Lords Sitting of 5 March 1857

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—3a Public Health Supplemental (1857); Ionian Subjects' Commissions.

THE WAR IN CHINA—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: Seeing the noble Lord the Secretary at War in his place, I beg to ask him a question, of which, however, I have not given notice. The noble Lord has doubtless read in the newspapers, as I have, that very serious changes have apparently taken place in the state of affairs at Canton. It appears that the English have been obliged to retreat from Whampoa; that a portion of the British fleet has been attacked by a squadron of junks, which retired in good order; that in consequence the Admiral has been compelled to abandon the position he had taken up in the wrecks of the factories in Canton, and that at the same time he burnt down some of the suburbs of Canton. I wish to ask the noble Lord whether he has received any despatches to that effect, and if such despatches have been received, why they have not been made public, or laid upon the table of the House? We read at the same time, that at Singapore circumstances have taken place imperilling the safety of the British residents there. We hear of these events through two channels, they are apparently true, and therefore we may presume that the Government are informed of them. In the present state of public opinion I think it is highly necessary that we should be informed whether any such intelligence has been received.
LORD PANMURE: The question which the noble Earl has put, without any notice whatever, is of somewhat an important character. In the first place, I cannot charge my memory with reference to the whole transactions to which the noble Lord has referred, because, of course, so far as they relate to the naval operations, no
1882
despatches have been addressed to me. I have, however, received a letter from the officer commanding the troops at Hong Kong, stating that a company of a regiment had been engaged in burning certain portions of the suburbs of Canton, and that some casualties had taken place in that transaction. These particulars will appear in the papers to-morrow.
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH: I think, my Lords, that this is a question which ought rather to be asked of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. I therefore beg to ask him whether he has received any despatches relating to the action at Macao and the retirement from Whampoa? Also whether any account has been received by him, giving an account of the burning of the suburbs of Canton?
THE EARL OF CLARENDON: Despatches have been received from Admiral Seymour, stating the reasons why he thought it necessary to withdraw from the Dutch Folly, which he occupied, and why he thought it necessary to destroy a portion of the suburbs of Canton, which enabled the Chinese to act hostilely against the fleet. That retirement also was necessary for the better protection of Hong Kong, where disturbances had taken place, and where rewards had been offered for incendiarism and the assassination of British subjects.
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH: The noble Earl will see the extreme importance of our knowing when the suburbs of Canton were destroyed. If the Admiral had determined to remain in occupation of the fort, which he seems to have entrenched, he may have been justified in destroying the suburbs which gave a cover to the enemy; but if he had destroyed the fort and had determined on retiring from Canton, there was no military or moral justification for such destruction; but it would appear to be an act of deliberate and useless vengeance. It is, therefore, highly important that we should know when, and under what circumstances, the destruction of the suburbs of Canton took place.
LORD PANMURE: I am really surprised that the noble Earl should have made an observation tending to misrepresent the actions of a British Admiral without waiting to know under what circumstances the act of hostility to which allusion has been made was committed. I must say, my Lords, that I blush for the conversation which has just taken place, as

1883
tending to throw blame, in the eyes of the country, upon a gallant officer who has only acted for the maintenance of the honour and interests of the country, and who has at the same time to maintain his own position under very difficult circumstances. The whole circumstances of the change of position are these:—The Admiral was placed in such a position at the Dutch Folly that he found his ships of war were so situated that war junks coming up the river and sinking impediments in his passage, would have stopped the return of the ships of war. Finding himself in a narrow river, and in a bad military position, he withdrew, not from before Canton, but to another position, called the Bird's Nest Fort, close in the neighbourhood of Canton, below the passage, and where the ships would not be exposed to annoyance from the junks of the enemy, but could lie in perfect safety. With respect to the Admiral's destroying the suburbs of Canton, I stake my character as a Peer of Parliament and a gentleman of England, that he has done nothing more than fair warfare would justify him in doing: that he has committed none of the pure acts of cruelty which the noble Earl has represented. I believe that Sir Michael Seymour's character stands as high, as an officer of the navy, and as a humane and Christian gentleman, as that of any man in this country.
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH: The noble Lord appears to have misunderstood me. I stated distinctly that everything depended upon the time at which this was done. If the Admiral was about to retain his position, then he would be justified in resorting to such measures, inasmuch as burning the suburbs would deprive the enemy of the cover which those suburbs afforded; but if, on the other hand, he had determined on a retirement altogether from his position before Canton—which he has done by retiring to the Bird's Nest Fort—the burning of the suburbs would be unjustifiable as a military operation.
LORD PANMURE: I deny it.

THE TREATY OF PEACE WITH PERSIA.

  QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: I wish to ask my noble Friend opposite (the Earl of Clarendon) whether the report which I have seen in the newspapers is true, that a treaty of peace has been concluded with
  1884
  Persia; and, if so, whether the Persian Ambassador who signed the treaty at Paris had full powers from his Government to do so; or whether the treaty is merely to be referred to the Persian Government?
  THE EARL OF CLARENDON: I understand that a treaty of peace with Persia was signed yesterday by Lord Cowley, on the part of England, and Ferukh, the Persian Ambassador, on the part of his Government; and that no negotiations for that treaty of peace had been entered into until we were perfectly satisfied that the Persian Plenipotentiary had ample powers from his Government to treat for that purpose.

THE OPIUM TRADE WITH CHINA.

  NOTICE OF MOTION. QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF DERBY, seeing his noble Friend (the Earl of Shaftesbury), who had a notice on the paper for Monday next with regard to the opium trade, in his place, said, he wished to ask, whether, in bringing that question forward, he intended to make a substantive Motion, and to take the sense of the House upon it; and, if so, whether he would lay the words of the Motion upon the table of the House?
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsaid, that when he gave the notice it was certainly his intention to bring forward the question and make a substantive Motion upon it. On going deeper and deeper into the subject he was convinced that the whole system, from first to last, was altogether illegal, and had not the sanction of law for any portion of its operation. He, therefore, determined to put the matter into the hands of some learned counsel and obtain their opinion upon it, and then frame his Motion in such a manner that the question should be brought forward legally and technically with a view to its being submitted to the Judges, of the realm. It was his intention to have brought forward his Motion last Monday, but the learned counsel had not been able to give their opinion upon it, and therefore he had postponed his Motion until next Monday. It certainly was his intention to bring forward his Motion on that day, and he should repeat it year after year until some satisfactory announcement on the question were made. He would lay upon the table tomorrow the Motion he intended to make, and would move on Monday, that certain questions should be submitted to the Judges of the realm.

RETIREMENT OF AGED BISHOPS.

  QUESTION. EXPLANATION.
  VISCOUNT DUNGANNONsaid, that a short time ago he had asked a question of the Lord Privy Seal whether Her Majesty's Government contemplated bringing forward any measure for providing for bishops who, from advanced age or other infirmity, might be desirous of being relieved from episcopal duties by relinquishing their sees. He understood the noble Earl in reply to have said that such a measure was in contemplation; but he was reported to have stated that he was not prepared to give any answer to the question, however important it might be.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYsaid, the noble Earl was correct in his impression as to the answer he had given, and he was sorry it was not audible elsewhere. He was prepared to introduce such a measure.

  MINISTERIAL STATEMENT.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I propose to give the House some information as to the course which Her Majesty's Government intend to pursue, in consequence of certain events which your Lordships are no doubt aware have occurred in another place. Her Majesty's Government having found themselves there in a minority, the usual course under such circumstances would have been for them to tender their resignation to Her Majesty. After a calm consideration, however, of all the circumstances of the present case, they have come to the opinion that at present it is not their duty so to do. Looking at all those circumstances, considering that in the same place, on a most important question concerning the finances of the
  country, they have found themselves supported by a large majority; having received support, for which they are grateful, from your Lordships' House on this Chinese question itself; looking, also, to the composition of the present House of Commons, in which it does not appear to be clear that a strong Government could be formed in the present state of that House; further, considering that that House has now had an existence of five years; that during those five years three different Governments have been in existence; that it has seen this nation enter into a war, has seen that war concluded, and peace again established—I say, my Lords, that all these circumstances
  1886
  having been taken into consideration, Her Majesty's Government think it would be most for the advantage of the country and for the interest of the public that reference should be made to the country, to ascertain what its wishes are with regard to the future. My Lords, without giving any detailed reasons for adopting this course, all that I have to add is this, that Her Majesty's Government will only ask the sanction of both Houses of Parliament to measures of a temporary character, so as to enable that appeal to be made as soon as possible, with the view of calling another Parliament as soon as a new Parliament can be elected, and thus ascertaining what are the wishes of the country as to the party who are for the future to rule the nation. I cannot anticipate that in these views they will meet with opposition from any party in the State, but that all will admit the reasonableness and fairness of thus ascertaining what the real feeling of the country is.
  EARL GREY: I have certainly no wish to raise discussion on this occasion, but it occurs to me that there is an omission in the statement which the noble Earl has just made. I will remind your Lordships that on former occasions, when a Government has been defeated in the House of Commons, and, upon that defeat, instead of resigning their offices into the hands of Her Majesty, has thought fit to appeal to the country—in all prior cases of this kind the difference has arisen with regard to the legislative policy of the country. It was so in 1784, when Mr. Pitt in that memorable instance held office against a majority of the House of Commons. It was so in 1841, when a question arose as to the commercial and financial policy of the Government. In all these cases no material public inconvenience arose from leaving in uncertainty until the new Parliament met what should he the policy of the country. But allow me to point out to your Lordships that this case is widely different. The House of Commons has condemned the policy of Her Majesty's Government, not upon a legislative question, but upon the highest question of executive policy with which they have to deal. It is upon a question of peace of war. The House of Commons has come to a Resolution, which I am perfectly in order in quoting from the Votes laid on your Lordships' table—
  "That this House considers that the papers which have been laid upon the table fail to establish

  1887
  satisfactory grounds for the violent measures resorted to at Canton in the late affair of the Arrow."
  Consider, my Lords, what is the serious effect of that Resolution. It is this—that the country is now virtually engaged in a war which has been branded as unjust by the House of Commons; the affairs of England are intrusted in that country to the management of a person who by a vote of the House of Commons is branded with having without due justification entered on these violent measures. Now, my Lords, having just heard that the end of May is the earliest period at which Her Majesty's Government anticipate that another House of Commons can be called together, I wish to know whether in the interval of time which will be occupied in making this appeal to the country, during which events of tremendous importance may take place, the policy branded by the House of Commons is to be pursued, and whether the treatment of these most important questions which must arise in China is still to be committed to the hands of the man whose moral authority in that country is, I say, destroyed by the vote which has taken place. My Lords, it appears to me impossible that, in the face of the vote recently given by the House of Commons, the policy which has hitherto been pursued can be persevered in, or the affairs of England in Canton be intrusted to the hands in which they are at present placed. I submit that if the two Houses of Parliament are called on to give those facilities which are expected by Her Majesty's Government, in order that they may make the appeal to the country which they desire—if we are to give those facilities which I need not tell your Lordships either House has the power of refusing—we are entitled to satisfaction on this point from Her Majesty's Government. I can venture to say what, in my opinion, they ought to do. I think they ought at once and forthwith to recall Sir John Bowring. I think they ought to send out a person of high character, in whose discretion and judgment great confidence can be placed, with very wide discretionary powers, to bring the war, if possible, to a conclusion. I think they ought to do—what I have no doubt they have done already—namely, taken all the measures in their power to protect the lives and property of Her Majesty's subjects in China. But I say this is, of all things, most essential, that the individual who has brought the country into its present
  1888
  critical position and involved it in hostilities should not remain intrusted with the high duties of Her Majesty's Plenipotentiary. Certainly, unless Her Majesty's Government are prepared to give satisfaction on that point, I think it is the duty of this and the other House, by humble Address to Her Majesty, to express the wish, I am sorry to say, they must feel; and if no other Member of your Lordships' House more able to undertake the task present himself, I shall be prepared to move such an Address.
  EARL GRANVILLE: I could perfectly understand the question which has been put by the noble Earl being put in another place, where the Resolution has been affirmed; but I do not see the same propriety in the noble Earl's putting the question in your Lordships' assembly, when, after full discussion, you have come, by a large majority, to a contrary opinion. At the same time, I should be most unwilling to refuse any general information as to the course of the Government which it is in my power to give. I can only assure your Lordships that even before the close of the debate we had taken into our deepest consideration the best means of determining the present unsatisfactory state of relations between China and this country. We do not consider that the House of Commons intended by that Resolution to indicate that we should refrain from taking every necessary step for the defence of the lives and property of British subjects in China, or that we should patch up matters in a rash and precipitate manner, without reference to the position of things at the time. We think we act in consonance with the decision of the House of Commons, though not admitting its justice, if we take every step which, in our judgment, is best calculated to settle the question as a whole, and that we shall not incur blame by so doing either from your Lordships or from the other House, even in its present state—still less, we hope, when Parliament is re-elected after a dissolution.

  CHIEF CONSTABLES BILL.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  EARL GRANVILLE EARL GRANVILLE moved that the Bill be now read 3a.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYhoped the third reading would not be pressed at present. He would move—
  "To leave out all the words after the word

  1889
  'That,' for the purpose of inserting the following words:—'Copies of the correspondence which has taken place between the magistrates of Staffordshire and Sir George Grey upon the appointment of Colonel Hogg to be Chief Constable.'"
  After a short debate, which was quite inaudible.
  On Question, that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Motion, their Lordships divided:—Content 28; Not Content 13: Majority 15.
  Resolved in the Affirmative; Bill read 3a accordingly, and passed.

POOR BENEFICES IN THE DIOCESE OF LONDON.

  MOTION FOR RETURN.
  VISCOUNT DUNGANNON, in moving for a return of the number of benefices within the diocese of London having endowments under £200 a-year, said, that since he had given notice of his intention to move for that Return he had received several communications from London clergymen on the subject of it. Since the Burial Acts had been passed, and the consequent diminution of the burial fees, the income of many of the metropolitan clergy had been reduced to an amount incompatible with the maintenance of their social position, and manifestly disproportioned to the important and laborious duties they had to discharge. One of his correspondents was the Rev. Mr. Kelly, the incumbent of St. John's, Hoxton, who stated, that the church there was consecrated in 1826, that he was then appointed minister of it, and that there was no endowment of the church. He added, that in 1851 the population of St. John's was 21,365; that his average net income from pew rents, marriage fees, &c., was £330, and from burial fees £210, making together £540.The effect of the Act passed a few years ago for regulating the burial of persons dying in the metropolis, had been to reduce his income from £540 to £330, and that after he had been thirty years a minister of that church. In addition to that, he was liable to pay £90 a-year out of the fees to a fund of the church wardens which went to defray certain expenses incidental to the celebration of public worship. He (Viscount Dungannon) submitted that that was a very hard case, and he believed it was only one among many such. It was a melancholy fact, that the Legislature was not doing anything whatever towards placing the parochial clergy in populous parishes in
  1890
  the position in which they ought to be; and if their Lordships would grant him the return for which he asked, it would show an extraordinary catalogue of populous parishes with very poor endowments. Nevertheless, the incumbent was expected to be the largest contributor to all local charities, even the richest of their parishioners frequently regulating their subscriptions to such objects by the amount of the clergyman's contribution. He thought it, moreover, very objectionable that any portion of the incumbent's income should be dependent upon pew rents, as was the case in many parishes, on the ground that it placed him in a very invidious position in regard to his parishioners. He hoped the time had arrived when these matters would receive serious consideration, and when some satisfactory information would be given as to how the very large sum in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners was disposed of. Of course that Commission entailed a certain degree of expense and required a certain number of officials; nor did he complain of proper remuneration being given to those officials, but he did think that some account ought to be rendered to this House and to the public as to the manner in which those funds were applied. He was not to be told that because in certain parishes the clergymen occasionally received large fees, or because they had large congregations, therefore they were to be considered well endowed. These were matters of chance and favour to which the Church of England ought not to be exposed, and he thought that the information which he now sought to obtain would fully justify the course he had taken on this question.
  Moved—"That there be laid before this House, Return of the number of benefices with in the diocese of London, having endowments under £200 a-year; specifying the population in connection with such benefices, the name of each benefice, and those of them which are without a residence for the incumbent."
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYsaid, he had no objection to the production of the Return moved for, and was glad to see that the noble Viscount had turned his attention to this important subject, which deserved the fullest consideration. With respect to the Ecclesiastical Commission, however, the noble Viscount seemed to be unaware that, not only did that Commission present an annual report to Parliament, containing every possible detail as to its proceedings, but that on two occasions

  1891
  Parliament had made this the subject of most minute investigation. So lately as last year the House of Commons appointed a Committee which received evidence in detail from the officials employed, and to the Report of this Committee he would refer the noble Viscount for full information respecting the expenditure and the proceedings of the Ecclesiastical Commission. If he remembered rightly, the Commission had made an augmentation of the endowments of benefices to the amount of £86,000 a-year. [Viscount DUNGANNON: I believe a miserably small sum was added to each benefice.] That might be, but there was an immense number of claimants, and it was impossible to give what might be wished to each of these. It might be a question for discussion as to whether it was desirable to give more to few or less to many; but the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, acting, he believed, in accordance with definite instructions from Parliament, had gone on the principle of giving small sums to a great many, rather than larger amounts to few. No doubt a large body of the clergy of the Established Church were possessed of endowments totally inadequate; but the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were doing the best with the funds at their disposal, and could not be accused of partiality as to the distribution of those funds. Then, too, very desirable reforms had been introduced. It used to be the practice for a person to hold two, or three, or four small benefices, performing service in each sometimes once a fortnight, sometimes once a month, and yet receiving from all of them a very in adequate remuneration. For good reasons it had been thought better that each parish should have its own clergyman, but in laying down and applying this provision it naturally happened that in some instances the endowments were of very small amount. He was afraid that he could not entertain any very sanguine hope of the deficiencies which had been occasioned being made up from any existing fund.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, that late changes, caused by the Burial Act, had fallen very heavily on many of the clergy. In one living it had occasioned a loss of £408 a-year to the incumbent; in another living, a loss of £518 a-year; in another, a loss of £250 a-year, where there was a population of 17,000; in another, a loss of £250 a-year, bringing the living down to £200; in another, a loss of £200 a-year, reducing the living to £100; and in another
  1892
  most important parish the living was entirely dependent upon the Easter offerings, there being nothing left after the incumbent had paid his curates. Seeing, then, how severely the clergy were suffering from recent measures of legislation, by which the public were largely benefited, he trusted that the attention of Parliament would be turned to the subject with the view of remedying this state of things.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORalso said, he was aware that the incomes of many of the clergy in the metropolis had been very greatly reduced by the operation of the recent Burial Acts.
  Motion agreed to.
  House adjourned till To-morrow.