Lords Sitting of 16 March 1860

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Consolidated Fund (£4,500,000.

TREATY WITH FRANCE.
THE LORD STEWARDacquainted the House, That HER MAJESTY had appointed To-morrow, at One o'Clock, to be attended with the Address of both Houses on; and a Message was sent to the Commons to inform them thereof; and that the Lords had appointed the LORD STEWARD and the LORD CHAMBERLAIN of the Household to attend HER MAJESTY and therewith on the part of this House; and to desire the Commons to appoint a proportionate Number of its Members to go with them.
704
Message from the Commons, that they had appointed Mr. BYNG, Mr. BAINES, The Viscount CASTLEROSE, and The Lord PROBY to go with the Lords (mentioned in the Message of this Day) to wait upon HER MAJESTY with the Address.

DIVORCES (IRELAND).

  PETITIONS.
  THE EARL OF WICKLOW presented a Petition from Inhabitants of Dublin praying that the Law relating to Divorce may be so Amended as to allow Irish Suitors to sue for a Divorce in the English Courts. He wished to know whether it was the intention of the Government to introduce any measure on this important subject.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE presented a Petition to the same effect from Rowan Francis Cashel, of Demarara, County Tipperary. The petitioner stated that he did not possess the means of prosecuting a Divorce Bill in their Lordships' House.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that "justice to Ireland" required that the prayer of these petitions should be granted, although the larger portion of the population being Roman Catholics believed in the indissolubility of marriage, and so could not resort to the divorce clauses of the Act. But they might avail themselves of judicial separation, and the Protestant portion of the people were entitled to the full benefit of the new jurisdiction. He had himself introduced into the Bill of last year a clause enabling persons in Ireland to avail themselves of the provisions of that measure. That proposition had received very general support from the Irish Peers, but in the other House of Parliament it had raised a storm of opposition which rendered it impossible to carry such a proposition. He would support any Bill to extend the Act to Ireland, but could not undertake to re-open the subject on the part of the Government, and bring in a Bill for that purpose.

NAPLES.—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHwished to put a question to the noble Duke the First Lord of the Admiralty. Very alarming reports were in circulation relative to the state of affairs in Naples. Those reports might be extremely exaggerated; but undoubtedly it was quite impossible that the state of things repre-

705
sented to be existing there could long continue. Among other things, the public were told that there was a considerable number of Her Majesty's ships in the Bay of Naples. Assuming these statements to be true, he wished to ask the noble Duke, Whether any special instructions had been given to the officers in command of those ships as to what their conduct should be in the event of individuals being driven by a sense of personal danger to claim their protection?
THE DUKE OF SOMERSETsaid, there could be no doubt that the state of affairs in Naples was lamentable. No special instructions, however, bad been given to the officers of British ships which were stationed there for the protection of British residents and of British property. The rule with regard to reception on board Her Majesty's ships of persons in personal danger was not that protection would be afforded to persons flying from justice or desiring to escape the sentence of a court of law; but it had always, he believed, been held that the British flag did afford protection to any refugee flying for safety of life in any country, on account of his political opinions, either from the tyranny of Monarchs or the violence of a mob. Beyond that, officers receiving refugees on board their ships would, of course, not allow them while they were on board their ships to hold communication with their partizans on shore, but would simply give them that hospitality which humanity demanded and justified.
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, he was perfectly satisfied with the assurance of the noble Duke as he understood it—that the action of British officers should be confined to the performance of the duties of common humanity.
LORD REDESDALE: Surely what the noble Duke has said requires explanation. Does he mean to say that if a man is flying from high treason, he is to be protected on board a British ship, supposing he should be lucky enough to escape thither? Should we recognize such a doctrine, if a person charged with high treason were to take refuge on board a French ship of war lying in one of our harbours? Let us take care, my Lords, that we do not lay down doctrines because we are strong and Naples is weak. Let us take care that, what ever principles we lay down as to Naples, we should be able to assert and to enforce against all the world, and to maintain as to French harbours as well as Neapolitan.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURYwould remind his noble Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty that a British officer might be placed in a very awkward position if he was called upon to judge as to the particular nature of the prosecution from which an individual might be trying to escape. A man might be escaping from political prosecution, or from a prosecution instituted in an ordinary court of justice by the constituted authorities. How was the British officer to know what was the case? A man came alongside a British ship in a boat with a pitiful story, and it would often be impossible for the commanding officer to know whether the individual was flying from such a prosecution as that to which the noble Duke alluded, or from one of quite another kind. He was certain we should not permit such a doctrine to be carried out in our ports.
THE DUKE OF SOMERSET: I laid down no principle; I confined myself entirely to what had been the practice of former years, and I took the precaution of looking back to the records of the Admiralty. If there is a revolution, and refugees of one party or the other come on board, they have been often received, though the officers, anxious to relieve themselves from responsibility, take the earliest opportunity of sending them away to a place of safety. That has been the practice as to political offenders. It has been followed repeatedly and in many instances. I limited myself entirely to what had been the practice. I did not pronounce any opinion as to what I thought ought to be the course pursued. As to whether a refugee is flying from political persecution or ordinary justice, our officers must judge for themselves in each case, consulting Her Majesty's Ambassador or Consul on the spot, on whose advice they will act.
THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, I believe that no one doubts that this practice of giving hospitality to political refugees ought to be limited to periods of civil convulsion and revolutionary violence, and is not applicable to ordinary times, even although there may be some degree of disturbance. And I have not yet heard that there is any serious difference between the Government of Naples and the great mass of the people. I may disapprove of the system of Government pursued, but that is a question purely between the Government and its own subjects, and there is nothing at present which indicates a state of things in which alone British naval officers have

707
a right to interpose. I hope, therefore, that the Government are prepared to lay this limitation on the principles they have laid down—that the interference of British officers ought to be limited to times of civil convulsion and revolutionary violence, and that they ought not to interpose under ordinary circumstances.
EARL GREY: My Lords, I understood the noble Duke to say that no special instructions had been issued to officers in command of ships. My Lords, I think that is quite right. It is impossible to foresee the circumstances that may arise, or to define beforehand in what cases protection should be given. It was one of the most difficult questions that a Government or an officer can have to decide. Undoubtedly there are some cases in which the very prospect of a refuge from the consequences of an unsuccessful attempt would have a tendency to encourage civil commotions. On the other hand, there may be cases of persecution and cruelty, in which common humanity may make it impossible to refuse shelter. It is difficult to define beforehand these cases; it is a matter for the exercise of a sound discretion; and looking at the past conduct of British officers, I think they have shown that they are well able to exercise such a discretion. I, for one, am content to leave the matter on the footing in which it at present stands, and hope nothing will be done to increase the difficulty of the position in which our officers are placed.

ANNEXATION OF SAVOY TO FRANCE.

  QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVON: My Lords, I rise to ask a question of the Government with regard to the papers laid upon the table yesterday, which respect the proposed annexation of Savoy and Nice to France; and especially with regard to the two remarkable despatches of Count Cavour, on the 3rd of March, and Earl Cowley, on the 9th of March last. In his despatch of March 3rd, Count Cavour states that he had received an assurance from the French Government of the most formal character that they would not proceed further with the annexation of Savoy, except under three conditions. The first was that no territorial changes should be effected contrary to the wishes of the people; next, that due regard should be had to the interests of Switzerland; and, lastly, that there should be a preliminary con-
  708
  sulfation of the great Powers. In the same despatch Count Cavour proceeded to give himself a deliberate assurance that the Government of His Majesty the King of Sardinia would never consent, even with a view to the greatest advantages, to cede or exchange any part of the territory of Savoy without consulting the wishes of the inhabitants; and he also went on to repeat the same assurance with regard to the other two conditions. A similar assurance on the part of the French Government was given by M. Thouvenel to Lord Cowley, as appears in the despatch of Lord Cowley of March 9th. Here, then, there was a double engagement on the part of France and Sardinia, both Powers pledging themselves equally, on the one hand not to infringe by violence, nor on the other hand by collusion, the treaties of 1815. Now, this morning, my Lords, I read in a telegram what appears to be a direct contradiction on the part of both these Powers to the assurances thus given. It states that the Government of Sardinia has consented to a demand from France, the effect of which appears to be to do away with and violate all these conditions, as regards alike the promise to ascertain the wishes of the people, and to consult the views of the great Powers, on the question of annexation; for it contains these words, "The treaty will be followed by a vote of the municipalities" (not the people generally) "of the two contracting Powers, and there will be afterwards communicated to the Great Powers the nature of the new territorial arrangements." Thus two out of the conditions are abandoned; and the third, as to the regard to be paid to the interests of Switzerland, is equally thrown on one side; for we are told that by this new arrangement Sardinia cedes to France Savoy up to the Alps; so that the whole of the passes of the Alps will be in possession of France, who will also obtain the districts of Chablais and Faucigny. My Lords, I make now no comment upon this. The effect of it is too plain. But if anything further were required, it is furnished by the fact, also stated in the telegram, that the Swiss Minister at Paris has handed to M. de Thouvenel a protest against the annexation proposed on the part of France. My Lords, I ask whether the Government are in possession of any information which can at all qualify or throw light upon this most startling, and, I will add, flagrant discrepancy between words and acts—between promises and performances? My Lords, I have the

  709
  more reason for asking the question because, in the despatch of the 9th of March, I find that M. de Thouvenel tells Earl Cowley that he is about to draw up ft circular despatch to be sent to the representatives of France at the Courts of the Great Powers parties to the Treaty of 1815, explaining the views of the Imperial Government. Now, that despatch will have probably been received—M. de Thouvenel expected it would be sent off on the Tuesday or Wednesday following. I ask whether it is in the hands of the Government?—if so, whether it throws any information on the subject?—and whether (as the Correspondence already produced would be incomplete without it) the Government will without any further delay lay it upon the table of the House?
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEasked their Lordships whether they believed that the question asked by the noble Earl was really one which ought to be addressed to Her Majesty's Government? What was the question put? He had no hesitation in saying, that if the noble Earl were a member of the Sardinian Parliament, it would be hardly fair for him to put such a question to Count Cavour. How it could have been put to Her Majesty's Government, was to him inexplicable; and the more so after the mistakes which had been made in this and the other House of Parliament in the early part of the Session in reference to telegraphic communications. The noble Earl asked him whether he could explain the discrepancies that existed between the two despatches referred to, and the telegraphic communication that appeared in the newspapers that morning. He had, once for all, to repudiate, on the part of the Government, all responsibility for those newspaper telegrams. How was it possible for him, or for any other Member of the Government or of that House, to argue upon the authenticity or correctness of telegrams that appeared in the newspapers? It would be impossible to conduct the diplomatic measures of the Government, if an attempt were made to visit the Government with the responsibility of those pieces of intelligence, and to require them to explain such discrepancies as those alluded to. That there was a great and flagrant discrepancy between the two despatches and the telegram in question, there was no doubt; but the Government know no more about the telegrams than any other Member of the House; and it was, therefore, perfectly impossible for him to explain
  710
  those discrepancies. The noble Earl asked him further—and he admitted that that was a more reasonable question—whether he thought that the circular despatch of M. Thouvenel could be laid on the table? That despatch had only been received within the last twenty-four hours—it was a despatch of considerable consequence, as might be anticipated from the mode in which it was announced. No time had as yet been afforded to Her Majesty's Government for the full consideration of it. And it was, therefore, premature to ask them to lay it upon the table. He was sure that the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby) and every Member of that House would admit that there was no disposition on the part of Her Majesty's Government to withhold from the Legislature and the public any communications that could properly be laid before them he did not recollect, during his experience, any instance in which, with such rapidity and alacrity, the despatches had been laid on the table of both Houses of Parliament; even, he was inclined to admit—sometimes with danger to the due course of negotiations. There were despatches before their Lordships which had arrived within the last ten days. He sympathized with the interest which noble Lords took in the subject. At the same time he urged them to exercise the utmost discretion in putting questions as rapidly as they had, and at any rate to refrain from, asking the Government to explain discrepancies which existed between Statesmen abroad, and telegrams which came to this country, and which were not authentic, until proved to be so by subsequent despatches.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, the answer of the noble Duke was perfectly fair. The despatch referred to had only arrived a short time ago; and no noble Lord on that side of the House of any experience would wish to extract anything from the Government that would be mischievous to the public service. But, on the other hand, while he gave to the Government entire liberty to refuse to answer any question which they thought ought not to be answered, he thought that the noble Duke ought to give the noble Lords on his side of the House the liberty of putting any question to them on all points on which they desired information. His noble Friend having seen telegraphic despatches of great importance in the public prints of that morning, naturally asked whether the Government had received any information on

  711
  the subject; as it was likely that the Government might have received similar telegrams from our Ministers abroad. Although the noble Duke was quite justified in refusing to answer the question, under such circumstances as he had stated, he thought that the noble Duke was rather hard upon his noble Friend in saying that he had no right to ask him such a question,

THE POLICE IN IRELAND.

  QUESTION.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEasked, Whether it was intended to send any portion of Irish constables to the camp at the Curragh, as a part of the military force there assembled, or to any depot or military school of instruction in England. Since he last addressed their Lordships on this subject, one of the Judges of Assize in Ireland had noticed the inefficiency of the police, and attributed it, as he did, to their assuming too military a character.
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEsaid, that he would say, as he had said before, that he agreed with the noble Marquess that it was not desirable that the constabulary force of Ireland should assume too military a character, although he believed it was right they should be organized on a different footing from the police of this country. In reply to the first part of his noble Friend's question, he had to state that there was no intention of sending the constabulary force of Ireland to the camp at the Curragh, or any other place, with a view to military exercise. In regard to the second portion of the noble Marquess's question, the facts were these:—The arms with which the constabulary had been provided were very old, having seen at least twenty years' service; they were inefficient, and of the old smooth-bore principle. It was intended to provide them with new arms; and, of course, they ought to be of the best kind. Those would be the Enfield rifle. With a view that they should know how to use them it was intended to send five officers and sixteen head constables to Hythe, in order to be instructed in the practice of those rifles. They would afterwards be enabled to convey the instruction to the whole force. There was, however, no intention of investing them with a more military character.

DIOCESE OF ROCHESTER.—QUESTION.
VISCOUNT DUNGANNONasked Her Majesty's Government, Whether, in the
712
present vacancy in the See of Rochester, it was in contemplation to divide any portion of the present diocese, so as to establish a Bishopric at St. Alban's; or, whether it was intended to transfer the See and Title of the Bishopric of Rochester to St. Alban's, and to throw the Town of Rochester and its dependencies into the Diocese of Canterbury? He took the opportunity of putting the question at that time as a fair opportunity now existed of making a most desirable alteration.
LORD EBURYsaid, that in the absence of his noble Friend the Earl of Verulam, the Lord Lieutenant of Herts, and before the noble Duke answered the question, he wished to remind their Lordships of what had been done in this matter. A Commission was appointed in 1835 which took into consideration the boundaries of the dioceses in England and Wales, and, in their report upon the best mode in which these dioceses might be remodelled, they recommended that, after the avoidance of the See of Winchester, a portion of that diocese should be transferred to the diocese of London. In 1858 another Commission was appointed, to consider the special circumstances of the four metropolitan sees, London, Winchester, Canterbury, and Rochester. The Commissioners pointed out that the area of the see of Rochester was as large as that of Winchester, although the population was not so great, and that the benefices were still more numerous. They also stated that when, on the avoidance of the see of Winchester, a portion of that diocese was transferred to London, the diocese of Rochester would have a larger area and a much larger number of benefices than Winchester. The Commissioners added that these four metropolitan sees contained 5,000,000 souls, 1,900 beneficed clergymen, and a more than ordinary number of curates. One of their recommendations was that a new diocese should be formed out of that portion of the diocese of Rochester, which lay north of the Thames, and it was proposed that the town of St. Alban's should be the seat of the bishopric with the abbey for the cathedral church. The difficulties to be overcome in forming three new dioceses were three—a cathedral, an episcopal residence, and an income for the Bishop. Recently some of the inhabitants of the proposed new bishopric went to the Government and endeavoured to meet these difficulties. The county of Hertford offered to restore the abbey of St. Alban's as acathe-

713
dral for the new bishop, and they also suggested how the two remaining wants of an episcopal residence and income should be supplied. The clergy of the Church of England very much needed additional over lookers and mote pastoral encouragement, and this want prevented that union and organization which were at present so much wanted in the ministration of the affairs of the Church. The noble Viscount at the head of the Government stated to the deputation that he should prefer to see the question taken up as a whole, instead of being treated in detail. He hoped the matter would nut be allowed to drop through, and taking advantage of the present favourable opportunity the Government had only to appoint Commissioners again to consider tins matter, and then the details might easily he arranged.
THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEsaid, his noble Friend proposed the appointment of a Commission to inquire into this case, but the probability was that before any Commission could report, these of Rochester would be filled up. He would not enter into the general question raised by his noble Friend as to the necessity of increased ecclesiastical supervision in the dioceses referred to, nor as to the extension of the episcopate throughout England. No doubt the population had greatly out-grown the spiritual provision in many of the dioceses, and he agreed with him in thinking that increased episcopal supervision, both of the clergy and the people, was necessary. His noble Friend behind him had kindly undertaken to answer the question put by the noble Viscount, for he stated to the House the answer that a deputation had received from his noble Friend at the head of the Government—namely, that the case was one requiring serious consideration, but that it ought not to be taken up as an isolated question, and that he recognized the propriety of dealing with the whole subject of the extension of the episcopate on a more extensive scale. In the meantime he (the Duke of Newcastle) was authorized to state that any clergyman who might be recommended to the see of Rochester would hold the see subject to such arrangements as the Government and Parliament might hereafter make.
THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHthought the answer of the noble Duke far from satisfactory. They usually found that when Her Majesty's Government were asked to take up a great question of this kind the answer was that the subject was
714
too wide and must be dealt with in detail, and when they asked the Government to go into detail and take up a particular case that they thought might be so dealt with the answer was that it could not be taken up in detail, but as a whole. This was an unsatisfactory mode of proceeding, and he thought would create dissatisfaction out of doors. How was it possible to deal with the great subject; before them as a whole? The difficulties which were to be overcome existed in particular cases, and à fortiori difficulties would be found besetting the question as a whole, he believed he was correct in saying that the funds in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were forestalled by reason of the great amount of parochial destitution existing throughout the country, which rendered it almost impossible to provide an adequate fund to be applied to the endowment of new sees; but the Ecclesiastical Commissioners might render a proportion of aid to such funds as might be provided by the liberality and Christian feeling of the people. He was informed only the other day of the munificent amount of the offers now in the ecclesiastical office, of funds in aid of the endowment of parishes. There was an amount of liberality existing in the country which, if it could be drawn forth, would be amply sufficient to provide the necessary endowments. All that he asked was that facilities should be placed within the reach of such persons for carrying out their intentions. By the course they were following they were putting a damper upon the Christian liberality of the country. In the case of this particular diocese there had long been a strong desire that it should be divided, and if encouragement were given he had no doubt funds would be forthcoming. He hoped the Government would give their attention to the matter, and act in accordance with the importance of the subject.
LORD REDESDALEwished to know from the noble Duke whether they were to understand that some steps would be immediately taken with a view to the increase of the episcopate. He believed it would conduce to the real economy of the revenues of the Church if additional bishops were appointed in many places; for by such means the true action of the Church might be put into more effective working. Was there, he would ask, any serious intention to take steps by which the episcopate might be increased?
THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEsaid, he

715
was not then in a position to answer the question of the noble Lord.
VISCOUNT DUNGANNONsaid, there was a great necessity for the provision of increased ecclesiastical superintendence in many parts of the country.

VALUATION OF RATEABLE PROPERTY (IRELAND) BILL.

  COMMITTEE.—REPORT.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  LORD REDESDALEwished to know what was the precise object of this Bill. It was entitled "An Act to defray one moiety of the expense of the annual revision of the valuation of rateable property in Ireland out of the Consolidated Fund." He wished to know why these expenses, which in all other parts of the country were defrayed by local charges, should in Ireland be paid out of the public revenue.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he confessed he had felt some reluctance to take charge of an Irish Bill; but he had done so in this instance, not expecting that any opposition would be made to it. The valuation of Ireland, which was one of the most important and useful works of its kind in Europe, had been accomplished entirely at the expense of local proprietors. But the annual revision of the valuation was used for many public purposes, as the limitation of the franchise, the decisions of lawsuits, and others. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had thought it a fail-case that one half of the expenses of this annual revision should be borne by the public; and the Bill had passed the House of Commons without a dissentient voice. It appeared also that the Valuation-office in Ireland had been hitherto treated as a temporary institution only, and the clerks employed in it consequently did not share in the privileges of other public servants. By this Bill they were placed regularly upon the Civil Service establishment.
  LORD MONTEAGLEheartily concurred in the principle of the Bill, and thought it would be very desirable if such a valuation as that which had been made for Ireland were made for England also.
  LORD REDESDALEthought, from what the noble Lord opposite had said, that it would be desirable if this subject were seriously taken up for England. His only objection to the Bill was, that it was one out of many instances in which Ireland did get a great many things done for her that England did not.
  THE MARQUESS OF BATHwas understood to remind the noble Lord that the comparison he had made was hardly fair, when they considered the different circumstances of the two countries.
  Bill reported, without Amendment; and to be read 3a on Monday next.

SALE OF GAS.—PETITION.
LORD REDESDALE presented a petition from Gas Meter Manufacturers of Great Britain in meeting assembled, complaining of the delay in carrying out the provisions of the Act for regulating measures used in the Sale of Gas. He said that by the Act of last Session models of gas-meters were to have been deposited in the office of Exchequer for the purpose of having accurate meters distributed throughout the country. Six months had transpired, however, since the passing of the Act, and no models had been deposited. The time was approaching when it would be necessary by law to have duly certified meters, and the gas companies began to be in doubt as to what would be done. The Act required that an instrument, called a gas-holder, should be prepared with balances and other things for the proper measurement of gas. This instrument was well known as a standard by which gas-meters were tested. The Astronomer Royal, however, under whose management the scientific details were placed, was induced for some reason or the other to adopt another instrument, which he at first proposed to call a "transferrer," by which the gas-holder might be tested. But this instrument was quite unfit for the testing of the meters themselves. The consequence was that no models were as yet deposited in the Exchequer; and at present there was no means of supplying the deficiency. The question seemed to him (Lord Redesdale) to involve very considerable difficulties; but he thought on the whole that the Act would be found to work when some of its provisions were modified according to the experience of its practical working. But he hoped the Government would consider the course they meant to pursue, because within twelve months no legal sale of gas could take place except by means of a stamped meter, and it was necessary that some immediate steps should be taken.
THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEobserved, that the Board of Trade and the Exchequer were jointly commissioned with the execu-

717
tion of this measure. They had consulted the Astronomer Royal, who made certain objections to a gas-measurer. The Treasury then consulted the Board of Trade as to whether the Act would require any Amendment, but the opinion of the Board of Trade was that no Amendments would be necessary. Communications were still going on, but he had reason to hope that arrangements would soon be made to meet the inconvenience of which the petitioners complained.
LORD MONTEAGLEfeared that unless the Act was amended the expectation of its framers would be disappointed.
LORD REDESDALEsaid, he understood that the measurement of gas had been carried on for a long time at Berlin, and he believed at Paris, but certainly throughout Prussia, and there was no reason why it should not be accomplished in this country. The regulation of weights and measures had always been considered an Imperial question; and he had no doubt that the Act would work well when its defects came to be discovered by its practical application.

COMMERCIAL TREATY WITH FRANCE.

  EXPLANATION.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL, on moving the adjournment of the House, said, that he wished to give an explanation of something which was supposed to have fallen from him on a previous evening. He had received a communication from an hon. Gentleman who represented a very large commercial constituency in the other House of Parliament, from which it appeared that certain words that fell from him last night were supposed to be to this effect—that those hon. Members who generally belong to the Conservative party, and who are opposed to the present Government, but who gave their support to the financial scheme of the Government on the late occasion, were influenced not so much by their opinions as by the extreme pressure put on them individually by their constituents. That was not the meaning he intended to convey. He should deeply regret if any words that fell from him should be supposed to convey that meaning. All he meant to say was, that the votes of these hon. Members were not given wholly irrespective of the opinions and the interests of the great industrial and commercial communities which they represented in Parliament, and that he might fairly claim on behalf of the Government
  718
  their votes as indicative of the opinions of the great commercial centres in this country as to the financial scheme of the Government; but he did not mean to imply that against their own opinions they bad been forced by the pressure of their constituents to vote for a measure which individually they disapproved of. So far from feeling that the value of these votes was depreciated by the explanation that had been given him by the hon. Gentleman, the Government attached much more value to them, regarding them as an independent support received from hon. Members who were generally opposed to them.
  House adjourned at Seven o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock,