Sitting of 18 July 1845

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public.—1°. Libel; Removal of Paupers; Customs Laws Repeal; Customs Management; Customs Duties; Warehousing of Goods; British Vessels; Shipping and Navigation; Trade of British Possessions Abroad; Customs Bounties and Allowances; Isle of Man Trade; Smuggling Prevention; Customs Regulation; Testamentary Dispositions, &c.; Joint Stock Banks (Scotland and Ireland); Compensations; Drainage of Estates.
2°. Small Debts (No. 3); Slave Trade (Brazil); Municipal Districts, &c. (Ireland); Stamp Duties, &c.; Militia Pay; Railways (Selling or Leasing).
Reported.—Lunatics: Grand Jury Presentments (Dublin); Drainage of Lands; Jurors Books (Ireland); Poor Law Amendment (Scotland); Small Debts (No. 3); Jewish Disabilities Removal: Bonded Corn; Excise Duties on Spirits (Channel Islands); Masters and Workmen; Fisheries (Ireland).
3°. and passed:—Ecclesiastical Patronage (Ireland); Joint Stock Companies; Land Revenue Act Amendment; Drainage (Ireland); Merchant Seamen; Spirits (Ireland).
Private.—1°. Molyneux's (Follett's) Estate; Duke of Bridgewater's Estate; Winchester College Estate.
2°. North Walsham School Estate.
Reported.—Boltonand Leigh, Kenyon and Leigh Junction, Liverpool and Manchester, and Grand Junction Railway Companies Amalgamation; South Eastern Railway (Branch to Deal, and Extension of the South Eastern, Canterbury, Ramsgate and Margate Railway): Darby Court (Westminster).
3°. and passed:—Dublin Pipe Water (No.2); South Eastern Railway (Widening and Extension of the London and Greenwich Railway); Rothwell Prison.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By several hon. Members, from a great number of places, in favour of the Ten Hours System in Factories.—From Kingston-upon-Hull, against Lunatic Asylums and Pauper Lunatics Bill.—By Lord Ashley, from Pershore, for Diminishing the Number of Public Houses.—By Mr. Hawes, from Starch Makers of London, against Smoke Prohibition Bill. — By Lord Ashley, from Charles Whitlaw, for Inquiry into his Case.
The House met at twelve o'clock.

VALUATION (IRELAND).
House in Committee on the Valuation (Ireland) Bill.
On Clause 5,
Viscount Clementsobjected to the whole Bill. It was preposterous to introduce a measure of this importance at so late a period of the Session, and to try to carry it on in a House consisting of four Irish Members, and eleven Members from other parts of the three kingdoms. He would not be a party to such a course; and he would now move that the House be counted.
The Chairmancounted the Committee; and there being only twelve Members present, left the Chair; and Mr. Speaker having resumed it,
The Chairmanreported to him that there were not forty Members present.
The House was again counted, and forty Members being present, again resolved itself into a Committee on the above Bill.
On the Question, "that Clause 5 stand part of the Bill."
Viscount Clementssaid, he would divide the Committee.
Strangers were excluded, but no division took place, Viscount Clements finding no seconder.
On the Question being again put,
Viscount Clementssaid, he would move "that the further progress of the Bill be postponed for six months."
Sir T. Fremantleurged on the noble Lord the necessity of allowing the Bill to proceed.
Sir R. Fergusonwould again press on the right hon. Baronet what he had often urged before—namely, to try the Bill as an experiment in those counties which had not yet been valued.
Viscount Clementshad no wish to let others do for him what he could do for himself; and he therefore objected to this Bill, on the ground that it committed to the Executive Government in Ireland, what could be more satisfactorily done by the grand juries of counties, as far as related to valuation, and applotting the grand jury cess. Under these circumstances, he would persevere in his opposition to the Bill.
Mr. S. Crawfordalso urged on the right hon. Baronet the propriety of adopting the suggestions of the hon. Baronet (Sir R. Ferguson), of letting the measure stand as an experiment on those counties which had not been valued.
Sir T. Fremantlesaid, he could not take upon himself to follow the advice of the hon. Baronet, without more consideration; and, therefore, if the noble Lord would allow the remaining clauses to go through Committee, he would—if no objection existed in other quarters—comply with the suggestion; but if he could not consent to the suggestion, he would promise the noble Lord and the hon. Baronet, an ample opportunity of discussing the point at another stage, and have the
670
sense of the House taken on it, in a much fuller attendance of Members.
Mr. George Hamiltonsaid, that his hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry knew very well—no one better—how general was the complaint in Ireland with regard to the want of uniformity and accuracy of all existing valuations. Nothing could be more desirable than one uniform and accurate valuation on a proper principle, which would be understood. The principle of the valuation proposed in the Bill, was what he considered the only sound principle, namely, the letting value to a solvent tenant. Certainly it would have been better if the Bill had been introduced at an earlier period; but the effect of the postponement would be the delay of a year in commencing the valuation on sound principles.
Clauses to the 18th agreed to.
On Clause 15, "Decision of Sub-commissioners to be conclusive."
Mr. Sharman Crawfordobjected strongly to this clause.
Viscount Clementsconcurred in the objection. The people of Ireland should be taught to look to their natural guides, the magistracy and gentry, and not to Government officers.
Sir R. Fergusonwas of opinion, that in reference to the valuation of tenements, it would be desirable to do away with the appeal, where the Sub-commissioners differ, to the Committee of Appeal, and to give it to the quarter sessions.
Mr. George Hamiltonconcurred, on the whole, with the suggestions of his hon. friends; there was, in Ireland a natural and not an unjust jealousy of Government Commissioners, especially where there was no appeal from them. He thought the best machinery would be an appeal from the valuator of tenements to the Sub-commissioners, as the Bill provided, that is, if the owner of a tenement should not be satisfied with the valuation of it; the Sub-commissioners should examine and correct the valuation. He would add to that, an appeal to the Barrister at quarter sessions. Generally, he supposed, the revision of the Sub-commissioners would be satisfactory, and not the less likely to be so, if there was an appeal from it.
The remaining clauses were agreed to.
House resumed. Bill to be reported.
At the five o'clock sittings,

SMALL DEBTS (No. 3) BILL.
The Solicitor Generalsaid as this was a Bill of the utmost importance to the mercantile classes, it would be necessary to have it passed through the House with the least possible delay. He had had several communications with hon. Members on both sides of the House who were connected with the mercantile interest, and they had expressed their approval of the measure. He proposed, then, with the leave of the House, that the Bill should be read a second time, and that they should afterwards go pro formâ into Committee this evening, for the purpose of making certain alterations and adding some clauses to the Bill which were deemed necessary to render it completely satisfactory. The Bill, with the amendments, could then be printed, and delivered into the hands of Members to-morrow or Monday.
Bill read a second time.
On the Motion for going into Committee pro formâ,
Mr. Wakleysuggested to the hon. and learned Gentleman the propriety of at once stating those amendments he intended to propose. The Bill, as it then stood, he thought was a satisfactory measure to the public generally, and was decidedly an improvement on that of last year. He should, therefore, like to know at once the character of the changes that were to be made in it.
Sir J. Grahamthought that the course which his hon. and learned Friend proposed to take was decidedly the most convenient one, and to which no reasonable objection could be well urged.
Bill committed pro formâ, and ordered to be recommitted.

PUNISHMENT IN STAFFORDSHIRE.
Mr. T. Duncombewished to ask the right hon. Baronet whether he was prepared to lay on the Table of the House the Report of Mr. Robins, relative to the system pursued by a magistrate and certain constables in Staffordshire in respect to the punishment of Eliza Price; and also whether, in addition to such report, he would also produce a copy of the correspondence between the Government and the Lord Lieutenant of Staffordshire upon the subject? He had recently received a communication from the same neighbourhood, where it appeared that the same kind of treatment had been pursued against two women under the warrant of a Mr. Briscoe.
672
The deposition in respect to the latter prisoners, which had been laid before another magistrate, stated that they were two young girls—one only eleven years of age, and the other fourteen. The first was apprehended by a constable on the charge of stealing a halfpenny worth of coals, and the latter for stealing a waistcoat of little value. The deponent, who was sister to one of these unfortunate girls, stated that she went to the constable, on the evening of her committal, who had Eliza Price in custody, when she found her sister in a back kitchen; that she asked him whether she could have a bed, when he replied in the negative, as he had not one there; that she then offered money to procure her sister a bed, which was also refused. On the following morning she again called, when she found her sister with handcuffs upon her, and chained to the grate. On the next morning she called and found her sister in the same dreadful condition, and the other prisoner, Emma Woodall, also chained in like manner to the grate. Her sister said that she had never been washed since she was taken into custody, and asked deponent for some soap. This statement was corroborated by another sister of the deponent. It appeared that Mr. Briscoe, before whom these two young girls were brought, had desired the constable to take them to his house, where they were confined for four days, and were both chained to the grate in the back kitchen. He (Mr. Duncombe) observed that this appeared to be a most monstrous case of cruelty, and that the constable, if found guilty of having acted so to these young women, should be made an example of, and the most effectual means taken to put an end to such a system that was alleged to prevail in the neighbourhood of Mr. Briscoe's magisterial authority.
Sir J. Grahamsaid, he should not have the least objection to produce the minutes of evidence which had been taken before the Commissioner in respect to the cases referred to, and the report of the Commissioner himself upon such evidence. He would be also happy to lay upon the Table of the House a copy of the letter which he had addressed to the Lord Lieutenant of Staffordshire on the subject, enclosing the Report of the Commissioner and the minutes of evidence. The hon. Member for Finsbury would then see that he had pointed the attention of the Lord Lieutenant to this practice of chaining prisoners

673
upon mere night charges, which he stated was most reprehensible, and he had pointed out to the Lord Lieutenant the necessity of directing the magistrates' attention to the subject, with a view of inducing them to use their influence to check this practice, which he was sorry to see had prevailed in that district. The conduct pursued in respect to the recent cases mentioned by the Hon. Member was also most unjustifiable.

CHARITABLE BEQUESTS BILL (IRELAND).
The Earl of Arundelwished to know whether it ever was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce any amendments into the Irish Charitable Bequests Bill?
Sir J. Grahamsaid, the subject to which the noble Earl referred was under the consideration of Government. The Roman Catholic Commissioners appointed to preside at the Board under this Bill had represented to the Government the objections which they had to more than one point in that measure. They pointed out, especially, the duty that was imposed on them by the Act, of deciding as to who possessed ecclesiastical authority, according to the rules and canons of their Church. They stated that this point should be left altogether to the decision of an ecclesiastical authority, and not of a civil authority. This objection he had a desire, as far as possible, to remove. Another point was also dwelt upon as most objectionable, in respect to which they stated that the Bill had put them in a worse situation than they had been in before. He could only say it was not the intention of Government to place them in a more disadvantageous position than they had been heretofore. With respect to these objections generally, it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government, during the recess, to give every attention to them, with a view of ascertaining how these difficulties could be removed.

FRENCH SQUADRON AT TAHITI.
Captain Pechellsaid, that a paragraph had recently appeared in the public newspapers relative to the French squadron at Tahiti, in which it was stated that a letter had been lately received from that place, giving an account of the arrival of the Talbot frigate there, which was towed by the Salamander steamer. Before the Talbot could get leave to stop there, it appeared that
674
her captain was required to ask permission from the French commander, and he was also commanded to salute the French flag. The captain of the Talbot hereupon objected to comply with these demands; and it was said that the French authorities would not allow any communication to be kept up with the Talbot, except through the Salamander steamer. The captain of the Talbot being disgusted at this treatment, sailed immediately for the Sandwich Islands. He wished to ask the hon. and gallant Admiral whether the particulars of any such proceeding had been received by the Board of Admiralty?
Sir G. Cockburnwas understood to say that no report of such a circumstance as had been stated by the hon. and gallant Officer had, he believed, been received at the Admiralty.

MILITARY PUNISHMENT AT WINDSOR.
Mr. Wakleysaid that, pursuant to his notice, he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary at War a question having reference to a report that had lately appeared in the Morning Chronicle, of a transaction which had occurred last Saturday, in connexion with the 2nd battalion of Coldstream Guards, at Windsor. By that statement, it appeared that a whole company of soldiers were ordered to strip themselves naked, for the purpose of being examined by the surgeon of the regiment; and in consequence of two of the soldiers refusing to obey such an order, a court-martial was held upon the spot, and an order made that these soldiers should receive one hundred lashes each, which was at once inflicted on them; the whole proceedings, including the court-martial and punishment, only occupying a period of two hours and a half.
Mr. S. Herbertsaid, the best answer he could give to the question of the hon. Member for Finsbury was, to state the facts that had occurred as briefly as possible. It appeared that for some time past, in a battalion of Guards at Windsor, many of the soldiers were affected with a certain disease, which, if suffered to continue, must have been attended with serious results. He had reason to believe that these men, whether from a dislike to going into the hospital, or from some other cause, had endeavoured to conceal the fact of their suffering under this disease. In consequence of this being made known to the military authorities there, a rigid medical examina-

675
tion was ordered; the result of which was, that sixteen men were found to be infected, who otherwise would have passed the ordinary examination, and would have remained without the application of any proper treatment to arrest the progress of the disease. In consequence of the great indisposition of the men to make known their peculiar situation, and thereby to avoid the necessity of going into the hospital, great dissatisfaction had been excited among them at the order for this examination, and two of them absolutely refused to submit to such examination. On the surgeon reporting the conduct of these men, they were called before the commanding officer, who took some pains to warn them of the serious offence they had been guilty of in refusing to obey the orders of the surgeon, who was a commissioned officer. He need not state how essential it was to the discipline of the army, that the orders of the commanding officers should be strictly obeyed; and in this case, it was most essential to the health of the men that the authority of the medical officer should not be held in contempt. The officer in command, therefore, informed these men that they were committing a most serious offence; but finding that they persisted in their disobedience, he ordered them to be confined for forty-eight hours in the black hole. The men made no remonstrance at the time to this order, and were marched by the Serjeant into the guard room. On being ordered into the black hole by the serjeant, they refused to go; and on the commanding officer being again informed of their disobedience, he sent for them, and again explained to them the serious offence which they had, a second time, been guilty of. Having done so, the Serjeant again gave the men orders to march; but they were still obstinate in their refusal. The commanding officer himself then gave the command, which he repeated two or three times; but the men continued to stand fast. He then ordered them back to the guard room, where he again and again remonstrated with them on the impropriety of their conduct. They, however, persisted in their refusal to obey; and the commanding officer being fully aware of the danger of this insubordination spreading, he immediately ordered a regimental court-martial, as he thought the immediate punishment for an offence of this description was much more important than if he had called a district court-martial, when the punishment would be necessarily delayed, and of a more severe character.
676
The court-martial was accordingly held, before which the facts, as he had stated, were fully proved, and the punishment of one hundred lashes ordered to be inflicted upon them; which punishment was immediately carried into effect. With respect to the paragraph alluded to by the hon. Member, the statement as to the dissatisfaction which existed amongst, those who were witnesses to the proceedings, was quite unfounded. He did not wish a false impression to be made in respect to the facts of this case. The punishment that was inflicted on those men was not for refusing to comply with the examination of the surgeon, but for insulting their commanding officer by persisting to disobey his orders.
Mr. W. Williamsobserved, that the right hon. Gentleman had not answered the most important charge that had been made, namely, whether those men had been ordered to stip themselves naked, in the presence of the whole regiment?
Mr. S. Herbertsaid, that it was a well-known custom in the army for the men to be obliged to strip occasionally for the examination by the surgeon. Also, when a regiment was ordered down to bathe together, and for the medical inspection, which generally took place in the rooms of the men in the morning. The exception in this case, as to the mode in which the men were ordered to undergo this examination, was in consequence of this disease, which was prevalent among them.
Mr. Wakleywould undertake to say, that by a more private examination, a more searching inquiry could be made into the case of each particular man, than by adopting such a course as had been stated. Nothing could be more indelicate or indecent, or more repulsive to a proper and correct feeling that should be encouraged among men, than for soldiers to be placed under the necessity of undergoing such an examination naked, in the presence of a large company of their comrades. He knew that it was highly dangerous to make this House a court of appeal on these occasions; but when he knew that in the House of Correction, in this metropolis, there were at present seventy soldiers confined, it was quite clear that there was something wrong in the government of the army.
Mr. W. Williamsthought, that every means should be taken to put a stop to a

677
practice so indecent as had been described in the present instance.
Admiral Dundasbegged to differ in the opinion expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary at War, when he stated that it was customary for whole regiments to strip together on the occasions to which he had alluded. From his experience he could say, that it had never been customary to do so in the army, and as to the navy, he had never heard of such an instance occurring.
Mr. S. Herbertsaid, that there appeared to be some misapprehension as to the statement he had made. The regiment in question had stood together in a row, and each man, as he was called by the surgeon, stood out from the row, and underwent the examination.

CHINESE PRIZE MONEY.
On the Motion for going into Committee of Supply.
Captain Berkeleyrose to bring forward the Motion of which he had given notice. He proposed this Motion, he said, solely from a sense of justice, from a strong conviction of what was due on the part of the nation to a most gallant body of men, who, after the most noble exertions—after undergoing the most fearful sufferings,—had been denied their rightful share in the booty which their bravery had acquired. As a proof of it he would read the following extract of a letter from Captain Grey:—
"The power of the sun during the whole period was very great, and the consequences of the unavoidable exposure of the men to it, and to the perhaps still more prejudicial night air, soon showed itself in the increasing sick lists of every ship. By the beginning of September, ours had reached 120, and before we returned to Chusan, we buried 18 men, including our purser, one lieutenant of marines, and carpenter, and some of the best petty officers of the ship. Our surgeon was invalided and died at the Cape, as well as a second carpenter. The number of men invalided I do not remember; but it was many months before the ship's company recovered their strength. In the number of men ill, many of the transport and troop ships far exceeded our proportion; and in two instances, I had out of my weak ship's company, to put officers and men on board them to take them down the river. The scene on board the Belleisle, when she passed Chin-keang-foo, I shall never forget. Of the 98th regiment, which had landed 680 bayonets at Chin-keang-foo on the
678
21st July, there were not 100 fit for ordinary duty, and of her ship's company, more than half were on the sick list. Fore and aft, her lower deck, every berth, was occupied by a sick man in his hammock, while in the gun room, which was used as a hospital, the men were lying side by side as close as they could be laid, in the last stage of debility. I could multiply the cases of the ships that came under my own observation while charged with the duties of senior officer at Chin-keang-foo; but I have said enough to give you some idea of the effects of the climate. I trust, I may never again witness such sickness and such suffering; at the same time, I cannot sufficiently express my admiration of the patience with which it was borne. Of the officers, one lieutenant, one midshipman, and myself alone escaped the ague. If I can afford you any further information that may be useful to you, I shall be glad to furnish it. I sincerely hope you may succeed in obtaining for the seamen some more adequate remuneration for their services than the miserable pittance of 4l. 2s., which is all that fell to the share of those who served in the Endymion."
The pretence set up by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that no war had been declared previous to the hostilities so gallantly conducted by these men, was shabby in the last degree, and utterly inconsistent with justice and reason. In the case of the Burmese war, grants were made to the gallant Britons who had taken part in it, to the full extent of the military stores and other booty they had achieved. But the men who, by their bravery in China, had realized a booty of two millions and a half sterling, besides the ransom money, were denied the reward of their exertions. Government would not dare to refuse to the army in India the fruits of its valour; why, then, should the gallant fellows who had so nobly maintained the honour of England in China, be deprived of their rights? The officers and men in Sir W. Parker's ship, for instance, had they been justly treated, would have received, on the average, nearly 200 l. each; but as it was, they would have got one-third more by working in peace and comfort in Plymouth or Chatham Dockyard for the time, than they realized by all their arduous exertions, their unsurpassed bravery, their terrible sufferings in China. It was sufficient to cause disgust in the mind of the British seaman to offer him such a paltry sum as 4l. as a return for the eminent services which he had rendered in China. Under the system which they adopted of

679
remunerating those men, the boy who blacked an officer's shoes, or waited behind him at table, was as largely rewarded as the able seaman. To his mind, that was using the British seaman most unjustly; and he had no doubt that such a course of conduct would visit itself at a future day upon the authors of it. It was true that the Chancellor of the Exchequer said there had been no war in China; but the same argument had been used with respect to the battle of Navarino, and what took place in that case? The claims of the sailors were on that occasion resisted on the ground that there had been no declaration of war; and the consequence of resisting them on those grounds was, that on board one line of battle ship, on two occasions, the sailors said that in future they would make a bargain whether there was war or no war before they went into action. They had the authority of the greatest man that ever the Navy produced, for treating with liberality the sailors who fought the battles of their country. Lord Nelson said—
"An Admiral may be amply rewarded by his feelings and the approbation of his superiors, but what reward have the inferior officers and men, but the value of the prizes? If an Admiral takes that from them on any consideration, he cannot expect to be well supported. However, I trust, as in all other instances, if to serve the State, any persons or bodies of men suffer losses, it is amply made up to them; and in this I rest confident my brave associates will not be disappointed."
He trusted that the House would on this occasion act in the same liberal spirit which was exhibited when Admiral Codrington brought forward a Motion for the purpose of obtaining remuneration for the men who fought at Navarino. On that occasion Mr. O'Connell said that his principle was—not to pay those who did not deserve it, but to pay liberally those who deserved it. The only dissentient from the Motion was the present hon. Member for Montrose; but he did not divide the House on his opposition, and the Motion was carried. Now he would turn to Syria, and ask the House what course had been adopted with respect to the forces employed by this country on the coast of Syria? The petty officers employed in that service received each 12 l., or 14 l., or 16 l.; whilst the petty officers who had served in China for a much longer period
680
received but 4l. He had the honour of serving in that expedition, and he did not mean to put the services which were performed there in serious competition with those which had been performed in China; and he would add, that the men who were employed in Syria were not occupied in that service more than a few months, whilst those who served in China had been employed during periods of three years, two years, or one year. Notwithstanding this difference in the length of service, and the fact that the Chinese force had captured merchandise and other property equal in value to the amount of three millions sterling, which was bonâ fide their property, yet they received less per head than the men composing the expeditions to Syria and Algiers. Lord Exmouth received 100,000 l. for seizing a fleet in the Bay of Naples, although he did not keep it in his possession for five minutes; and he would ask the House of Commons, would they, when they considered that, say that the men who were employed in those most valuable and important services in China, ought to receive so small a sum as 4l. each? For the service which had been rendered in other parts of the globe, liberal remuneration had been given; and he did not see why the seamen in China should be neglected. Sir H. Gough obtained a pension for life for his services; Sir W. Parker was created a baronet, and received a most important command; and Sir Henry Pottinger was created a baronet, and obtained a pension for his services. Those rewards were not too much for the valuable services which had been rendered; but he would ask, would any man in that House say that 4l. each was sufficient to compensate the sailors and soldiers who had been employed in China? It had been urged as a reason for giving so small a sum, that the victory in China was an easy victory; and he should remark that such an objection was a premium to officers not to put out their force or apply their science and skill in time, and with sufficient effect at once, but rather to let some of their men be killed before they injured the enemy. He trusted the House would not, on this occasion, forget the services which had been rendered by our seamen in China; that they had made the Chinese succumb to our terms, and had taught them a lesson which they would never forget. They

681
had achieved a triumph which, in every point of view, was calculated to ccnfer the greatest advantage; and in addition to all the other benefits which were to be expected from our proceedings in China, it ought not to be forgotten that facilities were obtained for introducing amongst the Chinese people the spirit and blessings of the Christian religion. He therefore earnestly entreated the House to assist him in doing that which he believed to be simple justice to the British seaman; and he thought that by doing justice to his claims, they were pursuing the only course which could most securely attach him to his country; and if they refused to compensate him for that which he had so hardly won, it would be useless to endeavour to make up afterwards for that injustice by emoluments or rewards, or offers of advantage. He had brought forward this Motion, not at the request of any party, but solely from his own desire to obtain justice for the British seamen; and if they refused to accede to it, they would, in his opinion, give the greatest blow to the British Navy which had been struck at it for many years. The hon. and gallant Member concluded by moving that—
"This House will, upon Wednesday, the 23rd day of this instant July, resolve itself into a Committee, for the purpose of considering the propriety of an Address to Her Majesty, humbly requesting that She will be graciously pleased to take into consideration the claims for further pecuniary recompense of the Officers, Seamen, Soldiers, and Marines engaged in the operations against the Chinese Empire, in the years 1840, 1841, and 1842."
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that if he rose for the purpose of opposing, on public principle, the Motion of the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite, he hoped the House would believe that he was not less impressed with a sense of the merit vigour, and ability of those engaged in that war, than the hon. Gentleman. He was perfectly sensible not only of the valour and skill displayed by our forces in China, but also of the humanity which they exhibited towards their foes, and the sufferings which they endured, not only from the military operations, but also from the effects of the climate. For all these the forces employed in China deserved the respect and admiration of their fellow countrymen; but when he expressed his admiration of those who were so engaged, he would add that the
682
House was now called upon to discuss a question totally distinct from the merits of the officers and men employed in the late operations in China. The hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite had called upon them to adopt a course which had never yet been taken by Parliament, and which was opposed to the constitutional principles on which the rule applicable to prize was founded. It had been always recognised as a principle that the remuneration of those engaged in naval and military operations should be left to the discretion and liberality of the Crown; and so strictly had that power been reserved to the Crown, that when the Crown made over to Parliament the revenues arising from droits of the Admiralty and property captured in war, the power was reserved to the Crown, in terms the most stringent, of apportioning at the discretion of the Crown the amount of what was captured from the enemy to the soldiers and seamen employed. The hon. and gallant Gentleman stated that all the property and money which had been captured in China belonged to the Crown; and when he alluded to the observation which he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had made with respect to there being no war in China, he was aware that the observation was meant to apply to the right to seize that property. He had said that we had embarked in the operations against China, for the purpose of recovering from the Chinese an amount of money of which our subjects had been improperly deprived, and obtaining compensation from the Chinese Government for the expenses of the war, and bringing it to a proper sense of what was due to the honour and character of this country. It was not enough in order to establish a right prize, to show that it was captured as reprisal: instances without number had happened in which reprisals were made, and the property captured only retained for a time until satisfaction for injury was obtained — such captures were not prize of war. In order to establish a right to prize, certain formalities were necessary; there should be a declaration of war and a proclamation from the Crown, assigning the rights in property captured, which would give to the captors the power of making it a prize. He mentioned these circumstances, because he thought it was important that those in the House who had to decide the question should know the point on which it turned. It was true that in the case of the services performed at Algiers, 100,000 l. were given

683
by Parliament to the forces employed; in the case of Navarino, 60,000 l.; and in the case of Syria, 60,000 l. also; but these sums were not given as prize, they were given as remuneration to the men employed in those services. As soon as the operations in China had successfully terminated, the Government took into their consideration what sum ought to be given to the forces employed. The hon. and gallant Gentleman complained that the sum then awarded, gave but a miserable pittance to each soldier and seaman; and he went on to compare that sum with a magnificent account of the prizes captured by our forces in China, when in reality no prizes had been captured. There were orders given to seize certain vessels and property as reprisals, to be given up at the end of the war; but there were directions sent out to take no vessels which were engaged in carrying on the intercourse along the coast of China; and so far were those in authority from looking at the property seized as prize, that when Sir Henry Pottinger was asked to consider the captures as prize, and to appoint a prize agent, he positively refused, and appointed a public officer to superintend the vessels captured; thus laying down the principle that they were seized for satisfaction of our demands in China, and not as prize. The Government had then to consider the proportion in which remuneration to the officers and men engaged in the service of their country should be assigned and distributed. The hon. Gentleman stated that property to the amount of 1,500,000 l. was captured. He did not know upon what data that calculation was founded; but there was a return on the Table of the House, from which it appeared that the value of prizes captured from the 25th of August, 1841, to the 22nd of August, 1842, amounted to 540,000 dollars, or 117,700 l.; and he apprehended that the Government, in allotting 166,000 l. for the operations in the Canton river, and 255,000 l. for the services performed in the Yantesekiang river, amounting in the whole to 420,000 l., could not be said to have given a remuneration inadequate to the prize money to which the troops would have been entitled, if there had been a proclamation of prize at the time when the captures were made. The gratuities given on such occasions—as in Syria and elsewhere—were not equal to the amount of property captured. The hon. Gentleman complained that the distribution of money
684
was made according to the Indian mode. He admitted that to be the case; but it was because above one half of the land forces employed belonged to the East India Company's service, and a great portion of the naval force belonged to the Indian navy: they were, accustomed to the Indian mode of distribution of batta. If the other mode of distribution had been adopted, there would, doubtless, have been complaints of the distribution operating prejudicially to individuals in that branch of the service. Distribute prize money as you would, the lower ranks of the service could not receive those large amounts which the hon. Gentleman contemplated. He wished that gratuities could be distributed in proportion to the merits of the individual, and the value of the services rendered; but that could not be the case, if the amount be distributed in proportion to the prizes made. In the late war many men, for very brilliant services, received inferior remuneration to that which was gained by those who captured merchant vessels without exertion. The hon. Gentleman might say, "Look at the Nile and Trafalgar, where men received 7l. a head for the most brilliant victories and valuable services; while the crews who captured a merchant fleet in the chops of the Channel received 16 l. or 20 l.:" the remuneration from prize must depend upon the accidental circumstance of the service upon which the individuals were engaged. Nothing was more painful than to resist a demand made on behalf of branches of the public service, which had done so much both for the honour and interest of the country; but still Government had a duty to perform, and in its performance there was a principle of which they should not lose sight. They objected to parties on every occasion of successful enterprise coming to that House and seeking to make it the instrument of giving to the different branches of the service—to the army and to the navy of the country—pecuniary rewards. When the hon. Gentleman talked of seamen, before going into action, considering what would be the chances of their being rewarded in this way, he was attributing motives to both officers and men by which he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was sure they were not actuated. If such were the case, if they were actuated by such motives, it would be a melancholy consideration, for nothing more clearly indicated the ruin of empires, than when troops would not march without a cer-

685
tainty of additional largess, and when the military power embarked in a system of competition which had only money for its object. He resisted the Motion in the firm belief that the amount which was already given, was adequate to the amount of the captures made by the force in the war referred to, and a fair compensation for any prize which, under the circumstances, could have been laid claim to by the parties; and he was sure, whatever might be the feeling of the hon. Gentleman on the matter, that the gratuity would be thankfully acknowledged by the troops and by the navy, as a liberal acknowledgment of the services which they had rendered, and as an incitement, if any such incitement were required, to the cheerful and proper performance of their duty on any future occasion on which the country might have need of their services.
Captain Berkeleyobserved, that he never stated that the officers and men were actuated by the feelings alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman, but that the system pursued was one which held out to them temptations to act upon such motives.
Sir C. Napierwished to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how long were vessels taken to be considered as droits of the Admiralty?—and he also wished the right hon. Gentleman to tell the House exactly, if he could, what money, after the expenses of the war, that was to say, after the expenses of the additional ships required by the transactions in China were paid, went clear into the Treasury? [The Chancellor of the Exchequer: None.] The right hon. Gentleman included the whole of the force that was there, and he thought it very probable that it had absorbed the whole of the money. The Chancellor of the Exchequer intimated that, in the case of China, there had been no declaration of war. But he would wish to know whether, when they sent a squadron of four frigates, in 1804, to intercept four Spanish galleons, a declaration of war had taken place or not? He believed not, and yet prize money was served out both to officers and men; and in consequence, as the Spaniards conceived, of our improperly seizing their vessels, a declaration of war followed. Was there a declaration of war after the Treaty of Amiens? He believed there was no such declaration, and yet all vessels taken, whether merchantmen or men of war, were regarded as prizes. Nor did he believe that there was a declaration of war
686
even in the case of America, and yet the same rule obtained. Nor was there such a declaration in the case of Denmark, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer refused to give the Danish claimants any remuneration for their losses because the war was not declared; and now the Chancellor of the Exchequer refused to give prize money to the seamen engaged in the Chinese war because war was not declared. He would leave the right hon. Gentleman to reconcile these two cases if he could. In China, an active, severe, though not bloody war, was carried on for three years; and yet the Chancellor of the Exchequer told them that, notwithstanding this, there was no war at all. He remembered the Duke of Wellington, in the other House of Parliament, complaining of little wars; when he also said that if we had not war, it seemed something very like it, as war was going on in America, in Syria, and in the East Indies; and yet, although these were regarded by the illustrious Duke as wars, they were now told that that which they carried on in China was no war. If such were the case, then were they nothing better than pirates in seizing the property and the vessels of a nation with which they were at profound peace. The Chancellor of the Exchequer told them that the sum of 420,000 l. was given to the army and the navy in the East Indies. But let them consider the magnitude of that army and navy. They should then examine whether that sum, for a war of three years' duration, was a sufficient remuneration for those who had taken an active part in it. A numerous army and a large fleet were employed in the operations on the coast of China; and the question for consideration was, whether the sum mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman would afford sufficient remuneration to the forces engaged in those operations. The right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated that no captures were made on the Chinese coast, because it was thought prudent to let vessels go along the shore, in order to insure supplies to the fleet; but was the right hon. Gentleman aware that a levy of 10 per cent. was made upon all Chinese vessels entering or leaving the ports? He believed that no account of the amount derived from that source had yet been furnished to the House. The battle of Navarino was an affair of one day; and yet 60,000 l. were given for the services of one day, he might say of a few hours, for a fleet consisting of three sail of the line and

687
two or three frigates. A large sum was granted at Algiers for the work of a few hours, although no war was declared. And in these cases, the Secretary of the Admiralty did not forget to take his war pay. He then said it was war, though war was not declared, and did not refuse his war salary. The petty officers at Navarino got 17 l. For six weeks' service in Syria the same rank of officers got 13 l.; whilst here, for his hard services in this the Chinese war, covering a period of three years, the petty officer received but 16 l. He would ask the House if that was a fair and proper remuneration for a seaman who went to an unhealthy climate, who staid there for three years, and performed his duty like a man, insomuch that he, in common with all who shared with him the hardships of that service, was thanked by the House of Commons for so performing his duty? The Chancellor of the Exchequer told the House that the British army and navy in India were always in the habit of receiving batta. But when their placards were stuck up in Portsmouth, and in our other seaport towns, inviting men to enter the service, and holding out hopes to them that they might make their fortunes by prize money in the Chinese war, did these men then think of batta? The right hon. Gentleman also spoke of the honest pride and gallantry of our seamen, and of their love of glory and honour being sufficient as an incitement to the performance of their duty. But the sailor well knew, notwithstanding the right hon. Gentleman's panegyric, what prize money was. It was an idea which went down with him from father to son, and he would and must get his prize money. The British sailor also knew very well when he was well treated, and when he was ill treated. He was extremely sensitive. To prize money he looked as his own, as his right. He went to sea for his prize money. That was the plain English of the matter. He knew nothing of honour and glory. [Cries of "Oh, oh."] Let hon. Gentlemen hear him out. The British seaman, whatever might be his love or his regard for his country, fought for his prize money, and to do so was natural to him. To that he looked forward as his remuneration, as an addition to the scanty pay which was given him. The right hon. Gentleman asked the gallant Officer if the 21,000,000 of dollars which were given by the Chinese as a condition of peace, were to be considered as prize money? That they should be so
688
considered, never for a single moment entered into the head of his hon. and gallant Friend. But the 6,000,000 of dollars paid for the ransom of Canton was as much prize money, as if our men had stormed the town, and seized as much property. In addition to that, other transactions took place, such as at Chusan, Amoy, &c., by which large amounts of property came into our possession, of some of which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had given no account, and much of which was given back to the Chinese, in order to enable them to pay the 21,000,000 of dollars which were to go into the Treasury. Why was not all this property taken into the account by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to see whether it would not amount to a larger sum than the 420,000 l., which the right hon. Gentleman contended exceeded the value of the prizes taken? If this was to be the course to be in future pursued by the Government, he would recommend that the Admiralty, whenever it became requisite to equip another armament, should send down orders to their officers not to deceive the men, not to put into their placards that the men were to be sent to this or that place to get prize money, but to tell them honestly and plainly that they were going to fight for their country, with a clear and perfect understanding that they were to have no prize money; but that Parliament, instead, was to take into consideration the services which they should render, and to reward them according to its pleasure. He would like to see if they would then be able to man their ships; he much feared that, in such a case, they would be compelled to have recourse to impressment.
Mr. J. A. Smithobserved that there never had been a war in which a greater amount of property was exposed to British seamen; and never, perhaps, on a former occasion, had the force of discipline been manifested to a greater degree. With regard to these men, the course which the Government was now adopting was a most unwise course, as they did not hold out that reward for conduct of such a nature, which in true wisdom, and with a due regard to the interests of the country, they were bound to hold out. He was persuaded that, when, on similar occasions, vast amounts of property were exposed to plunder, the recollection of the decision of the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not be lost upon our seamen, as they would find

689
that the most profitable course for them to pursue was not to respect the property thus put in their power, in obedience to the orders of their superiors, as they had done on the occasion now alluded to. He much regretted the course taken, in reference to this matter, by the Government.
Mr. Henry Berkeleysaid, as there appeared a great disinclination on the part of hon. Gentlemen opposite to open their lips on this debate, and as his hon. and gallant relative, by the rules of the House, on a Supply night, had no right of reply, he should venture to offer a few remarks. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, spoke under great uneasiness, and mingled his refusal to do justice to our seamen, with much praise of their merits. By his account, so that you gave them hard knocks and glory, pay or prize money was a matter of indifference to them. Now he differed with the right hon. Gentleman, and believed that English seamen were well described in the words of an old writer—they were men who preferred "solid pudding unto empty praise." The right hon. Gentleman was ready with his praise, but not with his pudding. But did not the past bear him (Mr. Berkeley) out in thus thinking? Look to the last American war. Who assisted in taking our frigates? British seamen in the pay of the enemy. He appealed to the gallant Admiral opposite (Sir G. Cockburn) for the fact. Who assisted to lower the flag of the Guerrière, the Macedonian, the Java? Who were found in the Chesapeake, Argus, and Essex, when captured? British seamen. And why? Because they found better pay, and more prize money in the American service than in the British. Let the House remember that 80,000 English seamen were now serving in the American mercantile and national navy. Was this a time to disgust those who remained in our service, by refusing them justice? What the nature of the service was on which they had been employed might be ascertained by the loss in one frigate, which was a fair average for the others. The Blonde had dead, or invalided, during the China expedition, 1,094 men, besides 84 killed and wounded; and the Chancellor of the Exchequer assured us, we had not been at war. He hoped the House would put aside precedent for justice: prudence dictated that course, and not run the risk of disgusting,
690
by turning the cold shoulder upon a body of men who, in the event of a war, must be looked upon as the best bulwark of the British Empire.
Captain Pechellsaid, that in addition to the ordnance referred to by his hon. and gallant Friend, the Government had not accounted for the brass ordnance taken at China, and the ransom received in respect to Canton and other places in China. It was said by the Government, this Motion was an interference with the Royal prerogative. That was the way they were always met when the claims of the navy were advanced; but he contended that the question was not one for the Royal prerogative at all, but for the House of Commons. As to the batta, it was never understood that the seamen were to be paid in that manner—they expected to have their fair proportion of prize money, and very great dissatisfaction existed as to the way in which they had been treated. The Government were in possession of sufficient funds which had accrued from the services of the army and the navy, to do justice to both services. Then, again, was the large field which those services had opened to British commerce to be considered as nothing? He called upon the House to support the Motion of his hon. and gallant Friend.
Sir R. Peeltrusted the House would be sensible of the great importance of the question at issue; and that, notwithstanding the appeal which had been made to them, they would not consider it their duty to interfere with the exercise of the prerogative of the Crown; and that, unless a case were satisfactorily and fully made out, they would not, by agreeing to the present Motion, hold out to the army and the navy that they were to look in future to the House of Commons, instead of the Crown, as the dispensers of favour and rewards for military services. There could be nothing more dangerous, or more replete with evil in its consequences, than for the House to interfere as a court of appeal from the Crown, as to those acts of favour and indulgence which it might think fit to show to the army and navy for great military services performed. Then, again, let the House recollect what was due from public men in regard to the public interest. It seemed to be thought the Government had no duty to perform to the country in the matter; that they had nothing to do in guarding the public

691
purse. According to some of the arguments which had been advanced by the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite, it might be thought that the Members of the Government had appropriated the money received from China to their own private purposes; at all events, the argument of the hon. and gallant Gentleman went to this, that they should show the greatest liberality to every claimant who came forward, and take no care of the public interest. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said, be liberal to the army and navy; but all he could say, was, that if the commercial community were not to have more reason to complain than the army and navy, of being defrauded of a portion of the money they had a right to expect for the purpose of meeting their demands—their claims must be considered; and if their claims, and those of naval and military men, were to be liberally treated on the principles now advocated, all he could say was, that the House would set an example to the Crown which former Parliaments had not thought it prudent to set. Nothing could be more easy than for responsible Ministers to recommend the Crown to be liberal in these matters, and thus to gain popularity and favour. All their sympathies and prepossessions were naturally in favour of acceding to these demands; and nothing was so easy, if the House of Commons would support him, than for a Minister to be liberal in this way, and to concede claims of this nature, if he was sure, that in so doing, he would receive the support of those who were the guardians of the public purse. He did not deny that the House of Commons had a right, in some measure, to control the Crown, and to compel the Crown to be liberal under circumstances in which great liberality might be required; but it would be a most dangerous interference with the Royal prerogative, and would place the House of Commons in a most invidious position with respect to those services, of the value of which the Crown was then the natural and the constitutional judge. He repeated, that the House possessed the right to interfere; but, before they did interfere, they must ask, had the Crown so acted as to make interference necessary? The question, then, for them to consider was, had the Crown acted in this matter with that indulgence and justice to those two great branches of the public service of this country—the army and the navy—which
692
they had a right to expect on account of their gallant exertions and good conduct in the Chinese war? With regard to those exertions there could be no doubt. He admitted at once, and no one could estimate higher than he did, the important and gallant services of the commanders of that expedition, and the resolution, the determined valour, and the exemplary forbearance of the troops engaged. He did not, therefore, place his opposition to the Motion of the hon. and gallant Officer on the ground of denying the distinguished services of that portion of the army and navy which had been engaged in the military operations in China. With regard to the character of the war, whether there had been a formal declaration of war or not, it could not be denied that the service in China was of a very peculiar nature. When we entered upon a course of hostilities with China, we felt that we were in the position of a most powerful country coming into hostile contact with another far less advanced in civilization, and of far less experience in military proceedings. All the instructions given by the noble Lord opposite to the conductors of the expedition were founded on that admission of the inferiority of our opponents. We had no wish, in carrying on the war, to take that advantage of China which we should have taken of a more powerful and a more civilized country, under similar circumstances. The instructions, therefore, which were given to the officers commanding the expedition were, "Try to make an impression on the Chinese—by the occupation of a portion of their territory if you will—but conduct the war upon novel principles (he admitted they were, and even after hostilities had broken out), suffer the commercial marine of the enemy to go unmolested—take the war junks and destroy them; but in order to make a favourable impression upon the Chinese, permit those merchant vessels which were the property of private persons, of Chinese merchants, to pass unmolested." The natural consequence of this course was, that the number of prizes was materially diminished. He would not deny that the state of our relations with China during those proceedings was that of war; but what had been the result of that war, conducted upon the principles he had described; and what were the objects for which it was undertaken? We were, in the first place, to recover a certain sum of money from the

693
Chinese for injuries sustained by our merchants; we named a stipulated sum to be paid by the Chinese, part of which was to be applied to the payment of those merchants whose opium had been seized, part to the payment of the Hong debts, and another part was to be applied to the defraying the charges connected with the expedition. 6,000,000 dollars was the sum required to compensate the opium merchants; 3,000,000 on account of the Hong debts, and the remainder was to go to pay the expenses of the war. That was the understanding of the noble Lord (Palmerston). Now, he apprehended, when they had paid all these charges, so far from having any surplus—and if there had been any surplus after paying all these expenses, there might be some force in the present demand—but after payment of these expenses, he apprehended, that, instead of a surplus, there would be a great deficiency, notwithstanding that we had recovered a large sum from the Chinese as ransom for Canton. But suppose there had been a declaration of war, and all the formalities had been gone through; suppose there had been a proclamation of prizes, and an Act of Parliament passed appropriating those prizes; supposing this had been the case, still, was there any ground for saying that the claims to prize money on the part of the army and navy engaged in that war had been defeated by the Government? 117,000 l. was the total amount of prizes that had been realized. [Sir C. Napier: But the merchant vessels?] They were given up in accordance with the principles upon which the war was originally commenced and afterwards conducted; but the hon. and gallant Officer took into his account the ransom for Canton; that had never been considered as prize money, nor was it usual so to appropriate money obtained under such circumstances. In the case of the Spanish galleons, which had been referred to by the hon. and gallant Officer, one-eighth only had been appropriated as prize money. In the present case, the whole amount realized in the shape of prizes was, as he had said, 117,000 l. Now, what was the amount which had been awarded? The Government had awarded to the naval and military force engaged 420,000 l., not as prize money, he granted, but in the shape of batta. It might be true, that by such an appropriation one might suffer and another might gain; but it was considered
694
by the authorities on the spot that as the operations were Indian, the distribution of the money, 420,000 l., to be appropriated as rewards, should be on the principle adopted in India — namely, by batta allowance, rather than on the principle of prize money. The Government could have no interest in allotting the money as batta, instead of as prize money. A reference had been made to the proportion which had, in this case, been awarded to the Commander-in-Chief and the principal officers of the expedition, in comparison with what had been given in former operations of a like character. He believed, that on previous occasions the principal officers had received a larger proportion than on this. His right hon. Friend had stated, that in respect to Algiers, a most severe battle, as all would admit, the sum of 100,000 l. had been granted by the liberality of the Government, to be distributed as rewards amongst the force engaged; in regard to the battle of Navarino 60,000 l. had been allowed; and 60,000 l. had also been awarded in the case of the Syrian war. But he asked, was the House now prepared, departing from its proper functions, to act as a court of appeal against the liberality of the Crown in the exercise of its prerogative? Whatever the prevailing opinion of hon. Gentleman might be as to the merits of this particular case, he would appeal to them, whether they thought it was right or prudent to set the precedent of teaching the army and navy to look to the House of Commons for rewards and indulgences for services performed, instead of to the Crown? How easy it would be to say that the value of any particular service depended upon its merits, and not upon the amount of prizes obtained, and how easy it would be to call on the House of Commons to vote on every occasion, where no prizes were taken, a sum of money by way of largess to the troops engaged! But was it not the Crown which should judge of what was a fair return for the service performed? He repeated, he hoped the House would not think this a case in which it would be proper to interfere with the legitimate and constitutional functions of the Crown, and to intimate to the Government that they had no duty to perform in protecting the public interest. And if, as he contended, there was no want of liberality in the present case, he trusted the House

695
would not discourage the Government in their attempt to reconcile a due liberality to the two branches of the service of this country — the army and the navy, with what was due to the interest of the public. Above all, he would say, it would be most dangerous for a popular assembly, like the House of Commons, to constitute itself the judge of military service.
Mr. Williamsthought the statement of the hon. and gallant Officer (Captain Berkeley) had been completely answered by the right hon. Gentleman; and if the Motion was pressed to a division, he thought those hon. Gentlemen in the House connected with the Navy would act most unadvisedly, and he must oppose them.
Viscount Palmerstonwas disposed to concur in principle generally with what had been stated by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Treasury, that the House of Commons should be careful and sparing in its interference with that part of the prerogative of the Crown which had reference to the rewards to be given for military and naval services. He argued that the army and navy ought to be taught to look to the Crown for rewards; and, as a general rule, it was most inexpedient for that House to interpose. At the same time the Motion of his hon. and gallant Friend was not altogether without example. In the case of the battle of Navarino, the House did interpose repeatedly, and at length the advice of the House prevailed with the Crown; and that payment was made which the Government had, for a long time, thought it their duty to withhold. And he thought the present was a case in which his hon. and gallant Friend was justified in urging the House to express an opinion that the Government ought to reconsider the decision it had come to. The right hon. Baronet stated correctly, that official men were naturally inclined to take the most liberal view of claims of this nature. Their personal feelings in the first place would lead them to look favourably upon them; but considerations of revenue, and considerations connected with the supplies, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the First Lord of the Treasury came to look at the expenses of the country on the one hand, and its income on the other, counterbalancing feelings of duty arose in their
696
minds; and after all, it was a question dependent on duty rather than feeling, which would overrule those first impulses and those natural feelings to take the most liberal view of such demands. And if he thought that in this instance the Government had not extended its liberality to that extent which the just claims of the two services required, and their brave and brilliant achievements would justify, he did not impute to them any intention to overlook the just claims of those services; but in taking a less liberal view than he could have wished, they had, he believed, acted under the influence of what they considered their paramount duty, and upon the judgment they had formed upon the merits of the case. It was all very well to say, that soldiers and sailors were men who, in entering the service, were actuated by high and patriotic feelings only; and whose whole object was the honour and advantage of the country. No doubt those motives did influence them, and that those were the feelings with which many enlisted in the service of their country; but, at the same time, it could not be denied, that the expectation of prize money added a zest to the service, and gave an impulse to the soldier or the sailor when the day arrived for exertion, which it would be most unwise to withdraw from the mass of motives which influenced the conduct of men. And there was something of a wild, romantic nature in the very name of prize money, which rendered a small sum so obtained far more gratifying to the man who gained it, than a much larger amount received in the way of mere ordinary pay. Then it must not be forgotten that there were services which both soldiers and sailors were called upon to perform—perhaps the most difficult, the most hazardous, and the most dangerous—services full of continued exertion and painful endurance, for which no reward, no prize money was given. Take, for instance, the sufferings of the troops in Affghanistan; but neither the soldiers in that expedition, nor sailors engaged in a corresponding case at sea, would ever complain that the reward of prize money was not to be looked for by them, for they knew that by the established regulations of the service, no expectation of such reward was held out to them, and therefore no feeling of injustice was felt. But, on the other hand, when they were in a situa-

697
tion in which, according to the established rules of the service, they might expect some such advantage, if they did not receive it, they considered, and most materially so, that they had fair ground of complaint. Now the question was, did that fair ground of complaint arise in this case? Strictly and legally speaking, there could be no capture made before war was declared; but, as had been decided by Sir W. Scott, in the case of the Danish claims, that when, in a case of hostilities, a declaration of war followed, it gave the right of prize money for captures made before. He was not aware whether any declaration of war had been issued in the present case or not; but that was not the question. The Crown had waived the ground of right, and had granted the remuneration. But what was the nature of that remuneration? The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that the payment of batta was chosen as the mode of reward, instead of prize money; that part of the force engaged belonged to the India Company; and that batta, and not prize money, was the usual mode in which the troops of that Company were rewarded. He doubted if in this the right hon. Gentleman was altogether correct. He had been informed by persons who had been engaged in the Indian service, that it had been customary to give to those soldiers batta and prize money too, and that in the case of Lord Harris's exploits, and also in the war under Lord Hastings, the troops of the India establishment received both pay and batta. The question, then, was not as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had put it, that batta having been paid, nothing more was due; but it was, why was not prize money given as well as batta in this case? In point of amount, comparing it with the nature of the service, its duration, and the importance of its results, the amount which had been paid in this case was not so great as had been awarded on previous occasions. If he was lightly informed, he believed that a petty officer, who had served in China during the three years over which that expedition extended, received 16 l.; whereas the same class of officers engaged in the expedition against Algiers, received about 17 l.; and the reward paid to officers of the same rank, who had been engaged in the short Syrian campaign, was 18 l. But, then, it was said that there was no other fund from which
698
the money could be taken. Now that was not putting the matter quite correctly. The right hon. Baronet had stated very truly, that the orders given to the naval and military commanders before the operations begun, were to abstain in a very signal degree from inflicting the calamities of war on the population of the country. In fact, it was our anxious object, that whereas peace and friendship with the people of China was our ultimate desire, that nothing should be done unnecessarily, in the course of the war, to stir up hostile feelings among the population at large. But the right hon. Baronet was mistaken in supposing that orders were given in the outset of the operation to abstain from taking the junks. On the contrary the seizure and detention of these vessels was one of the modes of reprisal which was to be resorted to, and one of the modes by which it was proposed to exercise a pressure upon the Chinese Government. Our officers then received instructions to blockade the coasts, and to seize upon coasting vessels. The last portion of these instructions was not carried out, for a reason which might sound insufficient, but was not so in reality. It was not that there were not junks to be found: quite the contrary. But the fact was, that the Admiral stated that they were so numerous, that if he began to take them, he had no means of doing anything with them; that to put crews on board of them would entirely unman our squadron; that to keep them at Chusan would be useless, and to try to send them to India or Singapore would be still worse. The plan of capture of the junks was, therefore, given up. But, even were it otherwise—if Government, as a matter of policy, had ordered the force to abstain from these captures—that would be no reason why the troops and the seamen employed should receive a less amount of prize money than they would otherwise be entitled to. But, then, it was said that was no fund from which to pay any increased amount of prize money. The demands upon the Chinese, as the right hon. Gentleman had said, were made in a threefold shape. We demanded money, first, as compensation for the opium seized; secondly, to pay the debts of the Hong merchants; and, thirdly, to cover the expenses of the war. That was all quite true; for if the Government would look back to the instructions given,

699
they would see that our Plenipotentiary was ordered to demand the sum required, in the following manner: — First, the value of the opium, to be ascertained by subsequent investigations; secondly, the debts of the Hong merchants, which were then known and ascertained; and, thirdly, the expenses of the war, which were to be ascertained, and accounts sent in to the Chinese Government after the affair was over, and the Treaty of Peace was signed. These were the instructions; but the last time that he saw Sir Henry Pottinger before he set out—on the very morning, indeed, that he left London—Sir Henry suggested to him that there might be some advantage (supposing that the Chinese acquiesced in the principle of our demands) were he authorized to treat for the payment of the whole in one round sum. "I said (continued the noble Lord) that may certainly be an advantage; how much do you think now, we may be able to get? 'Why,' said Sir Henry, 'the Emperor is a rich old gentleman enough, and I fancy we might look for five millions sterling from him—do you think that would do?' Well, I thought the matter over for a moment, and then I said, 'I think that will do very well if we can get it—it will probably pay for the opium, for the Hong merchants debts, and the expenses of the war.'" That was when Sir H. Pottinger left England; but the war did not conclude so soon as was then anticipated. The expenses were, of course, great in proportion, and the sum actually obtained fell short of what was required to meet the expenditure for which we had become liable. Certain communications then passed between the Government and the Plenipotentiary as to the sums which might be sufficient, and if it was deemed expedient to accept from the Chinese Government a sum which fell short of the full amount which might be demanded to include the expenses of the war. That was an act of political expediency, which formed no sort of answer to the demand made in the Motion now before the House. The ransom paid for Canton would have been considered, had the declaration of war followed, as prize money; and this circumstance ought not to be left out of the reckoning in discussing the present question. It had been said that 450,000 l. was a large sum. Abstractedly it was so, perhaps; but sums were large or small in proportion to the objects for which they were paid; and if
700
the sum in question was not sufficient to give to the troops and naval force employed that which would be a fair reward for their successes and achievements, then he maintained that it was not the aggregate sum which they must consider, but the amount per man that that sum would afford to pay. That the operations in China constituted a series of remarkable exploits would be admitted by everybody. He believed that Lord Stanley wrote a letter to the commander-in-chief of the expedition, in June, 1843, in which he stated that it was the determination of Government to cause a medal to be struck in commemoration of these services. In that document his Lordship expressed himself nearly as follows. He stated—
"That, although Her Majesty was of opinion that the award of a distinction of this nature should be reserved for very peculiar and special occasions—as, no doubt, it ought to bs—and that great evil would arise from the frequent and indiscriminate granting of medals, in order to commemorate military and naval exploits, yet that it appeared to Her Majesty that, in the instance of the recent events in China, an exception could properly and usefully be made from the rule to be generally observed. The difficulties with which our forces had to contend on the recent expedition—difficulties arising from the absence of that local information which would have been accessible in respect to almost, every other country—had been of the most formidable character; but they had been as gallantly met and triumphantly surmounted. Wherever opportunities had offered—and they were not wanting—for displays of skill and courage, our naval and military forces had nobly kept up the character of their respective services; and Her Majesty was happy in the belief that the great moral effect which had been produced upon the Chinese people, and to which Her Majesty principally looked for permanent advantages, had resulted not more from the irresistible power displayed, than from the moderation shown in victory, and the studious abstinence from unnecessary aggravation of the horrors of war; the discipline which prevailed during the excitement of success, and the good faith with which, on the first intimation of acquiescence in our demands, the invading forces had been withdrawn. Under these circumstances, Her Majesty was of opinion that the Chinese war, and its important results, should be commemorated by the issue of a medal, to be granted to those whose skill and valour had brought about its termination."
If, then, this war was so remarkable by the circumstances under which it was conducted, and if it had led to commercial

701
advantages, so great that no man could trust himself beforehand to calculate them, he thought that it was an occasion on which Government would be justified in taking a more liberal view of the claims now submitted to them, than under the different circumstances they would be inclined to apply to similar demands. He thought that the Government had not, on this occasion, given way so much as they might to that spontaneous impulse which, the right hon. Baronet stated, was apt to animate a Ministry upon such questions. He could only hope that, whether Government would, or would not, refuse the Motion of his hon. and gallant Friend, that no course which they might take, that no majority which they might command, would prevent them from giving these matters a fair and liberal consideration; and should it be found, on a comparison of what had been done in similar cases with what had been done in this, that the scale of recompense to the naval and military forces had been lowered from its old standard, then, he hoped, that nothing which had passed would be taken to pledge Government so as to preclude them from giving the united service a more ample reward.
Captain Harrishad no doubt the soldiers and sailors who had been engaged in China would perform their duly in the same manner that they had done if they were called on to do so. But he certainly did not think the batta donation was a fair reward; 210,000 l. had been distributed to the navy; but in such a way that only 4l. was paid to the petty officers. That was not a fair remuneration. He would not say what sum ought to be given; but he hoped that Government would increase the grant, and give such a sum as seemed fair under the circumstances.
Captain Plumridgethought that the appeal made by his hon. and gallant Friend was to the justice, not to the liberality, of the House. The shares awarded to petty officers were no payment for the services they had performed, and the dangers they had undergone. He contended that the petty officers had a right to a larger share of the prize money that the common sailors and boys. It was all very well to talk about honour and glory to seamen, but prize money was the great, stimulus to which they always had and always would look.
Sir James Dukedeplored the tone in which the discussion had been carried on on one side of the House, and deprecated the mercenary spirit so frequently during the debate attributed, but he believed upon no good grounds, to the seamen of the British Navy.
The House divided on the Question, that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question:—Ayes 69; Noes 27: Majority 42.

List of the AYES.

Antrobus, E.

Greene, T.

Arkwright, G.

Grogan, E.

Baird, W.

Halford, Sir H.

Barkly, H.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Baring, rt. hon. W. B.

Henley, J. W.

Benbow, J.

Herbert, rt. hon. S.

Bernard, Visct.

Hope, hon. C.

Botfield, B.

Howard, P. H.

Bowles, Adm.

Hughes, W. B.

Broadley, H.

Hutt, W.

Bruce, Lord E.

Jermyn, Earl

Buckley, E.

Kemble, H.

Cardwell, E.

Lennox, Lord A.

Chute, W. L. W.

Lockhart, W.

Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G.

Mackenzie, T.

Cockburn, rt. hn. Sir G.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Collett, W. R.

McNeill, D.

Corry, rt. hn. H.

Masterman, J.

Crawford, W. S.

Mundy, E. M.

Cripps, W.

Nicholl, rt. hn. J.

Damer, hon. Col.

Peel, rt. hn. Sir R.

Darby, G.

Peel, J.

Dickinson, F. H.

Pringle, A.

Douglas, Sir H.

Rashleigh, W.

Duke, Sir J.

Scott, hon. F.

Ewart, W.

Smith, rt. hn. T. B. C.

Fielden, J.

Somerset, Lord G.

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Flower, Sir J.

Tennent, J. E.

Forman, T. S.

Trench, Sir F. W.

Forster, M.

Trevor, hon. G. R.

Fremantle, rt. hn. Sir T.

Wellesley, Lord C.

Gaskell, J. Milnes

Williams, W.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

TELLERS.

Goulburn, rt. hn. H.

Young, J.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Baring, H.

List of the NOES.

Bannerman, A.

Moffat, G.

Barnard, E. G.

O'Connell, M. J.

Berkeley, hon. H. F.

Paget, Col.

Berkeley, hon. G. F.

Palmerston, Visct.

Bowes, J.

Pechell, Capt.

Browne, hon. W.

Plumridge, Capt.

Butler, P. S.

Somers, J. P.

Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

Strickland, Sir G.

Duncan, G.

Troubridge, Sir T.

Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

Villiers, hon. C.

Harris, Capt.

Wakley, T.

Hawes, B.

Wawn, J. T.

Langston, J. H.

TELLERS.

Maher, N.

Napier, Sir C.

Mitcalfe, H.

Berkeley, hon. Capt.

IRISH ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSION.
On the Motion that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair,
Mr. Evelyn Denisonrose to call the attention of the House to the management and disposal of that part of the property of the Irish Church vested in the hands of the Irish Ecclesiastical Commissioners. The hon. Gentleman commenced by stating that the Irish Ecclesiastical Commission had received upwards of 450,000 l., as the produce of lands sold under their direction in Ireland. He had taken some pains to ascertain the average value of land in that country. In England it was worth about thirty years' purchase; but in Ireland, taking one year with another, he thought that he was within the mark in stating that the land there was worth at an average above twenty-three years' purchase. Notwithstanding this, however, the land under the charge of the Commission had none of it been sold at a higher rate than twenty years' purchase. Now, if land worth twenty-three years' purchase had been sold for twenty, it would appear that a much larger sum than 450,000 l. ought to have been realized by the Commission, had they properly exercised their functions. It was impossible to look into the subject without seeing that property, to a very large amount, had been sacrificed by this system of management. It would perhaps, be asked, how if such terms had been offered to the lessees, had not all the Church property held in Ireland been converted into freehold property, and so enfranchised? The reason was this: at the end of the Temporalities Bill was a clause permitting all persons whose property fell into the hands of the Commissioners, to renew their leases on the same terms as those on which they had been in the habit of renewing them under the bishops. The consequence was, that when a lessee thought that he had made a good bargain in enfranchising his land, his neighbour would probably tell him that he might have obtained the same advantages without the three years' purchase, as by the Bill a power was guaranteed of obtaining the renewal of leases, and without those chances and contingencies under which they were held under the former tenure. Now, he wished to know what had become of the money sacrificed to this system of management pursued by the Commission? Every farthing was
704
gone in the annual outgoings. When he saw such an amount gone in such a way, he thought he should not discharge his duty, if he did not call on the House to check this great and growing evil.
Sir T. Fremantlewas not prepared to dispute in the main the statement made by the hon. Gentleman; but he must state at the outset that the attention of the Government had, for some time, been directed to this subject, and that, at the suggestion of his right hon. Friend the Secretary for the Home Department, an official communication had been made by the Lord Lieutenant to the Ecclesiastical Board, calling their attention to the circumstance of the money realized under the Commission not being devoted to the annual expenditure. It must be borne in mind that these Commissioners were an independent corporation, over which the Government had no direct control; and they must judge for themselves as to the manner of exercising those powers entrusted to them by Act of Parliament. The two points to which the hon. Gentleman had called attention were the terms on which the leases had been converted into perpetuities, and the mode in which the money realized had been expended. Now, a large number of the tenants holding Church leases had not converted them into perpetuities. Only one-third, and no more, had availed themselves of the terms offered. He believed that in the suppressed sees the fines were fixed on the renewal of the leases. That power did not exist as to the sees not suppressed. As to the manner in which the money had been expended, he was not prepared to say that if greater economy was used, a considerable sum might not have been saved. But, at the same time, he must point out the heavy charges which the Commission had to meet. There was, in the first place, the repair and rebuilding of all the churches in Ireland; and no doubt when the trust was first undertaken the churches were in a dilapidated state. A heavy expenditure was therefore incurred in repairing old churches and building new ones; and the Commissioners had often to determine, when local contributions in favour of such an object were large, whether it would not be better to advance a somewhat larger sum for the erection of new churches, than to expend a smaller amount in inadequate repairs of old churches. Under this head the sums expended were 69,000 l. and 54,000 l. some years, and even 26,000 l. last year.

705
For the requisites of divine service the sum laid out was 32,000 l. The expenses of the Board itself were 6,000 l., and the whole expenditure was about 79,000 l, per annum. The Archbishop of Dublin told him that there were applications for churches to the amount of 100,000 l., which the Board was unable to answer. He did not undertake to say that this statement was perfectly satisfactory; and he did not at all deprecate the attention of the Government being called to the subject. He hoped when a larger revenue accrued that the expenditure would be kept within the income, and that the amount realized by the sale of perpetuities would be devoted to the annual expenditure, and not wholly disbursed.
Mr. Hawesmust say the statement of the right hon. Gentleman was anything but satisfactory. Here was a sum of 450,000 l. realized by the conversion of leases into perpetuities, and they were told the whole capital was expended already. The people of England had a direct interest in this question; for he did not see why, if this property were properly managed, it might not have been devoted to such a purpose as that of increasing the College of Maynooth. The right hon. Gentleman said the expenses of the Commission were 6,000 l. He found by a return on the Table they were double that amount. When Lord Stanley's Act had led to consequences so pernicious, he did not see why the Government did not immediately take steps to amend it. The Government acknowledged the mode of applying the money to be unwise, and yet they permitted half a million of money to be wasted. It was said, however, that this body was a corporation, and the Government could not interfere with it. But Parliament, which created the body, could surely remedy the evils which it caused. If there was a loss of 500,000 l. on a third of these conversions, it was easy to calculate that a million and a half would be lost on the remainder. He called on the friends of the Church to see this subject sifted, and he put it to the Secretary for the Home Department, whether he could have any objection to appoint a Committee to inquire into this subject?
Sir James Grahamacknowledged this was a very grave subject, and by no means improperly brought under the consideration of the House. It was a question which attracted his anxious attention, and nearly a year ago he thought it necessary
706
to call the attention of the Lord Lieutenant to the facts disclosed. He differed from the hon. Gentleman as to his estimate of the inadequacy of the sales arising from the conversion of church leases. It being the object (for purposes of general policy) to render those conversions general within a limited time, it was of course desirable to hold out inducements to the tenants to come into the terms of the Commissioners. He believed, after careful and anxious inquiry, that the terms were only liberal and fair. Having stated that he concurred in the other view of the hon. Gentleman, that the expenditure of the capital, instead of considering the sum realized as an usufruct, was, though in conformity with the Act of Parliament, an unfortunate view taken by the Commissioners of their duties as trustees. He considered that this money was, in the broadest sense, trust money, and he demurred altogether to its being devoted to Maynooth, or perverted in any way from the original use. [Mr. Hawes: But the Church has not got the money.] It must be recollected that when the Church Temporalities Act passed, a heavy burden was raised by a vestry cess on persons of every persuasion, for the maintenance of the fabric of the Church and the usages of worship. That was felt to be a great grievance; and, with the view of promoting peace and concord, a sum of 50,000 l. a year was cast on the property of the Church of Ireland. In consequence of the opposition to such a charge, the fabrics of the Church had, in many instances, fallen into decay. And the average expenditure of the Commissioners for the first years of its operation was much higher than it would be in future. In many cases, too, the claims put forward by private subscribers for aid, were felt to be irresistible, and such advances were, of course, made out of the funds of the Church. Out of a loan also of 100,000 l. 40,000 l. had been repaid. But, on the whole, he considered it an unsound and unwise discretion—that for the interest of the Church, well understood and carefully guarded, the capital realized by the sale of these leases should be expended. There were on the Board two paid Commissioners. The Executive had, therefore, a direct control over it. And he was bound to state that the official communication of the Lord Lieutenant was received by the Commissioners in a most frank and candid spirit. They stated that the amount of capital expended in the last year was less

707
than that in the antecedent; and he had reason to believe that in future years the expenditure of income, without any entrenchment on the capital, would be strictly adhered to. He was bound to say that if he saw the safety of the Church property in Ireland required it, he should not hesitate, for a moment, in introducing a Bill next Session on the subject of these leases; but he did not anticipate that any such necessity would arise. Whatever past errors were committed, he believed they were in the progress of correction.
Sir R. Fergusonwas very glad to hear the speech of the right hon. Gentleman; for he considered the Government clearly responsible for every proceeding of that Board. He thought not a full but a sufficient price had been obtained for the lands under lease. His hon. Friend (Mr. Denison) contended they were worth twenty-three years' purchase; but his hon. Friend spoke of lands where a rent was reserved of one-fourth of the value, and this always fetched a higher price than that held in fee-simple. There were returns in the value of these lands, one by Mr. Finley, and the other by the Commissioners themselves, on the Table of the House. The first estimated them at 1,500,000 l., and the latter at 1,250,000 l. Now, according to the Commissioners themselves, they should have fetched 200,000 l. more than the 450,000 l. which the right hon. Gentleman gave as the return. The right hon. Gentleman said, only a third of the tenants had accepted the perpetuities. Now, he knew one-half the property was sold, and he should give his authority. The landed Commissioners summoned the treasurer of the Ecclesiastical Commission, and he deposed that fully one-half were sold. The right hon. Gentleman said, too, that the expenses of the Commission were but 6,000 l. He could prove, however, that the sum for clerks, architects, solicitors, &c., amounted up to 13,587 l. The expenditure was very great, not to say anything worse of the Board. They at first paid their architects by a per centage on the outlay for their works, and this sometimes amounted to 9 per cent. They were now placed on salaries. But this only showed how necessary it was to look into the proceedings of this body. He did not want to throw blame on the Government, for previous Governments were more to blame than the present; but it really seemed as if the office of Lord Lieu-
708
tenant only existed as a cover for a horrible system of jobbing.
Mr. Henleymust say, the disclosures made startled him not a little. It appeared while parties in this country were quarrelling as to the application of the surplus revenue of the Church in Ireland, some gentlemen in that country took very good care that no surplus should exist. The matter was one with which that (the Ministerial) side of the House had nothing to do, for it originated with the Government of the hon. Gentlemen opposite. He did hope, that there would be some strong steps taken to put the question on an honest footing.
Viscount Bernardfully concurred in what had fallen from the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department. Without entering into the question whether the different contractors might not have done their work cheaper, he would beg leave to say that there was full employment in Ireland, in the repairs of churches, for the 400,000 l. that it appeared had been expended by these Commissioners. His principal object in rising was to remark that there was still a considerable number of parochial churches in Ireland in a most disgraceful state. In one diocese alone divine service was celebrated in no less than fifty school-houses, in localities where churches did not exist. In a case which had come under his own knowledge, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were called upon to build a church in a place where divine service had not been before performed, and where no Protestant congregation existed. They declined doing so, and a church was now in course of being built there by voluntary contributions. The consequence was, that a Protestant congregation was now formed in the parish, and divine service would, in future, be celebrated without any aid from the Commissioners. He wished also to remind the House that 100,000 l. given by the late Government as apart of the 1,000,000 l. advanced to the clergy of the Irish Church, had been since taken away from them.
Mr. M. J. O'Connellsaid, he thought the discussion which had taken place on the question a very important one. They had very strong contradictions between two right hon. Secretaries—one, the right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary for Ireland, having stated that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were independent of the Government — and the other, the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary having alleged

709
that they were completely under the control of the Government. However, it appeared that the right hon. Chief Secretary of Ireland was right; for the right hon. Baronet (Sir James Graham) had admitted that he had called attention to the matter nine months ago without effect. There appeared to be great discrepancies as to the value of the property sold; but one thing, he thought, was clear, and that was, that the subject could not be left as it stood at present. He would beg to suggest to the hon. Member for Malton (Mr. J. E. Denison), the propriety of his moving for the appointment of a Committee next Session to investigate the matter. In his opinion, there was no use in going into the question of the establishment of this Board. But finding it established, and that it worked badly, they had a right—no matter what opinions they might entertain as to church property in Ireland — to call for inquiry, and, if necessary, for further legislative provisions.
Sir Thomas Fremantlebegged to explain. It was a mistake to suppose that he was at all indifferent on the subject. He had already taken occasion to express his satisfaction that the question had been brought under the notice of the House, and he was fully sensible of the great importance which was to be attached to it.
Mr. Grogansaid, he was glad that an investigation was likely to take place on the question; as he believed the Board had not given entire satisfaction either to the clergy or the public. He would mention one instance, which had come under his own notice. It was the case of a parish church in Dublin, which had been taken down as being unsafe. The parishioners had, it was true, consented to the removal of the church; but it was on the supposition that it would be rebuilt. Repeated applications had been made to the Commissioners to rebuild it, but without success, as they persisted in declaring they had no funds for the purpose.

SUPPLY—MISCELLANEOUS ESTIMATES.
House went into Committee of Supply on the Miscellaneous Estimates and Civil Contingencies.
On the First Vote being moved, of 32,011 l. 10 s. to defray law charges, and the salaries, allowances, and incidental expenses in the office of the Solicitor for the affairs of Her Majesty's Treasury for the year 1845–6,
Mr. W. Williamswished to know from
710
the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether there was really any necessity for having seven lawyers in this department. They had a solicitor, an assistant solicitor, and five clerks, all of whom, he presumed, were lawyers, and the salaries of these officers amounted to no less than 6,011 l. 10 s. He also perceived that the estimated cost of prosecutions was put down as 26,000 l., and he thought the House should not vote such a sum without being at least apprized of what these prosecutions were.
Mr. Cardwellsaid, the Solicitor for the Treasury had to discharge the business of no less than thirteen departments of the public service. The gentleman who at present filled that situation, was a most invaluable public officer; and by all who were acquainted with the manner in which he discharged his duties, the amount of salary which he received—2,850 l.—would, he was convinced, not be thought too great. Arrangements had, however, been made, by which, on any future occasion, the gentleman selected to fill that office would not receive more than 2,000 l. a year. The prosecutions were such as would be necessary in the thirteen departments to which he had alluded; but on this subject the hon. Gentleman might rest assured that the greatest economy would be practised.
Vote agreed to.
The next Vote was 16,218 l. to defray the expenses of the Pentonville Prison.
Mr. W. Williamssaid there were 475 prisoners in this prison, and the salaries of the officers placed over that number of prisoners amounted to no less than 7,558 l., being an average of 16 l. for taking care of each prisoner. In addition to that sum there was a cost of 31 l. for each prisoner. Now, it had been shown by the Anti-Corn-law League that the wages of an agricultural labourer in the southern counties was, on an average, not more than 7s. a week, or 18 l. 4s. a year, so that the cost of one condemned felon was more than the amount of the entire support of two families of the labouring population. The salaries of the persons employed to teach the prisoners trades and manufactures amounted to 1,500 l.; while the entire produce of their labour amounted to only 1,498 l., or 12 l. less than the salaries amounted to. Thus, notwithstanding all that had been said in praise of this labour system, the result was, that the produce of each prisoner's work was less than 1½d.

711
a day. He also objected to the item of 360 l. for washing in the prison, as he thought the prisoners ought, at least, be made to keep the prison clean.
Colonel Sibthorpsaid, he did not know what the hon. gentleman paid his labourers, but he could assure him that he (Colonel Sibthorp) and hon. Friends near him paid their labourers from 12 s. to 15 s. a week.
Mr. Hindleywould wish to know how many officers were in the prison, and what salaries were paid to them.
Sir J. Grahamsaid, that the hon. Member for Coventry was rather a hard taskmaster. Last year he complained in like manner of the annual expense of this establishment, when the grant amounted to 20,364 l. In 1843, it was 25,850 l. This year it was 16,218 l., showing a decrease on last year of 4,146 l., and on the previous year of 9,632 l.; without any diminution, he should rather say, there was an increase in the number of prisoners. Viewing the system abstractedly, he admitted that it could not be regarded as economical, although he could assure the hon. Member that every attention was paid to economy in the arrangements of the prison. All the prisoners confined in the establishment were convicts under sentence of transportation for a period of not less than 7, and in many cases 10 and 14 years. Unless the system of this establishment proved successful, it would be the duty of the State to maintain those prisoners in a penal Colony, for the period of their sentence. If successful, if by the discipline to which the prisoners were subjected, a reform were effected in their character and habits at the expiration of eighteen months, that being the time for which they were here imprisoned, they might be said to be no longer a source of expense to the State, because, from the moment of their arrival in the penal Colony, the State was relieved from the cost of supporting them. As far as the experiment had gone, it had proved eminently successful. He admitted that the system of prison discipline was not in itself economical; but if he were right in the position he had just attempted to establish, it eventually proved so to the nation; because the comparatively trifling expense attendant upon the instruction they received during the short term of their imprisonment here, superseded the necessity of a very heavy expense during the prolonged period of their transportation.
712
The right hon. Baronet read an extract from the Report of the Commissioners, recently presented to Parliament, to show that the experiment of training the prisoners to the higher branches of labour, by which they might be enabled to earn an honest livelihood in another country, and the attention paid to the improvement of their morals in the Pentonville establishment, had been attended with success. In reply to the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Line, he wished to say that he believed the Paper containing a return of the number of the instructors, which was considerable, and of their salaries, was ready, and could be presented at once.
Mr. Ewartexpressed his approbation of the system adopted in the Pentonville establishment; but regretted that it was not carried further, and applied to Van Diemen's Land, the system of which was quite at variance with this, and ought to be abolished.
Mr. Williamshad heard the statement of the right hon. Baronet with great pleasure. He rejoiced at the success of the experiment, and the improvement it had effected in the habits of the prisoners; but he confessed, he doubted the policy of making those men tailors or shoemakers. What the Colony to which they were sent wanted was persons having some knowledge of agriculture or agricultural labour. Their services would prove much more valuable and important. With regard to the question he first started, he must observe that the right hon. Baronet had not at all accounted for the inability of the prisoners while in this establishment to earn more than three-halfpence a day.
Sir J. Grahamsaid, it must be remembered the system of Pentonville prison was the system of complete separation, so that labour could not be carried on so as to meet the hon. Member's views.
Mr. Hindleyasked what were the respective salaries of the chaplain and the medical officer.
Mr. Cardwellreplied, that the chaplain received 400 l. a year, the assistant chaplain 200 l. a year, and the medical attendant 300 l. a year.
Mr. Hindleyconsidered such a charge to be monstrous. It was paying more than a pound a head for each prisoner.
Mr. Hawessaid, that he had repeatedly visited the prison, and he knew that the duties of the chaplain were most laborious. It was utterly impossible to carry out the

713
system without having such an officer as chaplain. He believed that the money for this purpose was most properly and beneficially laid out.
Mr. Wakleysaid, that the system of administration in that gaol could not be tried without a large expenditure of pounds, shillings, and pence. He had often been in this prison, and he believed that nothing could be better than the system existing there. In the first instance, he had viewed the foundation of the establishment with feelings of horror, and as being merely an instrument of torture; but the results had been most astonishing, and most gratifying. He had examined the prisoners themselves closely, and he had watched the proceedings, and he firmly believed that not one in fifty of the unfortunate inmates of the prison, when liberated, would again violate the laws of the country.
Vote agreed to.
On the Vote that 28,118 l. be granted to defray the expenses of the Millbank Prison for the year 1845–46, being put,
Mr. W. Williamssaid, that he observed that in this Estimate, there was a charge of £200 a year each for three inspectors of the prison. This appeared to be a new species of appointment; he, therefore, wished to know what was the object of it?
Sir J. Grahamobserved, that this charge certainly appeared for the first time in the Estimates, but it was necessary, in consequence of new arrangements with respect to this prison. Complaints were formerly repeatedly made by several hon. Gentlemen as to the system of prison discipline carried on in this prison. He had considered it expedient to alter the whole system in this prison. By this new arrangement, every male and female convict, sentenced to transportation, was, as soon as possible, conveyed to Millbank, and there they remained for three months under the close inspection of these three officers. The persons appointed to these offices, were the three inspectors of prisons. One or other of these inspected the convicts in Millbank prison constantly, indeed almost daily. At the end of three months the inspectors, in their report to him, recommended the course which should be adopted as to the future destination of each convict. They selected a certain number for the Pentonville prison, where they would be taught a useful trade,
714
which would be of essential service to them when removed to the Colonies; while others, who had been guilty of the most serious crimes, the commission of which was formerly attended with capital punishment, were selected to be sent to Norfolk Island. On the arrival of the former class at Van Diemen's Land, after having been taught a trade, there was a further gradation. Some of them received a conditional pardon, while others received ticket of leave, which was a gradation something short of pardon. With respect to every convict, there was a special report made to him, and on such report he, on his responsibility, provided accordingly. He need not allude to the high character of those three gentlemen, as they were well known. Their respective salaries, as inspectors of prisons, was only £800 a year; and as these additional duties had been imposed upon them, it was only considered proper that they should have an increase of £200 a year, making altogether £1000 a year.
Vote agreed to.
On the vote of 250,000 l. to defray the charges of Convict Expenditure in New South Wales and Van Diemen's Land,
Mr. Ewarttook occasion to object to the whole system of transportation at present adopted. He stated that the free settlers in Van Diemen's Land were extremely indignant at the letting loose amongst them of the most depraved characters. He understood that morality was no longer safe in that Colony, and that the free settlers were about petitioning Parliament against what the noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies termed "the probationary system." He was of opinion that much more good might be effected than at present by substituting the Pentonville system for that of transportation, whilst he believed that the expense would not be so great.
Sir J. Grahamcould not deny that there were many serious moral objections to transporting felons into a Colony; but, taking the balance of good and evil, he thought it was far better that they should be transported, than be retained in the mother country. On the average, the number of prisoners convicted of felony in Great Britain, amounted annually to some 5,000. Pentonville would not contain above 600; besides, he could not think of recommending that the Pentonville system should be applied to the whole of

715
these 5,000; he doubted, in fact, whether it could be properly applied to more than the present number out of the average number annually convicted.
Mr. Wakleytrusted that some means of improving the minds and morals of prisoners would be adopted in the gaols of this country. He hoped that the right hon. baronet would propose some measure with reference to prison discipline generally, founded on the system pursued at Pentonville.
Vote agreed to.
On the Vote of 2,006 l., for defraying the salaries of certain professors at Oxford and Cambridge,
Mr. Wakleycomplained that a salary of only 100 l. was appropriated from this Vote to the professors of Chemistry. He thought, considering the importance of that science in connexion with medicine, manufactures, and the arts, that all possible facilities should be afforded for its study.
Vote agreed to.
The next Vote was for 4,540 l. to defray the expenses of the University of London.
Mr. Ewartsaid, with reference to the observations of the hon. Member for Finsbury, that he considered it most desirable for the interests of the country that the utmost encouragement should be given to the cultivation of the science of chemistry.
Mr. Warburtonsaid, that during ten months in the year very good laboratory instruction in chemistry could be obtained in London. The laboratory in University College had recently been enlarged, and that institution could now receive thirty laboratory pupils. Hon. Gentlemen must not suppose that many of these laboratory pupils came from the agricultural districts; they came almost exclusively from the manufacturing districts.
Mr. Wakleyexpressed his desire that a national institution for affording instruction in chemistry should be established. He believed that during a recent visit of Professor Liebig to this country, the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) had had an interview with him, and that the professor had made some most startling statements with reference to this subject. Professor Liebig had told him that it was frightful to see the waste of capital in connexion with manufactures in this country, in consequence of our ignorance of chemistry. He hoped the right hon. Baronet would turn his attention to the matter, with a
716
view to providing better means of instruction in the science.
Sir R. Peelsaid, he had had an interview with Professor Liebig on this subject, but he was not quite convinced of the policy of direct Government interference in such a matter. He was by no means satisfied that an institution for the express purpose of teaching chemistry would be so successful and efficient in this country as similar institutions had been abroad; but he thought, considering the splendid educational establishments which existed in this country and in Scotland, that it was the duty of those by whom such institutions were conducted, to make proper provision for the cultivation of that important science.
Vote agreed to.
House adjourned at a quarter to three o'clock.

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public.—1a. Unclaimed Stock and Dividends; Geological Survey; Bills of Exchange, etc.; Criminal Jurisdiction of Assistant Barristers (Ireland); Lunatic Asylums and Pauper Lunatics; Lunatic Asylums (Ireland).
2a. Waste Lands (Australia); Apprehension of Offenders; Field Gardens; Loan Societies; Highway Rates.
3°. and passed:—Foreign Lotteries; High Constables.
Private.—1a. Gravesend and Rochester Railway; Yoker Road (No. 2); South Eastern Railway (Greenwich Extension); Dublin Pipe Water.
2a. Earl of Powis's (or Robinson's) Estate; Brighton and Chichester Railway (Portsmouth Extension); Guildford, Chichester, and Portsmouth Railway; Glasgow, Barr-head, and Neilston Direct Railway.
Reported.—West London Railway Extension and Lease; Westminster Improvement; Marsh's (or Coxhead's) Estate; Newport and Pontypool Railway; Monmouth and Hereford Railway; South Wales Railway; Marquess of Donegall's Estate.
3a. and passed:—Follett's Estate; Duke of Bridgewater's Trustees' Estate; Aberdare Railway; Norwich and Brandon Railway (Diss and Dereham Branches); Saint Helen's Improvement; Winchester College Estate; Liverpool and Bury Railway (Bolton, Wigan, and Liverpool Railway and Bury Extension).

DISTURBANCES IN LEITRIM.
The Marquess of Clanricardepresented a petition from magistrates, resident gentry, and inhabitants of the county of Leitrim, setting forth the disturbed condition of the county, and praying for the adoption of measures for the protection of life and property. The petition suggested that the law which granted compensation to be levied on the county or barony, in case of malicious injury being done to a particular description of property, should be extended to all kinds of property, and also to injury inflicted on the person. It appeared from the newspapers that 500 l. had been awarded as compensation to the widow of Mr. Booth by the grand jury. He had
652
not been aware that that could be done; but, if not, the law ought to be altered; it would impose a considerable check on such outrages, and be an inducement to the respectable neighbours to prevent crime or apprehend the murderer. The noble Marquess then said, that he would proceed to ask the Government, pursuant to notice, what course they meant to pursue with regard to Mr. Watson, a magistrate and deputy-lieutenant of the county of Antrim? It had been thought proper not to renew the Party Processions Act, which expired a few weeks ago; and on the 23rd of June a meeting was held in Lisburne, attended by 300 masters of Orange lodges, and presided over by Mr. Watson—a most respectable gentleman, and extremely popular in his neighbourhood, but whose conduct in his public and official capacity, must not therefore go unnoticed. Resolutions were passed at that meeting, and signed by him, to reorganize the Orange institutions in the county, and to meet On one of the July anniversaries, and march in procession to the parish church, where a sermon was to be preached on the occasion. Now, magistrates were dismissed very unceremoniously in 1843 for attending Repeal meetings or subscribing to the Repeal Association. At no one Repeal meeting had there been any serious affray, still less any loss of life; but this had not been the Case with the Orange meetings, with respect to which there had been over and over again cases in which magistrates had been called upon to act. He did not approve of the dismissal of the Repeal magistrates; he deemed it unconstitutional and unjust, and he believed at the time it would be one-sided; but, at any rate, it showed the wish of Government to discountenance Repeal and Repeal meetings. It was said that this was done because Parliament had disapproved the object of the Repeal meetings; but what did the Act which had just expired show, except that both Houses of Parliament and the Crown had serious objections to the Orange processions? The meetings in the one case also were held for the purpose of petitioning Parliament, but in the other case there was no such object. He had, however, deemed it unwise to dismiss the Repeal magistrates, because, in the first place, it gave countenance to the opinion that men acting as magistrates were liable to be influenced in their judical duties by

653
their political opinions; and in the next place, it removed from the Bench those who held opinions in unison with the mass of the population, and was calculated to throw suspicion on the administration of justice. He feared that the Government had overlooked this gentleman, whose case was more flagrant than the others, and had taken no step on the information he had given that he was about to reorganize the Orange societies and the Orange processions. In a letter addressed to this gentleman by a noble Marquess (the Marquess of Londonderry), he in the strongest way deprecated the opinions advanced in the resolutions, and had given his reasons against the course proposed. What he now wanted to know was, whether the Government, after they had taken upon themselves the responsibility of doing away with the Act, which applied only to one party, had made any arrangements in its stead — whether they had paid the same attention as the noble Marquess to this matter — whether they had taken any steps to rebuke this gentleman for what he had done in reference to these proceedings, and had dismissed him from the commission of the peace? His formal question was, whether there had been any correspondence with Mr. Watson, or any steps taken to remove him from the commission of the peace, in consequence of what took place at Lisburne on the 23rd of June last?
Lord Stanleywas sorry the noble Marquess had thought it necessary to enter into any discussion of various events which had no material bearing on the present case. He regretted that the noble Marquess should have brought under the consideration of their Lordships the conduct of the Government with regard to those who had promoted or attended Repeal meetings; and he hoped it would not be thought disrespectful if he declined to follow him into preceding events, or into the question of the repeal of an Act which the noble Marquess admitted to have been one-sided. He would not, however, conceal from the noble Marquess, or from the House, that Her Majesty's Government had seen with the deepest regret, and, he would add, with no inconsiderable disappointment, the manner in which the Orange societies had, with ill-judgment, so imprudently and so recklessly acted: neglecting altogether due caution, and forgetful of the friendly spirit in which
654
Her Majesty's Government had withdrawn the prohibition of the Act of Parliament, and disregarding also the admonitions addressed to them in every direction by those among themselves who were entitled to the greatest confidence and respect. It was a melancholy picture of the state of Ireland, that so large a portion of the population of both parties, or rather factions, should be bent so much on exasperating and aggravating those animosities which it had been the object of that and of the preceding Governments to allay. So long as both parties in Ireland persisted in their determination to treat with hostility their opponents, it was a hopeless effort for the Government or the State to improve the condition of a country torn by this unhappy violence. Her Majesty's Government, he repeated, had seen with the deepest regret what had recently taken place. He would not vindicate or palliate the course which had been pursued; but he ventured to remind the noble Marquess, that the fact of processions of one description being unattended with any violence, and that processions of another description led to affrays, did not show that any greater amount of blame was attributable to the latter party, because for an affray to take place there must be two parties. The processions of the Repealers, however aggravating and annoying the provocation might be, had been borne in silence, while the Orange processions had not met with similar forbearance on the part of their political opponents; so that the blame was not wholly on one party because the processions of that party led to affrays which the others did not. He would not now discuss the merits of the particular case which was now in a course of judicial investigation: he only wished he might express a hope that in the course of this investigation all matters would receive an impartial, as well as a judicial inquiry With respect to this gentleman—if the facts were as reported to Her Majesty's Government—they would deeply regret that a gentleman, in other respects of high worth and respectability, should have been so misguided as to lend his name and his character—and the higher the name the greater was the evil—to this display of party feeling and animosity. The noble Marquess, however, was wrong in supposing that no steps had been taken by Her Majesty's Government with respect to this gentleman. He would not say that he

655
would be removed from the commission of the peace; but the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland had directed the attention of the Lord Lieutenant to the proceeding; subsequently there had been communications between his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department and the Lord Chancellor of Ireland on the subject, and he had reason to believe, though he was not certain of the fact, that the gentleman had been called upon to explain, and that upon consideration the matter would be dealt with as should be deemed best. He trusted that the noble Marquess would not call for a premature declaration of the course which Her Majesty's Government would pursue. The subject had not escaped their attention; they had viewed the occurrences with the deepest regret, and he hoped the noble Marquess did not express his own supposition when he doubted whether Her Majesty's Government would act with anything except impartiality with respect to similar offences committed by different bodies.
The Marquess of Londonderrysaid, that with respect to the character of this individual, for a number of years he had occupied the highest position in the county, and that he possessed great popularity, and that up to this period, though he was a party man, his conduct as a magistrate had been most proper. He confessed that he had seen the resolutions passed at the meeting in question with regret, and had written his strong impressions against them. His noble Friend (the Earl of Roden) and others had also urged the Orange societies to take heed, as it was very easy for Parliament to re-enact the law against them; and he must say he did not believe that the great majority of the Orangemen, or the Protestants of Ireland, had taken part in these proceedings. The excuse of this gentleman was, that 15,000 men had marched in peace and tranquillity, and there had been no disturbance. This was in his own neighbourhood. With regard to the occurrences at Armagh, it was a lamentable story, and he was strongly of opinion that there were errors on both sides. He asked the Government to consider whether it would be wise and just to punish this venerable gentleman; he had been mistaken, but it would do mischief in that part of the country if anything were done against him. He believed that the speech
656
of the noble Lord would do more good than any dismissal of magistrates, or than any resort to violent measures. For an individual so respectable great allowance should be made, though he had been misguided. In his opinion, if they would leave Ireland to herself she would right herself better than if they ripped up every occurrence, irritating one person, without conciliating the good will of the other. He had been the consistent friend of Ireland throughout; he trusted that he would always remain so; and he had given to these societies his best counsel and advice.
Subject at an end.

SYRIA.
Lord Beaumontrose to move, in compliance with the Notice he had given, an humble Address to Her Majesty, that she would be graciously pleased to allow to be laid before their Lordships certain Papers and Correspondence regarding the recent events in Syria. His object in moving for these Papers was, that their Lordships might have a continuation of the Papers and Correspondence furnished to the House in 1841, so that the whole subject might be laid before them in so complete a form as to enable them to draw a correct judgment of the great question in the Levant, which for some time threatened to involve Europe in war, and which, he feared, still contained the germs of future disturbance to the peace of Europe, and was the constant cause of jealousy and recrimination between England and France. He did not think that he should be wasting their Lordships' time if he dwelt for a few minutes on the actual state of affairs in Syria, as that question had been the subject of debate on two distinct occasions in the Chamber of Deputies in Paris; and such opinions had been expressed in the course of those debates as would, if acted upon, tend to interrupt any good understanding which might still exist between England and France on the subject; nor did he think the noble Earl would regret the opportunity being offered him of giving some explanation on this question, as the most injurious accusations had been brought against English agents in the East, and no attempt had been made to contradict them in the Chambers in Paris. The Papers furnished in 1841 to the House brought the history of this question down to the period when the Porte, aided by all the great European Powers, except France, had succeeded in recovering from the usurpation of Mahomet

657
Ali the province of Syria, together with the other dependencies in Asia which had been overrun by the arms of its powerful vassal; and it was at that period, or immediately subsequent to it, that the Great Powers signed the Protocol of the 10th of July, and invited France to reunite herself to the European Compact. France accepted the invitation, and signed the Protocol of the 10th of July on the 13th of the same month. From that time, France was considered as having abandoned her isolated position, and agreed to act in concert with the other Powers. If they followed her subsequent conduct, and attended to her present professions, they would see how far she had realized these expectations, or how far she had disappointed the hopes founded on them. On recovering Syria, the Sultan had to consult how he should govern his newly-restored Province. Under the Emir Bechir (its old form of government previous to the Egyptian occupation), civil wars, bloodshed, confusion, and scenes similar to those they now deplored, were familiar. Chief fought against chief, and feudal system and feudal strife were the characteristics of the Lebanon: to such a system of government the Porte ought not to have returned, nor could the European Powers advisedly recommend it. France alone seemed to have desired it, but the Porte resisted, and resisted with success. Defeated in this object, France next demanded a separation of the two people who inhabited the Lebanon; or, to use the words of the Minister of Foreign Affairs in France, instead of a purely Turkish and Mussulman ruled the establishment of nationality in the mountain. In this, and in the subsequent steps of the proceedings, she seemed to have taken the chief part in counselling the Divan, and to have been successful in her recommendations. A separate government was given to the Druse and Maronite people; but, not content with this, France required that even in the mixed districts and villages, the same principle should be carried out, and, consequently, the Druse were to be subject to Druse magistrates, and the Maronite to Maronite magistrates. This was adopted, and each people were to have kaimacans or vekils of their own. France having been the chief party in establishing this form of government, she ought, in reason to have allowed the system to have had a fair trial; but, instead of so doing, she professed to consider the plan as only temporary, and raised hopes and discontent by saying that she expected to obtain more
658
privileges for the Maronites in the mountain. The Porte sought to establish municipal privileges instead of the feudal ones, and to place Lebanon on the same footing as the rest of the Pashalic; but, buoyed up by the conduct of France, and the language of her Minister, the Shahab family hoped to regain the authority they had lost. Intrigue followed intrigue, and a moment's repose was never allowed to the Government of Syria to try fairly the new principle adopted there. Constant outbreaks occurred; but if the Porte had been allowed to act independently, these outbreaks would soon have been suppressed; and if Omar Pasha, who was sent out to replace the Emir Bechir in the mountain, had been allowed to remain, we should have never heard of the war between Druse and Maronite. Unfortunately, the Porte was not allowed to act with a strong hand, and suppress revolt; but in an attempt to give a demi-independence and self-government to the two people who occupied the mountain, old feuds were revived, and the war broke out, which led to the late disgraceful scenes of bloodshed and cruelty. While alluding to the lamentations of France over these bloody scenes, and the indignation and sympathy she tried to excite on the occasion, saying that civilization and common charity imposed on Europe the necessity of interfering to stop such cruel occurences—all of which, by the by, she attributed to the suggestions of the British Consul, and the instructions of the English Government—while alluding to the outcry raised in France on this subject, he (Lord Beaumont) could not refrain from reflecting, that at the very same time, in a province which France claimed as her own, a scene had been enacted which surpassed in horror all the inventions of romances, and which, if we did not know it to be true, we would believe to be the monstrous production of the frenzied imagination of some new and unequalled compiler of horrors. Returning, however, from this digression to the subject immediately before the House, he would briefly recapitulate the events of the last few months. On the 30th of April, the Maronites, urged on by the intrigues of the Shahab family and the promises of France, had invaded the territory of the Druses; the Druses retaliated, and then commenced a species of civil war in the mixed districts, during which the cruelties alluded to had taken place. The Druses got the upper hand, when the Turkish authorities interfered, and an armistice was forced upon the

659
belligerents. Such being the present state of Lebanon, and the renewal of such scenes as had been described being more than probable, it behoved them to consider well what were the conduct and policy of France. From the speeches of M. Guizot, and the debates which had recently taken place in the Chamber of Deputies, he (Lord Beaumont) gathered that it was the intention of France to separate herself from the other Powers in this question, and act singly in the affairs of Syria; she claimed, on the ground of some obsolete Treaties, the exclusive right to protect the Christians of Mount Lebanon—a claim which could not hold good in respect of the Maronites, inasmuch as at the time the supposed Treaties were made, the Maronites were not in communion with Rome. France had already one man of war on the coast, and the Minister of Foreign Affairs declared that orders had been given to two others to join her. If the discontent of the mountaineers was fomented by foreign intrigue, and the insurrection of the Maronites fed by the assistance of France, there could be no hope that the Porte would be able to restore peace in the Lebanon, and put down, with a strong hand, those who dared to break it. For his own part, he (Lord Beaumont) thought it was the duty of this country to strengthen the sovereign power of Turkey, instead of attempting to diminish it in Syria; and he considered the noble Earl called on to do his utmost to persuade France not to act singly in this case, but forego her presumed right of exclusive protection of the Maronites, and join cordially with England in obtaining equal justice to Druse and Maronite, which could only be secured by establishing in full force the supreme authority of the lawful Sovereign of both populations—the Sultan. He felt he had now said enough to justify the Motion for Papers; but he should feel disappointed if the noble Earl, when he acceded to it, should not avail himself of the opportunity of explaining the intentions of Government, and also of contradicting the aspersions cast upon Colonel Rose in the French Chambers. The noble Lord concluded by moving for the Correspondence regarding Syria since 1842.
The Earl of Aberdeen: The Papers to which the noble Lord has referred, were moved for some time ago in the House of Commons. There is, of course, therefore, no objection to their being laid on the Table of your Lordships' House. Being
660
very voluminous, it has required some time to prepare them; they are not yet quite ready; I hope that in the course of a few days they will be; and, when they are ready, I shall be happy to furnish them to the noble Lord and the House. The provinces to which the noble Lord has referred are undoubtedly in a very disturbed state—confusion, bloodshed, and anarchy have prevailed in them for some time past to a lamentable extent. I will not say that I give any credit to that which, however, I must tell the noble Lord, is generally believed in the country itself — that the Turkish Government is the sole cause of the warfare which has been carried on between these two people, the Maronites and the Druses. It is generally believed that the Porte, being unable to govern them with a strong hand, seeks to have the power of doing so by means of setting one against the other, and thus weakening both. Now, I do not believe that. I believe that the confusion that prevails is only the result of Turkish apathy and misrule, which are but too common in many of their provinces, and not to any such diabolical plan as that which is supposed to exist. It is true that the French Government have assumed a general protectorship over all Christians in the Levant, founding their right to do so on old Treaties and capitulations, from, I believe, the time of Francis I. I shall not enter into the question of the right which the French Government may have to exercise this protection; but, at all events, in the present case they must submit to share it with us, inasmuch as we are bound by positive engagement to attend to the condition of the population of this province. Before the expulsion of the Egyptians, the Turkish Government entered into an agreement with Her Majesty's Ambassador, that in the event of the province being recovered, the inhabitants should recover their former privileges, and that their condition should be improved. We are, therefore, bound by an obligation to see that their condition is so far improved as to fulfil the pledge which was offered by the Turkish Government. As for seeing good government established in that or any other province of the Turkish empire, I am not very sanguine. But there may be a spirit of improvement encouraged, and in this case we are under the necessity of seeing that the Turkish Government fulfils its engagement. Otherwise I do not wish to interfere in the details of the government of this province, except where some very flagrant outrage is

661
committed, with which common humanity and a regard for our fellow Christians should call for our immediate intervention. Generally speaking, I fear, it would be a vain attempt, indeed, to establish anything like such a government as would be satisfactory to ourselves and the public in any province; but in this province we are compelled to interest ourselves, in consequence of the engagement into which we have entered. It has happened in this and in other provinces where there are two parties, that one has been supposed to be an English, and the other a French party, and thus we are set in a sort of opposition to each other, quite contrary, as I believe, to the intention of both Governments; for I believe the object of the French Government is precisely that of the English Government, viz., without reference to Maronites or Druses, to see something like order, tranquillity, and peace, established in the country. There is no sort of foundation for the notion which the noble Lord seems to entertain, of the French Government intending to withdraw itself from its alliance in this case with the other Powers. The noble Lord should recollect that the Five Great Powers of Europe are acting together at Constantinople and in the provinces, by their Consuls: and, although in a case of such difficulty, and where there are such various interests, it is possible that a difference of opinion may more or less prevail, as to what may be the best mode of restoring peace to this unhappy country, I should say that, generally, there has been concert between all the Powers respecting the measures which ought to be pursued; and there is no reason to suppose that on the part of France, or of any other Government, there is any wish not to act in concert. I think it is quite unnecessary to occupy your Lordships' time any more on this subject. It appeared to me to be quite unnecessary to refer to the debates in the French Chambers upon the subject. Gentlemen there say what they please, as we take the liberty of doing here. But I do not feel myself bound to answer accusations which were made without any foundation whatever. I have not seen any report of the debate to which the noble Lord has referred, and I am not aware that any authority has been given by the French Government to such accusations; and, therefore, it is quite unnecessary to occupy your Lordships time by adverting to them. But I will say that there have been accusations made against the English Consul
662
General in Syria which are not only most unfounded, but are without even a shadow of foundation; for, although it is generally supposed that England has espoused the cause of the Druses, and France has taken the Maronites under its protection, yet, to show how little truth there is in that opinion, I may mention that, very recently, Colonel Rose, Her Majesty's Consul, having been informed that a body of Maronites were in prison and in danger of losing their lives and property, got up at twelve o'clock at night, mounted his horse, and proceeded on a long and difficult march to the place where these people were confined. He found 600 persons, men, women, and children, and by his exertions and the influence he exercised, at the head of a considerable column, under a burning sun, in a two days' march, he brought them safely to Beyrout, and thus liberated these Maronites from danger in which they were placed. Therefore, your Lordships see that, though other gentlemen may write moving and pathetic despatches, the English Consul General exposed himself to actual fatigue and to some danger in rescuing these persons, who approached him with an appeal requiring his aid as their friend. This is the only feeling upon which I should always wish to see English agents act. While others indulge in eloquent descriptions of the sympathy they felt, yet so long as the English agent did the sufferers real service, I think your Lordships will be satisfied with the comparison which his conduct may bear with any other friendly Power. Such was the manner in which Colonel Rose acted towards the Maronites. And as to supporting the Druses against the Maronites, and encouraging their destruction by the Druses, that must clearly be an absurd imputation, hardly worthy of refutation. But so far from the Druses being protected by us, so far as I am aware of any motive that could influence our conduct, it would be most natural for us to protect the Maronites; they are Christians and Roman Catholics; they are persons who have many claims upon us, and who acted zealously in support of our measures in freeing the country from the Egyptians, whereas the Druses have no claim upon us whatever. Their religion is neither Christian nor Mahomedan; it is some superstition which nobody knows anything about; some say it is the worship of the Golden Calf; but, be that as it may, the others are certainly Christians, and deserving of our sympathy. But our object

663
is to establish justice; that whether Christians or Druses, justice may be administered without partiality, or predilection, or interference with the Turkish Government. I hope we shall never do that which will not be justifiable towards an independent State, as it is our object to obtain the improvement of the condition of the people with as little interference as possible with the sovereign rights of an independent State—a State which, however imperfect may be its government and its condition in many respects, we have an interest in preserving and strengthening by all the means in our power. As there is no objection to produce the Papers, I do not see that it is necessary for me to trouble your Lordships any further.
Lord Beaumontsaid, he wished the noble Earl had read the debate in the French Chamber, because he would have seen that M. Guizot did not abandon the principle of acting alone, and was prepared to act in favour of the Maronites; and that there was a difference of opinion between England and France, not as to the object, but as to the remedy. He was, however, glad he had given the noble Earl an opportunity of making the statement which their Lordships had heard.
Motion agreed to.

WASTE LANDS (AUSTRALIA) BILL.
Lord Stanleymoved the Second Reading of the Waste Lands (Australia) Bill, in doing which the noble Lord explained the state of the law as it stood at present in the Australian Colonies with reference to waste lands. One object of the Bill was to authorize the Governor of New South Wales to grant leases of waste lands within or without the limits of the Colony, on the same terms as the other lands were disposed of, namely, by auction. It was proposed, however, to restrict the leases to twenty-one years at the outside. The produce of the revenue to be derived under the Bill was to be applied in part to raise a fund for the encouragement of immigration of free labourers;—but this regarded New South Wales only. In Australia there was no want of capital, but there was a deficiency of labour. In Van Diemen's Land, on the other hand, there was a superabundance of labour seeking for employment. This, resulted, in great part, from the excess of convict labour. We, moreover, imposed a heavy tax upon the Colony on account of the convicts we sent
664
there. The expense incurred there for police and gaols, was 36,000 l. per annum, whilst the rest of the expenditure was only 70,000 l.; thus one-third of the whole expenditure of the Colony was entirely taken up by the police and the gaols. It was proposed by this Bill to retransfer to this country the proceeds of land sales, which had dwindled down to almost nothing; to take into the hands of the Government the proceeds of the sales of lands, after they had been improved by convict labour, and to release the Colony from the gaol and police expenses. It was proposed to allow the best-conducted convicts to become renters of Government land in Van Diemen's Land: whereas in New South Wales, the object was to give a certain permanency of tenure, and enable the free occupier to surround himself with some of the comforts of life. He (Lord Stanley) believed the Bill would be found satisfactory to many of those who had presented petitions to Parliament.
The Marquess of Lansdownewas not prepared to oppose the Bill in its present stage. He thought a case might be made out for legislative interference. But when entering upon so large a subject, he considered it was absolutely necessary that the noble Lord should make out a case of most urgent necessity before their Lordships consented to pass a Bill of this nature, especially as they were now coming to the close of the Session, and when many important measures, which had undergone great consideration, had already been deferred to another period. Many of the clauses of this Bill might be of value, and among the rest, he thought the system of granting licenses for the occupation of waste lands might be attended with beneficial effects; but there were provisions in the Bill, giving to the Governor such arbitrary powers, that he was entirely opposed to them. By the 6th Clause, persons who had already occupied parts of the waste lands under licenses, were to be made liable, at the pleasure of the Governor, to an amount of taxation almost indefinite, assuming the shape of an agistment tax. It authorized a tax upon cattle, paying a certain sum per year for every horse, sheep, and head of horned cattle depastured upon the waste lands which Her Majesty's Privy Council or the Governor might decide upon. To this he most strongly objected. Their Lordships were aware of the effect of a law of agist-

665
ment in Ireland; and he thought it would be a rash, inconsiderate, and ill-judged measure to introduce into Australia. He wished to impress it upon their Lordships, that they were now, in fact, laying the foundation of a principle of property which would affect two thousand miles of territory and vast millions of acres of land, and that without giving the measure such consideration as its importance demanded, and which if brought on early in the next Session it would of course obtain.
Lord Stanleyobserved, that the noble Marquess seemed to suppose that the license conferred a permanent right upon the party obtaining it. But that was not the case. It was an annual license to pasture stock.
The Marquess of Lansdowne: Was it not a license to occupy?
Lord Stanley: No; it was merely a license to depasture stock within a certain district. The Governor was at the present moment perfectly free to fix from year to year the amount to be paid by each party obtaining a license.
Lord Monteagleobjected to the 6th and 13th Clauses, which he believed had excited the greatest possible apprehension and alarm. He objected to their provisions as perfectly without precedent. In 1842, an Act was passed regulating the sale of Colonial property; but the proposed Bill, which extended to the whole of the Australian Colonies, suspended the operation of the existing Statute law of the land so long as any Colony should continue to be a place to which felons might be conveyed for punishment. The noble Lord stated that he meant it to apply only to Van Diemen's Land; but an Order in Council, by sending even as few as ten felons to New Zealand, or any other Colony, would extend the provisions at once to those places.
Lord Stanleyexplained, that the Bill could not apply to any existing Colonies, as their charters would not permit the sending of felons there; but if new Colonies should be established, and it should be deemed necessary to found new penal settlements in such places, but for the provision referred to, those Colonies would be subject to the old Land Sales Act.
Lord Monteagle, in continuation, expressed his regret that the Bill had been introduced at so late a period of the Session, not only on public grounds, but also for the sake of the noble Lord himself. It
666
was clearly impossible, at this period of the Session, the measure could be well considered; and it was more than probable that, if considered, it would not be satisfactory.
Lord Polwarthexpressed a hope that the provision which made some amends to Van Diemen's Land for the expense incurred by gaols and police might also be extended to Australia.
Bill read 2a.

FOREIGN LOTTERIES BILL.
Moved that the Bill be now read 3a.
Lord Monteaglesaid, he wished to have a clause inserted which should provide for and insist upon the enforcement of the law with regard to the publication of notices in newspapers relative to foreign lotteries. As all newspapers and periodicals came under the inspection of the Commissioners of Stamps and Taxes, he was of opinion that that body should be entrusted with the enforcement of the law in this respect, and he should propose the insertion of some such clause as the following:
"Be it enacted, that whenever it shall appear to the Commissioners of Stamps and Taxes, from the inspection of newspapers and periodicals, that there has been inserted any advertisement or notice of foreign lotteries, they shall take the necessary proceedings to enforce the law."
Though he wished, however, to have a clause inserted, he should be satisfied if the noble Lord would give him an assurance that the law was to be enforced, and that these great frauds and nuisances should be put down by the strong hand of the law.
Lord Stanleyassured the noble Lord that it was not intended that the law should become a dead letter in this respect. He did not think it would be necessary to introduce a clause; but he would take care that such instructions should be given as should secure the enforcement of the law to its fullest extent.
Bill read 3a.

FIELD GARDENS' BILL.
The Duke of Richmondmoved the Second Reading of this Bill.
The Earl of Radnorobjected to the Bill, both in principle and detail. He wished to know whether the Government approved or not of such a measure, as in the former case it ought to be left to the

667
hands of some noble Lord on the Treasury Bench, or not brought forward at all.
Lord Stanleydefended the Bill both in its principle, and against the objections urged by the noble Earl. The noble Lord said that the noble Earl might judge from what he had said, whether he and his (Lord Stanley's) Colleagues in office, did or did not approve of the Bill.
Bill was then read a second time.
House adjourned.
The following Protest against the Second Reading of the Field Gardens Bill was entered on the Journals:—

1. Because by this Bill there may be established in every parish in the kingdom a Board endowed with corporate privileges, irresponsible, and armed with powers which may be used for purposes of favouritism on the one hand, or of oppression on the other.

2. Because the objects of this Bill, purporting to be subsidiary to the provisions for the relief of the poor, under divers Acts of Parliament, are, in truth, in direct contravention to their principle.

3. Because, as in each parish, where the provisions of this Bill shall be adopted, the field-wardens will be wholly unconnected with those of every other, and uncontrolled by any superior power, it cannot be doubted that in process of time there will be introduced in different parishes a diversity of practice, which will lead to heart-burnings, discontent, and confusion.

4. Because the provisions of this Bill, if carried out in the fairest and most equitable manner, will necessarily aggravate the acknowledged evils resulting from the present law of settlement.

5. Because its unavoidable tendency is to promote early and improvident marriages, and to give an unnatural stimulus to the increase of population, already superabundant in the agricultural districts.

6. Because the necessary consequence will be the lowering of the wages of the agricultural labourer.

7. Because the provisions of this Bill lead to the indefinite increase of holdings and divisions of land, and thus to many of the evils which now press so severely on the people of Ireland.

8. Because they are in accordance with an opinion much in vogue, but which I think false in itself, and injurious to the people; founded on an unfair estimate of their intelligence and spirit, and (if acted upon) tending to lower their independence, and to degrade their moral condition, viz., that they cannot manage their own concerns, but must be cared for, overlooked, and directed by others, their superiors perhaps in fortune, but I believe by no means superior to them in virtue, natural intelligence, or public spirit.

668

9. Because if I am mistaken in this character of the people, and their comparative worth, the evil ought to be cured by good example and education; and will only be aggravated by such measures as those contemplated by the present Bill.

RADNOR.