Lords Sitting of 1 August 1859

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Dwellings for Labouring Classes (Ireland); Militia Ballots Suspension; Constabulary Force (Ireland); Local Government Supplemental; County Cess (Ireland) Acts Continuance; Manufactures (Ireland) Acts Continuance); Colonial Legislatures Power of Repeal; Barbuda Government; Queen's Remembrancer, &c.; Military Savings Banks; Marriages (Lisbon).
2a Railway Companies Arbitration; Boundaries (Ireland).
3a Admiralty Court; Jury Trial (Scotland) Act Amendment; Diplomatic Pensions; Criminal Justice, Middlesex (Assistant Judge).
Royal Assent.—Consolidated Fund (£7,000,000); Public Health.

BUSINESS OF THE SESSION.
THE EARL OF DERBY(in presenting some petitions against the abolition of church rates without a substitute), observed that he was glad to find that the petition was unnecessary, inasmuch as the objectionable Bill had been withdrawn. He wished to ask a question of the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) in reference
730
to the course of public business. In consequence of the peculiar character of the Session his noble Friend the Chairman of Committees had abstained from proposing any Resolution as to a day after which Bills should not be received from the other House, except those of an urgent character. The month of August had now arrived, and it was hoped, if not expected, by all that Parliament would not have to sit more than a fortnight longer. He, therefore, wished to know whether the noble Earl was prepared to name any day after which second readings should not be taken, except in cases of public necessity or importance. He believed there were only two Bills with respect to which any difference of opinion was likely to arise. One of these was the Endowed Schools Bill, which would require to be very carefully considered. There was a general desire to rectify the inconveniences which had recently occurred; but the Bill as introduced into the other House went so far beyond what was needed that it was referred to a Select Committe of the other House, by whom the measure was so much altered that, except the preamble—and he was not sure even of that—scarcely a word remained of the original Bill. The matter was one of considerable importance, but was not one that pressed for a decision for three, four, or five months, and he trusted that if there should be a difference of opinion on the Bill when it came up, the Government would not take advantage of the present state of the House to press it during the present Session. The other Bill was the Roman Catholic Charities Bill, which was also a subject of considerable importance. The Roman Catholic charities were exempted from the operations of the general Act by an annual Bill. Last year he (the Earl of Derby) consented to renew this Bill for one year, on condition that at the commencement of the present Session the Roman Catholic body would he prepared to submit to the Government the regulations they wished to see adopted. If no Bill were passed in the present Session the Roman Catholic charities would come under the general Act. It was very desirable that some permanent measure should be passed; but ample opportunity ought to be given for its consideration, and it would be better to introduce a continuance Bill for another year than pass an ill-digested measure. Perhaps the noble Earl would be prepared to name an early day after which their Lordships would not be called upon to pass

731
a measure upon which any great difference of opinion might exist.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees had consulted him some time ago whether it would be advisable that he should renew his usual Resolution fixing a date after which their Lordships should not give a second reading to Bills from the other House. He (Earl Granville) replied that in his opinion the circumstances of the present Session were so anomalous that it would not be expedient to renew the noble Lord's Resolution. The noble Earl had correctly stated that no Bill likely to give rise to opposition would come before their Lordships, except those to which the noble Earl had referred. The Endowed Schools Bill in its original shape had been very much objected to, and had been referred to a Select Committee. This Committee—which comprised among its members the Solicitor General of the late Government—had taken considerable pains with the Bill, and had come to a unanimous agreement upon the subject. He trusted that the arrangement thus made would meet with the approbation both of Dissenters and Churchmen, and it would be a matter for regret if the amended Bill did not pass both Houses of Parliament with the least possible delay. If, however, the Bill, when it arrived, should meet with any large amount of opposition the Government would not press the measure during the present Session. With regard to the Roman Catholic charities, it was not desirable that they should be legislated for by a Bill renewed from year to year, and it was very important that a permanent Act should be passed. The Government had introduced a measure for this purpose, which would pass an important stage in the other House to-morrow, and it would depend upon the result of that discussion what course the Government would take in their Lordships' House with regard to it. If there were a general feeling of disagreement with regard to that Bill, he should say, as an individual, that it would be desirable to adopt the suggestion of the noble Earl, and have a continuance Bill for another year, leaving the subject to be considered next Session. He would consider the suggestions of the noble Earl, and give him more information to-morrow.

PARLIAMENTARY FRANCHISE.—PROPERTY QUALIFICATION.

  QUESTION.
  LORD TEYNHAMrose to ask Her Ma-
  732
  jesty's Government whether, in preparing a Measure of Parliamentary Reform, they will take into Consideration the Expediency of not proposing any Property or pecuniary Qualification to entitle a Person to be registered as a Voter. The noble Lord said that there were involved in this question the political interests of the working classes of the United Kingdom, and not their political interests alone, but with them and through them their mental and moral advancement, and the welfare and improvement not only of the whole nation, but the human race. If he were asked why he introduced the subject to their Lordships at the present moment, when a measure of Parliamentary Reform would be so shortly presented for the consideration of the Legislature, he would reply that the question involved so many collateral considerations that it was impossible to consider it adequately if brought before their Lordships during a series of discussions on the general subject of reform. No doubt there were great difficulties in the way of carrying out the principle which he proposed, but at the same time they were far from being insurmountable. He asked himself the question whether it was just that the privilege of voting should be granted to the higher and middle classes, and withheld from the working and industrious classes? and he hoped to be able to persuade their Lordships that such a course was not just. He then asked himself whether it was expedient that they should be excluded? But if such a course was not just, he was quite sure that it could not be expedient. Every man had a stake in the country; every man was called upon to contribute towards the general taxation; it had been acknowledged by a high authority "in another place" that indirect taxation pressed most heavily on the lower classes, and on that ground, as being most affected by the legislation of Parliament, the lower classes had even a more powerful right to representation in the House of Commons than those which were superior to them. The right of voting was aspired to by the humbler portion of the population, and during the recent debates on the Reform Bill both the political parties had shown their willingness to extend the franchise to a certain extent among the working classes. The principle being therefore admitted, he asked on what principle could a property or pecuniary qualification for voting be said to rest? Every Englishman, no matter how humble, was passively

  733
  in the enjoyment of political rights; what he demanded was that they should be brought actively within the pale of the constitution. Every man had a right to say—"I am an Englishman of full age; I have learned a trade by which I support myself and my family; I am honest and sober, and I commit injury to no one. I have a right, therefore, to be entrusted with my political privileges." In asking, therefore, for the working classes the right to vote, independently of any property or pecuniary qualification, he was only asking that which would be beneficial to their Lordships and to the nation at large. There was no principle in a pecuniary qualification. It might be made use of to exclude the working classes, or to keep up what was deemed the right proportion between agricultural and town voters, but it was no test of the qualification of a voter, and was the exponent of no principle. The noble Lord was pursuing his argument, when
  VISCOUNT DUNGANNONrose to order. It did not appear that there was any direct Question before the House. The noble Lord had given notice of his intention to ask the Government a Question, but the noble Lord appeared to be going into a discussion upon the Reform Bill, and about to occupy a great deal of their Lordships' time when there appeared to be no Question before the House.
  LORD TEYNHAMwas just about to conclude the part of his argument on which he was then speaking when the noble Lord rose. There being no Reform Bill under the consideration of the House was the very reason he asked the Question, and deemed the putting of it opportune and proper. However, he would yield to what appeared to be the wish of the House, and would conclude by merely putting his Question.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that it was very undesirable that he should anticipate the statement which the Government would make as early as convenient next Session, and he therefore hoped that his noble Friend would not think him discourteous if he declined to give any answer to his Question.

DIVORCE COURT BILL.

  AMENDMENTS CONSIDERED.
  Report of Amendments received (according to Order).
  THE LORD CHANCELLORcalled the attention of the House to the two clauses which had been introduced into the Bill
  734
  in Committee, namely, that by which the Judges should regulate by rota, or whatever other mode they deemed most convenient, the attendance of the requisite number of Judges to make a full Court. The second clause was, that the Bill should comprehend the whole United Kingdom, except Scotland. The latter by which persons domiciled in Ireland might sue in this Court for a dissolution of marriage had not been proposed by him, but he saw no objection to it. Some had felt alarm lest this should deprive the Irish of local remedies which they already possessed, and should compel them to come to England to prosecute their suits. In answer to that it would be sufficient to say that the Bill left the parties in possession of any remedies they might already have; and made their suing in the London Court a purely voluntary act. The other objection was that the clause would enable Hindoos, Parsees, Mahomedans and the like, to come here and claim divorces on the principles of their own laws. That was likewise a pure mistake. The Court would have no powers except those expressly conferred upon it by the statute. Nevertheless, as the Amendment was objected to it was not his intention to press it.
  LORD KINGSDOWNsaid, he was very glad his noble and learned Friend had consented to withdraw this Amendment, for otherwise the greatest confusion and injustice would be occasioned. The Colonies, which had Legislatures of their own, would have great reason to complain, and as for India, there was nothing to prevent Parsees and Hindoos from being brought under the operation of the Bill had the clause remained. In fact it would have interfered most seriously with social rights, especially in those sects and creeds where the marriage tie was held to be indissoluble.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, he had been given to understand that the Act already applied to the Colonies, and that it was only needed therefore to extend it to Ireland.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that when the parties were domiciled in England they might apply to the Court, even although both the marriage and the adultery had taken place abroad. When the parties, however, were not domiciled in England, they were beyond the jurisdiction of the Court.
  Amendment agreed to.
  LORD REDESDALE LORD REDESDALE moved an Amend-

  735
  ment in Clause 5, which enables the Court to sit with closed doors where it should appear to the Court desirable to do so in regard of public decency. He objected altogether to the total closing of the Court, as being repugnant to the general principle of the administration of justice in this country; but as their Lordships, on a division in Committee, had affirmed the clause, he thought it would be advisable to narrow its operation as much as possible. It was with this view he proposed this modification, which would limit the power of the Court to exclude the public where decency appeared to require it in suits for nullity of marriage only. The evidence in many of these suits was throughout of a grossly indelicate character, and as these had been cases, and he believed the only cases in which the Ecclesiastical Courts had sat with closed doors, the exclusion of the public from similar proceedings in the new Court might perhaps be permitted, without very seriously interfering with the general principles on which justice was administered in this country.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORobserved, that the subject had already been most amply discussed by their Lordships, and they had determined, on a division, that the Judge should, on his responsibility, hear a case in private when public decency required it. He trusted, therefore, that the noble Lord would not press his Amendment.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, he objected to the Amendment as much as he did to the clause. It was a most dangerous power to give by Act of Parliament. If it was right that such a power should exist in one Court, it ought to exist in all. There were as great exhibitions of indecency at the Assize Courts as in this Court.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDreminded the House that in criminal courts there was no secrecy, and in eases of rape the girl or woman who complained had to give her evidence in public, and he thought properly, because it was in such cases that publicity and searching investigation were most required. He should support the Amendment, because it would tend to diminish the evil which the clause would create.
  LORD CRANWORTHthought it would be unwise to tie up the hands of the Judge in cases where his discretion could most usefully be employed. Incases of cruelty the acts complained of were frequently of
  736
  a gross and revolting character, and it was now required that an injured wife seeking relief should only obtain it at the price of proclaiming her misfortunes in the hearing of a crowded court.
  VISCOUNT DUNGANNONthought that the closing of the Court should be left in the discretion of the Judges. He considered publicity in this particular Court exceedingly injurious to public morality.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREwished that the clause were struck out altogether; but the attempt made on a previous occasion to strike it out having been unsuccessful he should vote for the modification proposed by the noble Lord.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, he was opposed to any infringement of the practice of entire publicity in the administration of justice, and he should have voted, had he been present, against the clause itself. The House had unfortunately, he thought, affirmed the clause by a large majority, and now, although he was ready to admit there was something inconsistent in refusing in one case a concession which was made in another, he thought the clause ought to be restricted as much as possible to what was absolutely necessary. He would therefore support the Amendment if his noble Friend divided the House, and it would give him much more pleasure to support him if he were hereafter to move the rejection of the whole clause.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that it was clear that no man ought to be deprived of life or liberty without an open trial, and he should be against anything that would have the slightest tendency to deprive him of that right. The House, however, were here called on to legislate with regard to an exceptional case in a civil suit, and he thought they might leave that discretion proposed in the clause to the Court without the smallest encroachment on the general principle.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, that the adoption of the Amendment he had moved, would not remove the objection he entertained to the principle involved in the clause, and he had only proposed it as preferable to the unlimited power of exclusion at the discretion of the Judge granted by the Bill. He would, therefore, as there were several Lords who were not present on the former occasion, who appeared desirous of recording their votes against the principle of the clause, ask leave of the House to withdraw his Amendment and move the rejection of the clause, in order

  737
  that their Lordships might not be subjected to the inconvenience of dividing twice on the' subject.
  After a few words from the Duke of ARGYLL and Lord CRANWORTH,
  Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  LORD REDESDALEthen moved the omission of the clause.
  On Question, That the said clause stand part of the Bill?
  The House divided:—Contents 24; Not-Contents 11: Majority 13.

  CONTENTS.

  Campbell, L. (L. Chancellor)

  Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton).

  Brougham and Vaux, L.

  Cleveland, D.

  Calthorpe, L.

  Newcastle, D.

  Cranworth, L.

  De Mauley, L.

  Beauchamp, E.

  De Tabley, L.

  Granville, E.

  Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine).

  Ripon, E.

  Foley, L. [Teller].

  Rosslyn, E.

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough). [Teller].

  Dungannon, V.

  Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll).

  Sydney, V.

  Teynham, L.

  Audley, L.

  Wodehouse, L.

  Aveland, L.

  Wynford, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Richmond, D.

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore) [Teller].

  Exeter, M.

  Churston, L.

  Salisbury, M.

  Colville of Culross, L.

  Redesdale, L. [Teller].

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Derby, E.

  Wycombe, L. (E. Shelburne).

  Lonsdale, E.

  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.

  MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS BILL.
  Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
  No noble Lord rising to move that the Bill be now read the second time,
  THE EARL OF RIPONsaid, that his name appeared upon the Bill, but he was not chargeable with its conduct or responsible for its provisions.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, that this Bill was not one that ought to pass without consideration. Its object was to repeal the existing provision under which the officers of a municipal corporation made a declaration that they would do nothing to injure
  738
  the Established Church; and it also repealed the prohibition which had been many years in existence, and which forbad mayors and members of corporations from taking the emblems of the municipal authority to Dissenting places of worship. There might not be anything very material in these provisions, but this was one of a series of Bills the object of which appeared to be to reduce the Church of England to an entire and absolute level with all the Dissenting sects throughout the country. The clause repealing the prohibition against carrying the corporate emblems to Dissenting places of worship was intended to do away with all distinction between churches and other places of religious worship. He should be sorry to interpose to prevent the fullest freedom of religious worship, but he was not disposed to give a power to the municipal corporations which they did not now possess, of attending Dissenting places of worship with all the emblems of corporate authority. He had to ask the noble Earl (the Earl of Ripon) whether he had withdrawn the Bill altogether, or had merely postponed it, reserving to himself the right of bringing it forward on a future occasion?
  THE EARL OF RIPONsaid, the noble Earl, in addressing that question to him, appeared to be under a misapprehension; for he (the Earl of Ripon) had nothing whatever to do with the Bill, and consequently neither moved nor withdrew the Bill.
  Order for Second Reading discharged.

  TRADE WITH CHINA—ADMISSION OF SALT.—QUESTION.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYrose to call the attention of Her Majesty's Government to the Question of the Admission of British Salt into China, and to ask what Steps have been taken for bringing the subject before the Government at Pekin. He presented a petition in the course of last Session upon this subject, signed by a large number of manufacturers of salt in this country; and the question involved was of the greatest importance not to the salt manufacturers only but to the commercial world at large. The balance of imports and exports in our trade with China was very much in favour of that country, and were it not that the trade in opium to some extent readjusted the balance, the consequences to this country, arising from the enormous drain of silver which would result, might be most disastrous to our

  739
  financial and monetary system. It was, moreover, not at all improbable that China would itself grow the opium which was now imported from India, and thus create a great deficiency in the Indian revenue. If, therefore, he could point out that, by giving facilities to English manufacturers of salt to import it into China, this great deficiency in our imports could be remedied, be should be rendering a very great service to this country. China contained a population of 300,000,000 of human beings, to whom salt was a first necessary of life. At present the Chinese Government had a monopoly in the manufacture of salt, from which they derived a large revenue, and it was therefore clear that in asking the Chinese Government to afford facilities for the importation of salt into that country, it was but reasonable that we should secure to them a revenue equal to that which would be jeopardised by the change. The facilities possessed by this country for the manufacture of salt over the Chinese Government were so great that he believed that English manufacturers could afford to allow to the Chinese Government the full revenue which it now derived from the monopoly, and at the same time sell it at a cheaper rate than that at which it was at present sold in China. The Indian Government at one time stood in very much the same position as the Chinese Government with regard to salt, having a monopoly of the article nearly similar. It was comparatively of late years that the monopoly of the Indian Government had been relaxed. When this was proposed they were told that not only would the Natives refuse to consume British salt, but that English merchants would be unable to introduce it into the country. None of these "lions in the way," however, of the East India Company had been found in practice to exercise any injurious effect. On the contrary, the salt so imported had proved a source of considerable profit to the English manufacturer, and had proved besides a valuable addition to the sources of Native revenue, the duty on salt having been more cheaply and easily collected than it had ever been before. It would be obvious to their Lordships that customs duties levied on an article going into a country were more easily collected and more advantageous in every respect than those which were collected by a system of excise, and mixed up with fiscal operations in the country. To such an extent had the consumption of salt increased in India since the permission to
  740
  import had been granted, that upwards of 100,000 tons were annually imported into Calcutta, and from thence largely distributed throughout the country; and it was even stated by merchants resident in India that this amount might be expected still further to improve if additional facilities in the way of bonding were afforded. But he thought it would be difficult to obtain the introduction of salt into China without securing in some way to the Chinese Government an amount of revenue equal to that which they derived from the sale of this commodity, which proved a very important portion of their revenue. The noble Earl (the Earl of Elgin) who had recently concluded a diplomatic arrangement with the Chinese Government, and who, through the energy and ability which he had exhibited, had successfully carried into effect a treaty with that country, in which he had so well preserved the interests of his own, had, among other things, his attention called to certain commercial transactions. No specific directions were, he believed, sent out from this country; but that noble Earl, animated by all the anxious interest which he had ever shown for the commercial interests of England, must have perceived that it would be desirable to effect some arrangement by which the introduction of salt into China could be facilitated. He had no doubt the House would be glad to hear what steps had actually been taken with that object, though he believed nothing conclusive had been accomplished, and the matter still remained very much upon the same footing as before the noble Earl went there. On bringing this subject before the late Government, he received assurances that instructions would be given to Mr. Bruce to bring the matter before the Chinese Government, and to endeavour to obtain from them some relaxation of the present monopoly—which course he (Lord Stanley) believed could not fail to be attended with mutually advantageous results. He saw by the papers that a treaty had been recently concluded between Russia and China, and in one article he perceived that permission was given to the Russians to have an Ambassador resident at Pekin, and also that facilities were granted for communicating with the Court. It was not clear whether this was to be a permanently resident Russian agent at Pekin, or whether it was to be a mere extension of the consulate which already existed there; but he believed that in the treaties which

  741
  had been concluded with that, important and most interesting nation, the Chinese, England had been able to obtain the same privileges and advantages that were granted to any other country. He, therefore, hoped, that in adopting whatever course might seem good with regard to this question, Her Majesty's Ministers would, in the event of the Russian or any other Government sending a Minister or Ambassador to Pekin, deem it advisable to avail themselves to a similar extent of the powers conferred by the treaty. He also trusted that the British Government would insist on the right of direct communication with the Central Government at Pekin, on every occasion when the interests of the country might require it. It was only by this power of direct communication that they would ever be able to secure the full advantages of the obligations which the Chinese Government had entered into, and to check the efforts of corrupt officials at the outports to render nugatory the provisions of the treaty. It must, he thought, be obvious how important it was, both to this country and to China, that such an article as salt should be freely imported, and he thought it would be very easy to make such regulations as would secure to China a revenue not only equalling, but exceeding, that which she at present enjoyed from this source. The effect of the abolition of the salt monopoly would be not only to establish a snug trade for salt at Shanghai, but to get rid of numerous evils which had existed of late years, which had led to very great difficulties, and had been attended with very serious consequences. The noble Lord concluded by inquiring, what steps have been taken for bringing the question of the admission of British salt into China before the Government at Pekin, and also what instructions had been forwarded to Mr. Bruce with that object; and by expressing a hope that the noble Earl (the Earl of Elgin) would state to the House the position in which this country stood in relation to the right of maintaining an Ambassador at Pekin.
  THE EARL OF ELGINsaid, as the noble Lord had addressed the latter part of his inquiry more particularly to him, he would answer the question to the best of his ability, leaving to the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to explain more particularly the directions which had been given to Mr. Bruce. He must, however, observe that in referring to transactions in which he had been per-
  742
  sonally engaged as a diplomatic agent on the coast of China, he felt some difficulty in giving to their Lordships so complete an explanation as he should desire to do. The House was aware that when departing on his mission he had been furnished with instructions, and that during his sojourn he had been in the habit of communicating both with Her Majesty's Ministers, with private individuals, and with commercial bodies on all subjects connected with his mission; but for reasons which he believed to be entirely sufficient, because the treaty had not yet been ratified, neither the instructions under which he had acted, nor the Treaty of Tien-Tsin, with the tariff arrangements which had been entered into in consequence of that measure, nor yet the Correspondence which had passed between himself and Her Majesty's Government and persons interested in the trade of China, had yet been made public. He therefore felt under considerable difficulty in stating both what he had done and the advice which he had felt it his duty to tender to Her Majesty's Government. He could only trust that their Lordships would believe that, however incomplete his explanation might be, he had not wilfully or through carelessness neglected to urge any commercial interest of this country. Their Lordships would remember that he proceeded to China at a period of very considerable difficulty in the East—that it had been particularly enjoined on him that he should endeavour to bring to a close that state of hostilities the continuance of which was so inconvenient for the interests of this country—that he had also to consider the convenience and interests of colleagues who were the representatives of other nations— and there was likewise a consideration which weighed very greatly with him—he referred to the interests of the Chinese Government itself. To his mind, there could be nothing more prejudicial to the interests of this country than that the resources of the Chinese Government should become so crippled as to prevent them from maintaining the position of that country; and during his period of sojourn there nothing was more observable than the rise and fall in the value of British imports, which corresponded exactly with the rise and fall of the fortunes of the Chinese Government. Their value rose and fell with the influence of the Imperial Government just as certainly as the mercury in the thermometer is affected by the temperature. Under these circumstances he

  743
  confessed that he had perhaps been prevented from pressing on the Chinese Government some of those commercial changes which he should have advocated had the interests of the Imperial Government been of no importance in his eyes. As regarded the particular question of the introduction of salt, he begged to express his concurrence in every syllable that had fallen from the noble Lord; and he could only say that it was with very great regret that he had found it utterly impossible to induce the Chinese Commissioner with whom he negotiated the Treaty of Tien-Tsin to enter into this question. At the same time, he did not despair of the possibility of the result desired by the noble Lord being arrived at. He believed the only thing necessary was to persuade the Chinese Government that their revenue would not suffer from the change. He might, however, state that it was not till the 1st of January in the present year that he had seen any representations from persons interested in the manufacture of salt, or who had interested themselves in favour of its introduction into China requesting him to interfere in regard to that question; and those who knew how difficult it was to introduce changes into Oriental countries would perceive that he could not then, even on the score of time, press the subject with any hope of success. He believed that if Mr. Bruce could persuade the Government of that country of the truth of the views so fairly and clearly stated by the noble Lord, he would have achieved an undertaking that would be attended with much profit and lasting advantage to the two countries. At the same time the House must remember that such changes were not easily effected, and least of all in an Oriental country. The monopoly of salt was not only very productive but it had likewise the prestige of great antiquity. Some of the records stated that it was in existence 1,100 years before the Christian era, and in an Eastern country a tax which had been paid 3,000 years became very popular. The system under which the salt tax was raised in China very much resembled that in which the opium revenue was raised in India. The salt-producing lands were let to farmers who were obliged to deposit the results of their labour in Government stores; they were then handed over to retailers, who were obliged to buy licences for the privilege of vending it. He might state that one of the great objects which he had laboured to accomplish was to improve the
  744
  custom-house system of China; and he believed that if, as was now proposed, the monopoly in this article were done away with, and some effectual security given to the Chinese Government for an equal amount of revenue, it would confer much benefit on China. The only other subject to which allusion has been made was with regard to the ratification of a treaty between Russia and China. Of course the noble Lord would understand that on this subject he spoke with great reserve; at the same time he had no hesitation in saying that of the four treaties which had been concluded at Tien-Tsin the only one giving the right to establish a permanent embassy at Pekin was the English treaty; and though other nations might share in the advantages of the privileges thus acquired under "the most favoured nation" clause, there was no doubt that the right had originally been given to England alone. It would be found, on consulting the English treaty, that power had been given at all times to consult and communicate with the high officials of the Chinese Emperor. It was fair that he should also state that he had thought it his duty to represent to Her Majesty's Government that perhaps it might be advisable not to press at the present moment, with very great stringency on the Chinese Government with regard to the right of having a permanent resident at Pekin. But that the right existed, and was capable hereafter of being exercised, there could he no doubt whatever. Of course if any nation exercised that right under the reflected privilege of the British treaty, and was permitted to retain an Embassy at Pekin, he presumed there could be no question that England would be entitled in a still higher degree to act in a similar manner.
  LORD WODEHOUSEsaid, he had very little to add to what had been stated by the noble Earl, who was better acquainted than any of their Lordships with the affairs of China. He might state, with reference to the instructions given him on the subject of salt, that Mr. Bruce was desired in any communications he had with the Chinese Government to bring that subject as often as seemed prudent and convenient under their notice. For the reasons stated by his noble Friend (the Earl of Elgin) it was not impossible that the Chinese Government, looking at the fact that a large portion of their revenue was derived from salt, would not be very willing to add this to the important changes they had already

  745
  completed; but at the same time it would be the duty of the British Envoy in China to take advantage of any opening that might arise for inducing them to break through the monopoly. With regard to the Missionary College belonging to Russia in Pekin, he might state that that mission was to be maintained, but without having attached to it any political character, while any permanent residence that might be enjoyed by Russia in Pekin would rest not on direct treaty, but on the clause which gave them the same rights with the most favoured nations. Undoubtedly great care would be taken not to forego, on our part, the right of permanent residence by a British Minister at Pekin, though, of course, the Government would in such a matter be I ready to defer to the opinion of his noble Friend, and would consider how often and for how long a period it should be exercised. Certainly, it would be most unwise for us to return to the old system, to let the right we possessed remain in abeyance, and to lose the advantage of direct communication with the high officials at Pekin. Some moderation must, however, be shown towards the Chinese Government, which had made very important concessions to this country, commercial and political, and which, if fully carried out, which he trusted they would be, could not fail of producing the most beneficial effects in all our communications with that empire.

ADMIRALTY COURT BILL.

  THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  On Question that the Bill be now read a Third Time,
  LORD CRANWORTHexplained, that on the second reading of the Bill he had stated that the Judge of the Admiralty Court had said that the opening of the Court to the ordinary legal practitioners was a matter of urgency; but he had not attributed to the learned Judge any approval of the provisions of the Bill.
  LORD WYNFORDrepeated what he had stated upon a former occasion, that at no time were the provisions of this Bill formally communicated to the learned Judge of the Admiralty Court, and again urged upon their Lordships the injustice of opening that Court without giving compensation to the proctors.
  After a few words from the LORD CHANCELLOR,
  Bill read 3a, and passed.
  House adjourned at Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.