earlier stages of the proceedings there may have been papers which it was thought at the time it would be imprudent to publish, lest they might compromise the safety of the prisoners. At all events, I will have all the papers of the earlier years looked through, and I dare say there are some which may be considered worth, laying before the House. With regard to the French gentleman referred to by the

  681
  hon. Member for the King's County, as being resident in Abyssinia, and the French colony established by him, I do not know anything. I am not aware that that gentleman's relations with King Theodore are or were very intimate, and I must say I doubt whether his mediation would be of any avail. I do not say that from any feeling of jealousy as to French influence or French intervention. We are on the best possible terms with the French Government, and I have no doubt that if it were in their power they would help us out of the difficulty.

POSTAL SERVICE WITH THE UNITED STATES.—OBSERVATIONS.
MR. AYRTONcalled attention to the proceedings of Her Majesty's Government respecting the Postal Service between England and the United States; and asked the Secretary of the Treasury what course they intend to pursue? It was generally admitted that our intercourse with the United States was so extensive that we had arrived at a point when it was undesirable that any contract should be made in the nature of a subsidy for carrying the mails, or giving encouragement to one Company at the expense of others. The true interest of this country consisted in encouraging the greatest amount of competition. The Government, acting upon that view, had invited tenders for the mail service, and several companies sent in proposals. The Bremen Company tendered for Tuesday; the Messrs. Inman for Thursday; the Hamburg Company for Friday; and he believed Saturday was left open as the day for the Cunard Company. Thus proposals were made for a service four times a week; and there was no reason why one Company should have any advantage over another, provided they rendered the same service in the same, or nearly the same time. There was also a fifth Company which made a tender, but it was said that it was for such a slow service that New York would be reached as soon by the succeeding steamboat. If that were so, it would be a sufficient answer. But he understood that the Government had accepted the tenders for Tuesday and Thursday, but not for Friday. He would like to know upon what grounds the Government had declined to accept the tender for that day. Was it thought that the service would not be sufficiently expeditious, or that the sum
682
demanded was excessive? It appeared to him that there was no reason for rejecting the tender on these grounds. But he was told that the Hamburg steamboat taking the mails from Southampton on Friday would come into competition with the Cunard boat starting on Saturday evening. But then it should be borne in mind that the Hamburg boats starting from Southampton would require only 4 hours between the closing of the mail in London and the departure from Southampton; while the Cunard boats, though professing to go in a shorter period, starting from Queenstown, would require 18 hours. If therefore they added to the length of the voyage of the Cunard boat the difference between 4 hours and 18, it would seem that the tender of the Hamburg Company for 11½ days would be very nearly equal to that of the Cunard Company. If that were so, it was quite clear that it would be for the advantage of the public that there should be a despatch of mails on Friday as well as on Saturday. Now, it would be well to consider the free system as compared with the system of subsidies. He had been told that while on the one hand the whole amount required was only £200 a voyage, the amount payable to the Cunard Company, under special contract, would be about £1,600 a voyage. Unless some substantial reasons could be given it was highly impolitic to grant a set of merchants a subsidy to the extent of £1,400 a voyage over what was required by others. It appeared that the Government were attempting to diminish the payments to the Company by spreading the contract over a number of years; but that would be only an aggravation of the evil. He hoped the Government did not contemplate such a bargain as they had made with the Peninsular and Oriental, binding themselves for a number of years. The system of contracts was a bad one. He hoped even now that the Government would take a more liberal view of the matter, and give equal payments to all companies engaged in ocean navigation, for what they were doing at present was making one company pay for another. He trusted also that the hon. Gentleman in his reply would not introduce, as he had done on a former occasion, any remarks of a personal character. The constituency which he represented was one that had the largest interest in commercial matters of any constituency in the world, and the question

683
was one which affected not only individuals, but the public at large.
MR. O'BEIRNEprotested against the economical principles laid down by the hon. Gentleman. For his own part, he was perfectly disinterested, for he had no shares in any of the companies concerned. It was altogether impossible to throw open to competition such a service as this. To carry it on, it was necessary to have an immense amount of capital, a large number of vessels, and that preparations extending over several years should be made. He thought arrangements made by the Government were the best possible under the circumstances.
MR. HUNTsaid, with regard to the concluding remarks of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets, he was exceedingly sorry if anything that had fallen from him the other evening could be regarded as of a personal character. He was always most anxious to avoid anything of that kind; but he had thought it necessary to point out on that occasion that the Gentlemen most interested in the matter under discussion were not present to join in the animadversions passed on the Government by the hon. Member. He held it to be very desirable that Gentlemen not personally interested should give the House the benefit of their opinions. With respect to the question now before the House, he had arrived at the conclusion that the mail service to America ought to be self-supporting; but that was quite a different thing from saying that no contracts should be made for a term of years, because Companies would not be likely to put the best ships on the line unless they were sure of a contract for a certain period, quite irrespective of the amount of payment for the service. In his opinion, therefore, the Government ought to secure to Companies competing in answer to their invitation a certain period of time. As to the terms given to the Cunard Company for carrying the Saturday mails to New York, he believed, if looked into, the contract would be found to be self-supporting. The question was hardly between a sea-postage and a fixed sum; both were subsidies in different shapes. His hon. Friend had alluded to the different offers the Government had had, and was correct in saying that they had accepted the offer of the North German Company for Tuesday, that of the Inman Company for Thursday, and the Cunard Company for Saturday. The first two Companies made
684
the tender exactly in the way the Post Office desired; but the Messrs. Cunard declined, and the Government were left without an offer with regard to the day which experience had proved to be the favourite one for sending correspondence to America. Under these circumstances, were they to leave the country in the lurch? The matter was one of very great difficulty, because the Cunard Company insisted upon a contract for a term. It was thought by the Government that the Post Office at Washington might be willing to enter into terms; and, if so, the contract would be for a sea-postage and not a subsidy. But the Post Office at Washington was not favourable to the proposal, and under the circumstances the Government entered into a contract for the conveyance of the mails for £80,000 for the year. But there was this stipulation—that Messrs. Cunard should account to the Postmaster General for the whole of the postage they would earn on the return voyage, the calculation of the Post Office being that the sea-postage would come to £75,000. The Company further undertook to provide for the sorting of the letters and to find subsistence for the sorting officers, which was calculated as equivalent to a sum of £3,500; so that the margin of difference was so small that if the Post Office was right, the matter might be considered self-supporting. As to the convenience of sending the mails from Southampton on Friday, it was quite possible there might be two opinions on the subject. It seemed to him, however, that there was no advantage in having mails leave on a greater number of days under the circumstances in question. The Hamburg-American Company did not sail from Liverpool or Queenstown, but Southampton on Friday, and the time was to be 11½ days. The letters, therefore, would be delivered in New York on the Tuesday or Wednesday of the next week but one, and it was reckoned that the Cunard Company, which would have the letters sorted on board, would deliver their letters quite as soon. In that case it hardly seemed advisable to enter into a contract with the Hamburg-American Company. It was open, however, to any person to avail himself of the Hamburg line by having his letters addressed to be forwarded viâ Southampton by that line. This alternative line might be of some advantage to merchants. Of course, if this contract had been made with the Hamburg-American line, it would

685
have subtracted from the amount earned by the Cunard Company—not, however, for themselves, but for the Government. Under these circumstances, the Government had endeavoured to do justice to all parties as far as they could consistently do so, and when the correspondence was placed in the hands of Members, as it would be in a few days, he thought they would be satisfied that the Government had done the best they could for the public interest, under somewhat difficult circumstances.
MR. GOSCHENsaid, the published documents did not show that the Cunard boats leaving Queenstown on the Sunday could perform the voyage so as to arrive at the same time as the Hamburg-American boats starting from Southampton on Friday. The average length of the voyage of the Cunard boats was 10 days, 11½ hours; and if you added to this the length of time occupied in the despatch of letters to Queenstown, you had an average outward voyage of 11 days, 5½ hours. The Hamburg-American Company performed the voyage from Southampton in 11 days, 5 hours; and, adding to this the 4 hours occupied in the transit of letters from London to Southampton, you have an average voyage of 11 days, 9 hours. Thus there was only a difference of three or four hours in the length of time occupied in carrying the mails; whereas, on the assumption of the hon. Gentleman, there ought to be a difference of a day or two days. He was at a loss, therefore, to understand the calculations of the hon. Gentleman. It was desirable to have as many companies carrying mails and as many weekly services as possible between this country and America. That was the general opinion of the mercantile world. It seemed, in order to pay the Cunard Company a greater subsidy than could be paid if the offer of the Hamburg-American Company were accepted, letters were to be detained in this country for two days. The hon. Gentleman said that letters leaving Queenstown on the Sunday were likely to reach their destination in America as soon as letters leaving Southampton on Friday. Well, the merchants would be the best judges of this. If they found that the Sunday steamer was the best, they would naturally not send on the Friday; and the result, therefore, of saving a certain amount of money to the Treasury would be accomplished by an additional mail service instead of by inconveniencing the mer-
686
cantile community. Again, if a subsidy had been offered to other steampacket companies, there might have been a competition upon the basis ultimately agreed upon with the Cunard Company. But the Government first issued notices for tenders in a given form, and, when these were of no avail, concluded an arrangement with the Cunard Company upon quite another basis. The great thing in all these cases was to encourage competition, and he was afraid, if these matters were not thoroughly understood, the impression would go abroad that it was not of much use to tender, because the Government preferred to deal with certain great Companies. He was glad that an explanation on this point had been elicited from the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hunt), in order that it might be seen that the principle of competition in these cases was accepted by him and by the House—though in this particular instance he was of opinion that the interests of the mercantile community had not been consulted as they might have been.
MR. MAGUIREasked, what steamers were to call at Queenstown besides the Cunard boats?
MR. HUNT: The Inman and the Cunard boats.
MR. SHAW LEFEVREasked, to what penalties the Cunard Company was subjected for delay?
MR. HUNTsaid, that in the contract the Cunard Company were put under no penalties for the performance of the service within a given time. They always said that such a clause led their captains to be rash and to risk the safety of those on board in their anxiety to avoid the penalties. In the calculation made by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goschen) with regard to the time occupied in transmitting letters to go by the Hamburg-American line, he had forgotten that their steamers could not take Friday's letters, as they started on Friday morning—they could only carry letters written up to Thursday night. His calculations, moreover, were based entirely upon a consideration of the London correspondence, to the exclusion of the correspondence from all other parts of the kingdom. The letters from the North, for instance, could be much more conveniently sent viâ Queenstown.
MR. AYRTONsaid, he had been told that the Hamburg-American Company had offered to run their boats from Southampton at any hour, however late, on Friday.

ABYSSINIA—CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN DR. BEKE AND OTHERS AND THE FOREIGN OFFICE.—PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
MR. NEWDEGATEasked permission of the House to offer a very short explanation with reference to the Orders of the House on the previous day, in which his name appeared. He yesterday thought it his duty to move that the words—
"Also 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 1855, as bear upon the foregoing Correspondence,"
be added to a Resolution of the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Layard)—
"For an humble Address for 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."
He (Mr. Newdegate) had given a Notice for to-day—
"For an Address for Copy 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,"
which in the then state of the House he would not go into even if he were pronounced to be in order, about which it seemed there was some doubt. But what he wished to explain to the House was this—that his reason for having thought of proceeding with the notice which stood in his name that day was that the Resolution of the House was for an Address for certain Correspondence up to June, 1866, only; and one of his principal objects was to show that there was a subsequent correspondence in the hands of the Foreign Office which might be essential to Dr. Beke's defence. That object he had achieved; and although he regretted that the House was not disposed to accede to his proposition, still he had accomplished his object, which was that no one could believe that the correspondence terminated on the 11th of June, 1866, which was more than a year ago, and he
688
wished to leave this question in this position:—Dr. Beke had placed in the hands of the Foreign Office documents which he conceived were essential to his justification; and he (Mr. Newdegate wished to express the hope that as Dr. Beke had thus placed that correspondence in the hands of the Foreign Office and Her Majesty's Government, they would not allow him to be prejudiced by any false impression arising from the limited Resolution which the House had come to—a limit which cut off the correspondence after the 11th of June, 1866, more than a year ago. And in explanation of his own conduct last night, he (Mr. Newdegate) could only express his regret, on reflection, that the Speaker had reason, on that occasion, to say that he (Mr. Newdegate) was out of order. He was out of order on that occasion. He had ever studied to keep within the rules of order. He hoped that the Speaker would consider the extraordinary difficult position of an independent Member of the House—a difficulty which was every day becoming greater. He had never known a Session in which the difficulties were greater; and he trusted that hereafter he would have the good fortune of never giving the Speaker good reason to say that he was out of order again.
MR. SPEAKER: I am happy to accept the explanation of the hon. Member. It is always painful to me to apply strictly the rules of the House. The Question is, that this House, at its rising, do adjourn to Thursday, the 13th of February.
Motion agreed to.
House at its rising to adjourn till Thursday, 13th February.

PUBLIC DEPARTMENTS (EXTRA RECEIPTS) BILL.
On Motion of Mr. HUNT, Bill to regulate the disposal of Extra Receipts of Public Departments, ordered to be brought in by Mr. HUNT and Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER.
Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 26.]
House adjourned at a quarter before Two o'olock, till Thursday, 13th February.