Sitting of 6 April 1852

SEIZURE OF PUBLICATIONS IN BELGIUM.
MR. MONCKTON MILNESsaid, he wished to ask his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question with respect to what he (Mr. M. Milnes) believed to have been an illegal seizure of the property of a British subject by the Belgian police. It appeared that about 100 l. worth of books, the property of a gentleman of the name of Jeff, had been seized, while on board of a British steamer, by the police in Belgium, under the false pretence that the package had contained papers of a seditious character against the French Government. The package did, he believed, contain some pamphlets which the Belgian Government declared to be illegal; but a prosecution subsequently instituted against the author and publisher of those works had resulted in an acquittal.

779
Under these circumstances, he wished to ask his right hon. Friend whether any correspondence had taken place between Her Majesty's Government and the Belgian Government upon that subject; and whether Her Majesty's Government were willing to press for the restitution of that property which had been illegally detained, and for some compensation to Mr. Jeff for the injury he had sustained by that detention?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, Her Majesty's Government has been informed of the circumstances to which the hon. Gentleman refers; but I think he has scarcely in the remarks he has made, accurately conveyed the facts. It is true there was a seizure by the Belgian authorities of a case of books belonging to Mr. Jeff, an English subject, I believe, in consequence of a communication between the Belgian police and the commander of the Soho steam packet, in which the case was; but it is not correct to say that the seizure took place on board a British ship, though, had it been so, the ship being in the Belgian waters it would not have affected the case. But it appears the case of books was landed after the communication had taken place between the police and the commander of the Soho, and, on being opened by the authorities, was found to contain a large number of copies of political works—I believe there were 500 copies of a pamphlet which was known to be contraband—a pamphlet entitled, I think, La Vérité des Evenemens du mois de Decembre, 500 of the Moniteur Français, 500 of the Bulletin Français, and several copies of a work complained of as being edited and directed against the French Government, under the false title of Le Belgie Commercial. These were all seized under an old Belgian law of the time of King William, and in the exercise of the powers possessed by the Belgian Government under that law. Since the seizure took place, the Bulletin Français has, it appears, been prosecuted before the Belgian tribunals, and the editor has been acquitted. In consequence of that acquittal, the question naturally arises whether the Belgian Government were entitled, under the law I have referred to, to seize the copies of that newspaper. That question is one of law between Mr. Jeff and the Belgian tribunals; and if he finds he cannot have that relief which is open to any Belgian subject under similar circumstances at the hands of those tribunals, it will then become the duty of the British
780
Government to see that justice is done to a British subject. But now, as far as we know, there is legal relief open to him, and until he has attempted to obtain redress by that means, it is not open to us to make any application to the Belgian Government. The question of compensation must, of course, entirely depend on the previous circumstances.

THE LOSS OF THE "BIRKENHEAD."
MR. ADDERLEYsaid, he wished to ask the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Board of Admiralty had received any information with respect to the loss of the Birkenhead steamer, and whether the hon. Gentleman could inform the House what had been the number of souls on board that steamer, and when she had left England? He also wished to know whether the hon. Gentleman would communicate to the House the latest intelligence which had been received at the Admiralty, with respect to the Megœsra and the Hydra?
MR. STAFFORDsaid, that at half-past ten o'clock that morning the Admiralty had received—not by any official communication, but through the electric telegraph—information of that distressing event. They had immediately forwarded a telegraphic communication to Admiral Sir John Ommanney, at Plymouth, desiring him to report to them any circumstances of the case which might have reached him. No answer had since been received from Sir John Ommanney; and at half-past two o'clock a further communication had been despatched to him asking for an explanation of that delay. Until an answer to that communication had been received, it would be premature for him (Mr. Stafford) to pronounce any opinion upon the cause of that delay. He bad waited at the Admiralty until half-past four o'clock, and up to that period no official communication had been received there upon that subject. The number of souls on board the Birkenhead had been upwards of 600. With respect to the other two vessels to which the hon. Gentleman had alluded, he had to state that the Hydra had sailed from Devonport on the 10th of February, that she had been heard from at Madeira on the 20th of February, and from Sierra Leone on the 2nd of March. The Megœra had sailed from Devonport on the 7th of January, had left Madeira on the 27th of January after having had some delay there and had been in communication with the Bos-

781
phorus, in lat. 28·13 N., and long. 1818 W., on the 29th of January. That was all the information he could give to the hon. Member upon those subjects.

BRAZIL AND THE RIVER PLATE.
MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, he had given notice to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that he would that night put a question to him respecting the relations between the English Government and the Government of the Brazils, and also in reference to the free navigation of the River Plate. He was precluded from making any statement on this subject, because there was no question before the House. He had wished to take the Opportunity afforded by the Motion for the adjournment of the House, to make his question intelligible by entering into some remarks; but as that question had been disposed of, he would comply with the rules of the House, and confine himself simply to the question. He wished to know from the Government whether they intended to take any steps to place the relations between this country and Brazil on a more satisfactory footing than they had been for some time past; and he also wished to know whether they contemplated, as the result of the joint action of France and England in reference to the River Plate, the free navigation of that river, and its being opened to the trade of Europe. He put the question in connexion with Brazilian relations, because friendly relations with Brazil would appear to be almost an indispensable preliminary to the free navigation of the River Plate.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERwished to express his regret that any misapprehension had occurred respecting the notice of Motion for the adjournment of the House. He must say on behalf of his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury, that he believed his hon. Friend was strictly in order, and that in taking the step which he did, he was influenced solely by a nervous anxiety to Secure their holidays. If any hon. Gentleman wished to make any observations, no advantage would be then taken by the Government of the fact of the Motion for the adjournment being passed. They were prepared to listen to any discussions on their conduct, and would reply to them in the best manner that they could. With regard to the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, he could only say that he had not at all conveyed to him (the Chan-
782
cellor of the Exchequer) the idea that he was going to make a statement on the interesting and important question which he had brought under the notice of the House. On the contrary, what he intended to do never appeared in the notice paper. He did, in the courtesy of conversation, inform him most distinctly that he was going to address to him a question, and, of course, he must be prepared to reply to that question when it was put; and if the right hon. Gentleman had told him that on that day he should bring before the House the whole question of Brazil and the River Plate, of course this unfortunate misconception could not have arisen. However, to reply to the right hon. Gentleman's question, he must inform the House that not twenty-four hours had elapsed after the news of the fall of General Rosas arrived, when a communication was made to the French Government in order that steps might mutually be taken by England and France to secure those great results in which the commercial world was so greatly interested. On the 16th of this month, he hoped the Chevalier St. George and Sir Charles Hotham would proceed to the River Plate as envoys of their respective countries, in two vessels of war, and they would touch at Rio. They were not to make a formal visit to the Court of Brazil, but a visit of friendly communication and explanation. Her Majesty's Government had the greatest confidence in the individual whom they had entrusted with the fulfilment of the duties which would devolve on our envoy. Sir Charles Hotham was acquainted both with the language of the country and with the people against whom he was going; and the Government hoped that through his energy, intelligence, and experience they would be enabled to obtain that free navigation of the River Plate which this country and all the countries of Europe so anxiously desired. It was not the object either of France or of England to obtain particular privileges or advantages—they would negotiate together to secure for all countries the same advantages; and the Government trusted that they would be able to secure those advantages with the cordial cooperation and good will of the Court of Brazil.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONwished to ask his right hon. Friend whether it was not by an inadvertence that he had spoken of the free navigation of the River Plate, which was an estuary or arm of the sea; whether he did not mean the rivers Pa-

783
rana and Uruguay, and the internal communication generally?
MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, he meant the whole of the navigation connected with the River Plate. He thought the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not quite answered his question. What he wished to know was, whether the Government intended to take any steps to place our relations with Brazil on a more friendly footing than they had been for some years past? Most angry correspondence had passed between the Brazilian and the English Governments, and he wished to know whether the Government were about to take steps to place us in more friendly relations with Brazil?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHE-querthought, that in stating that Her Majesty's envoy was about to touch at Rio, and to enter into friendly communications with the Court of Brazil, he had given a sufficient answer to the question.
Subject dropped.

PUBLIC BUSINESS.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLbegged to ask the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer if he would now state the course in which he proposed to proceed with public business after the Easter recess?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERreplied, that on Monday, the 19th inst., the right hon. President of the Board of Control would move the appointment of a Select Committee on Indian Affairs. On the 23rd, according to the wish of the House, the Militia Bill would be proceeded with. He would then propose that, with the exception of questions of great urgency, such as the financial statement, or questions of that description, they should proceed with the Militia Bill and with the Estimates. [An Hon. MEMBER: The Miscellaneous Estimates?] Yes, the Miscellaneous Estimates. He anticipated that the discussion on Indian affairs would occupy some time; but he would place such other business on the paper for the 19th as would not require a very full attendance of Members.

BALLAST HEAVERS (PORT OF LONDON).
MR. G. THOMPSONsaid, that, in moving for leave to bring in a Bill for establishing an office for the benefit of the ballast heavers of the port of London, he was not asking the House to do anything novel or unprecedented. The case
784
of the ballast heavers was almost identical with that of the coalwhippers, for whom the House had legislated on more than one occasion. The evils which he designed to remedy were very great. The; ballast heavers, 400 in number, had at: present no freedom of action. They could not obtain work unless they connected themselves with a particular public-house, and, after their work was over, they were obliged to spend a large portion of their earnings under the roof of the man who had the power to employ them, or of keeping them destitute of employment. What he asked for was, to have their case dealt with by this House in the same manner as that of the coalwhippers had been. By this Bill he proposed that there should be established a Registration Office for ballast heavers; that every man who chose should be at liberty, on the payment of a very small fee, or no fee at all, to enter his name; that the names should be taken in rotation; that the masters should offer their own price for the ballast heaving; that the men should have the option of accepting or refusing the price; and that in the event of the men refusing it, the master should have a right to go wherever else he pleased for labourers. The Bill contained no other provisions than those which were in the Coalwhippers' Bill.
MR. SPEAKERsaid that, as the matter was one relating to trade, it was necessary for the hon. Member first to move that the House should go into Committee.
MR. G. THOMPSONthen moved that the House do go into Committee.
Resolved—
"That this House will immediately resolve itself into a Committee, to consider the expediency of establishing an Office for the benefit of the Ballast Hearers of the Port of London."
MR. HENLEYsaid, he did not rise to offer any opposition to the first step being taken in reference to this matter. All the statements made by the hon. Member with regard to the unfortunate position of these men, were perfectly well founded. It could not be doubted that various parties made a considerable profit by letting out the labour of the ballast heavers. While he admitted that grievance to its full extent, he must not conceal from the House the fact that this Bill would create another monopoly. It was nothing better than a; monopoly to compel the employers of labour to go to a certain place to procure it, and if unable to procure it there, to wait a certain period before attempting to pro-

785
cure it elsewhere. It was not very long since several cases of a very unpleasant nature had been heard before the police magistrates of the city arising out of similar provisions contained in the Coalwhippers' Act. The class of persons now about to be legislated for was not very numerous—not more than 500 in number; but he felt a strong conviction that the powers intended to be created for their advantage by this Bill, would tend to greater evils than those which it was desired to abolish. While assenting to the introduction of the Bill, he could not promise his support on the other stages.
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, that that House ought to look with great jealousy and caution at measures of this description, which were undoubtedly founded, in many respects, on a dangerous principle. At the same time he could not but recollect the working of a measure which bore a strong analogy to the present, namely, that relating to the coalwhippers. He had been originally strongly opposed to that Bill, of which he feared that the consequences would sooner or later show themselves; but he must confess that the working of that Bill had convinced him that the good in a great degree preponderated over the evil. Besides, it ought rather to be considered in the light of a police measure than as a Bill of Trade. He thought that the ballast heavers had established a primâ facie case as strong as that of the coalwhippers, and that they were more oppressed by the truck system than the coalwhippers had been; but he had already expressed to them his opinion that Parliament would never pass a Bill of this nature without a previous inquiry being made by a Select Committee. An inquiry of this nature might still be made during the present Session of Parliament.
MR. HUMEsaid, that this was a large and important question, and that the House ought to consider whether the present was not the time for inquiry into the whole of the laws and customs relating to the port of London. Ballast had been guaranteed as a monopoly to the Trinity-house by an Act of Henry VIII., and the profit annually received from this source was between 4,000 l. and 5,000 l. He would suggest that a Committee should be appointed to inquire into the manner in
786
which the port of London was carried on, with the view of relieving the colliers, which were at present almost the only vessels that took in ballast, from these charges. He hoped there would be a Committee to inquire into the mode in which ships were ballasted in the River Thames; for if that were done he was sure the result would be to afford to the whole shipping interest of the port of London a relief that was now much wanted.
MR. BERNAL OSBORNEsaid, he knew the case of the ballast heavers to be one that required a strict inquiry by that House. Their case was simply this—the men were in the hands of twenty-nine middlemen, twenty-seven of whom were keepers of public-houses; and the consequence was that the men could never get any employment unless they agreed to take their victuals, their beer, and their spirits, from the shops of these middlemen. He could not conceive a grosser case, or one more demanding an inquiry than that; and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley) would take up the question, for he was sure it would be the means of improving the morality and the contentment of a humble but industrious class. He hoped, therefore, that the hon. Member (Mr. G. Thompson) would not proceed with his Bill at present, but that he would accede to the suggestion that had been made to have a Select Committee to investigate the subject.
MR. WAKLEYsaid, he was glad the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had not opposed the introduction of this Bill. He hoped the Government would also consider the propriety of establishing a labour registry office for the benefit of the working classes of this country generally. Let the House not be alarmed—he was not proposing workshops to be placed under the surveillance of the Government. He knew that would be monstrous, and opposed to common sense, and would be highly injurious to the working classes themselves. But what he meant was, that means might be provided by which those who had labour to sell might have an opportunity of disposing of it to better advantage than they now could do. The vendors of corn, coal, cotton, or any other article, had all the means of acquiring the best information as to when and where they could find the best market for their commodities; but the poor man out of employment could not afford to travel,

787
and could not learn where the best market was for his commodity, his labour. Now, the machinery of a registry that would supply this desideratum already existed in the Unions, Union-offices, and the offices for the registration of births, deaths, and marriages scattered throughout the country. Now, instead of an office merely for ballast heavers, if the Government would establish an office connected with all the districts and Unions of the country, whence information might be furnished to a central office in the metropolis as to where labourers could be had, and where employment could be obtained, so that the operative and the capitalist might be brought together—if the Government would adopt that course, he believed they Would be conferring enormous and indescribable benefit upon the working classes, and at a cost perfectly insignificant compared with the advantages it would afford. He did not expect this suggestion to be embodied in the present Bill, but he threw it out in the hope that the Government would give it a favourable consideration.
MR. MACGREGORsaid, he did not think that any Bill like the present could meet the necessities of the case of the ballast heavers, unless a further inquiry-was instituted previous to its introduction to that House.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYbelieved it might be perfectly practicable to organise a system of registry for labourers somewhat in the manner pointed out by the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Wakley), and he thought it would afford great and permanent advantages to the working classes, at a cost hardly Worthy of consideration.
SIR WILLIAM CLAYsaid, that notwithstanding all the care that had been bestowed on the Coalwhippers' Bill, there had been very considerable difficulties attending its working; still it had been clearly established before the Committee which considered that measure, that it had secured great benefits to the working classes, and had raised their character in general estimation. He thought, therefore, that a similar Bill might be passed with advantage for the protection of the ballast-heavers; and as the hon. Gentleman had taken the trouble of preparing this Bill, he hoped the House would allow it to obtain a second reading, and then send it before a Select Committee.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he was anx-
788
ious to say a few words, both as to the course which the House ought to take With regard to the present Motion, and likewise with regard to that other and kindred measure which had been alluded to in the course of that discussion—he meant the Coalwhippers' Bill. He was glad to see hon. Gentlemen, representing all shades of opinion on the general question of free trade, approaching the consideration of this subject, in a Calm and dispassionate spirit, and fairly disposed to allow that a choice had to be made between the difficulties oh the one hand, and those on the other; and he thought that, to whichever alternative hon. Gentlemen on either side might incline, there was no inclination shown to underrate the objections or the arguments which might be urged in defence of a contrary opinion to their own. There was great difficulty, no doubt, in any course that the House might take in this case. When he himself proposed a Bill to establish a register office for the coalwhippers, he was not at all insensible to the objections raised by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Labouchere) to the passing of such a measure; and he always regarded them as being of a Most serious and formidable character. At the same time he was convinced from the evidence which came before him, that a large class of men were sunk and absorbed in the deepest degradation, and that it was within the power of Parliament, although at the expense Of some economical inconvenience, to apply an effectual remedy to so enormous an evil. He did not, therefore, hesitate, not did the House hesitate, perfectly alive as they were to those evils and objections, to allow the measure to pass into law. When that Act was passed, he had the strongest conviction that its good working would not depend upon the wisdom of the precautions or restraints contained in the Act itself, but upon the prudent, wise, and considerate conduct of the men themselves who were the subjects of the Act. He had ventured always to hold that language to the men; and if that Act had succeeded up to the present moment, he was bound to say that the credit of that success was not due to the framers of that Act, but to the class for whose benefit it was passed. In consequence of the generally admirable and exemplary conduct of the men, and the temperate and judicious use they had made of an Act investing them with such powers as he must confess

789
had been placed in their hands, the measure had on the one hand completely effected its moral and social objects, and he believed on the other hand it had given general contentment—certainly it had not caused any wide-spread dissatisfaction—among the mercantile classes of the port of London immediately connected with the coal trade. And he confessed it was with much grief and some apprehension that he had lately read in the public journals that not only had difficulties arisen with respect to the interpretation of the Act, but that there had also been something in the nature of a strike on the part of the coalwhippers, and an attempt to extort higher wages than the state of the market would justify by means of creating a partial monopoly, or at least by imposing a restraint upon the trade contrary to the Act. As he had always entertained hopes of the success of the Act, through the good conduct of the men, so he also thought it fair to say that, if they sought to make an undue use of the Act, he feared not that they would secure a permanent rise of wages by means of their Act, but that the whole trade would combine to offer such a resistance to it that it must give way under the restraint of such an unwise and injudicious exercise of those powers; and that House would be called upon to repeal such an Act, and would be constrained, however reluctantly, to respond to that call. While he stated that by way of a warning to the men, he ventured to say that his belief was that that time had not arrived—that there was no call upon the House for the repeal of the measure it bad so beneficially passed; and if the men persevered in the moderate conduct which, on the whole, they had persevered in in an eminent degree, they would be maintained by that House in the improved social condition in which the Act, under the blessing of Providence, had been the means of placing them. When he acknowledged that, he thought the House ought to exercise great caution in enlarging this category of exceptions; because if they proceeded to multiply exceptions to the ordinary course of trade, except upon the broadest of grounds, there would be no end to the demands that would be made for their interposition; and however seductive in some respects the path they might be called on to enter, he was quite satisfied, if this kind of interposition became a frequent practice on the part of Parliament, or if it were adopted, except in the gravest
790
and most extreme cases, that they would end by creating evils at least far more extensive than any they would remedy. Now, admitting that, and adverting to the fact that this Bill was not introduced oh the authority of the Executive Government, which of course must be a higher authority than any individual Member who proposed a measure dealing with the social condition of the people, he thought it only reasonable that the Bill should go before a Select Committee. And now came the practical question—whether the Select Committee should come first, and the Bill afterwards, or the Bill first, and the Select Committee afterwards. Now, he thought this was a case which ought not to be met with delay; they ought either to do something promptly in this matter, or to make up their minds to do nothing. It would be no mercy at all to the men, to be holding out to them delusive hopes of passing the Bill this Session, and then to have to postpone its passing till the next Session. Time, therefore, was of the utmost importance in such a case. Well, then, would they gain time by taking the Bill first, or the Select Committee? He thought the hon. Member (Mr. G. Thompson) would gain time, if, in lieu of the Motion he had made, he requested leave to make a Motion for a Select Committee on this subject; otherwise the House would be asked to consent to the principle, not on their knowledge and cognisance of the facts, but upon trust, and in all probability there would be a very formidable opposition to the second reading, which would most likely be avoided if they had a Select Committee. If they had an inquiry before a Select Committee, and it were conducted as he had not the slightest doubt it would be, not for prolonging the case, but to arrive at a speedy issue, that inquiry of a Committee, the hon. Gentleman might depend upon it, would be of very great use to him in determining the provisions of the Bill. And it Was far more important to have the recommendations of a Committee, and a Bill drawn up in conformity with them, than for the Bill to be read a second time, and then, perhaps, have the Report of the Committee varying in essential particulars from the Bill. For these reasons—of a practical nature—'and for the sake of the object which they must have at heart, namely, to bring the matter to a speedy issue, he would recommend the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his Bill, and to submit a Motion for a Select Committee to

791
inquire how the business of ballast heaving is conducted in the port of London, and to report, to the House the mode in which that subject might be dealt with.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he should support the original Motion, and could see no objection to the Bill being read a second time, and then sent to a Committee. The labour of ballast heaving was of the very lowest class, and there could be no fear of a monopoly among the men, because there was so much competition for the work.
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he could not agree with the advice which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) had given to the hon. Gentleman who was in charge of this Bill. The measure involved no new principle; and as the Government had given its sanction to the introduction of the Bill, and was willing to give its assent to the second reading, on the understanding that it should be referred to a Select Committee, where there no doubt would be a critical and searching inquiry, he hoped the hon. Member would persevere in his Motion for leave to bring in the Bill, and fix the second reading for as early a day as possible.
House in Committee.
MR. G. THOMPSON MR. G. THOMPSON moved a Resolution to the effect that Leave be given to introduce the Bill.
MR. HUMEsaid, he could not agree to the narrow object of the hon. Member's Resolution. He would prefer to have the whole question of ballast heaving investigated by a Select Committee.
MR. LABOUCHEREhoped the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. G. Thompson) would not follow the advice of the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume). The entire subject of ballast heaving was a most complicated question, and there could be little hope of bringing it to a speedy solution.
MR. GLADSTONEtrusted the Resolution would be allowed to pass as it stood. When he made the suggestion he had done to the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets, he had done so in the belief that the Government might not readily accede to the second reading. That was his impression from the speech of the right hon. President of the Board of Trade; but the noble Lord the Member for Colchester (Lord J. Manners) declared that the Government were prepared to assent to the second reading'. He (Mr. Gladstone) did not think the House ought to proceed to the second reading of Bills of this nature until the Executive
792
Government took them up on their own responsibility. When he had proposed the Coalwhippers' Bill, he did so on the responsibility of the Executive, and although he went into Committee on the Bill, it was not a Committee to take evidence.
MR. HENLEYsaid, that not having seen the Bill itself, he could not pledge himself to its particular provisions. He, however, thought the inquiry before a Select Committee would not be a long one.
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, the Committee was placed in a difficulty by the dissimilar statements of two Members of the Government. He understood the noble Lord (Lord J. Manners) to agree to the second reading; but the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley), with great prudence, he thought, said he would not be able to support the second reading until he saw the provisions of the Bill. He (Mr. Labouchere) concurred with the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone), as to the policy of measures of this nature being introduced by an individual Member of the House. Before the Committee was called upon to assent to a Motion based on an exceptional principle, he considered there ought to be an inquiry. At the same time, if the Members of the Government said they would support the Bill, he should acquiesce in the Motion.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that when his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade said that he could not consent to the second reading of this Bill, the proposal that it should be referred to a Select Committee had not been made. As his noble Friend (Lord J. Manners) had stated, the Government were prepared to accede to the introduction of the Bill, provided it was afterwards referred to a Select Committee.
MR. G. THOMPSONsaid, that if the Committee would assent to the introduction of the Bill, he would, early after the holidays, and before the second reading of the Bill, move the appointment of a Select Committee, whose Report, he hoped, might be presented to the House before the second reading of the Bill, as he thought it would not be necessary for them to sit long or to take much evidence.
Resolved—
"That the Chairman be directed to move the House, that leave be given to bring in a Bill for establishing an Office for the Benefit of the Ballast Heavers of the Port of London."

COUNTY COURTS FURTHER, EXTENSION BILL.
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee.
Clause 1.
The ATTORNEY GENERALwould suggest to the hon. Member (Capt. Fitzroy) who had charge of this Bill the propriety of only going into Committee upon it pro formâ. Two-thirds of the Bill related to the appointment of the County Courts Judges as Masters of the Court of Chancery, to the powers with which they were to be invested, and to the provisions for carrying out their jurisdiction. Now, it was perfectly well known the Commissioners who had sat upon the Court of Chancery had reported in favour of reforming that Court by abolishing the Masters altogether; and as a Bill founded on that Report was to be introduced, it would be better to postpone the consideration of the measure now before the Committee.
SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURNsaid, that he should quite concur in the suggestion of the hon. and learned Attorney General if they had any definite expectation of the Chancery Reform Bill coming before Parliament, and being passed during the present Session; and he would therefore take the liberty of asking his hon. and learned Friend what prospect there was of obtaining that great desideratum, a reform in the Court of Chancery during the present Session? If there was any chance of the Chancery Reform Bill being introduced immediately after the holidays, he thought it would be better to postpone the present Bill, the machinery of which must necessarily be altered if the Chancery Reform Bill were passed. But if that Bill were not likely to be passed during the present Session, he hoped that his hon. Friend (Capt. Fitzroy) who had charge of the present Bill, would not consent to postpone it.
The ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that he could not give a very distinct answer to the question of his hon. and learned Friend under the peculiar circumstances in which the Government were placed. But he had no doubt whatever that if an opportunity were afforded to them, they would be able to introduce the Bill for the reform of the Court of Chancery during the present Session.
MR. WAKLEYsaid, the curious point in the whole matter was, that both Bills had originated, or were to originate, in the House of Lords. Now, although the two Bills no doubt had originated with different
794
parties, still the Members of the Government had probably been consulted upon the present Bill, and he thought it was rather extraordinary that after allowing it to pass through the House of Lords, and to proceed in that House up to the present stage, they should then oppose it.
CAPTAIN FITZROYsaid, that the circumstances under which he had brought in the Bill, would, he thought, justify him in refusing to accede to the suggestion of the hon. and learned Attorney General. The right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer had, upon the second reading of the Bill, distinctly stated that the Government did not mean to oppose it; and now the hon. and learned Attorney General coolly proposed that it should be postponed for some indefinite period, on the contingency that some day or other it might please the Government, if their term of office were prolonged, to introduce a Chancery Reform Bill. That seemed to him one of the most monstrous propositions that could be made to the House. It was the general opinion out of doors that the Chancery Reform Bill, upon which the Government plumed themselves, was brought forward to enable the Government to stop private measures for the reform of the law, that they might be able to say, "We have large measures in contemplation—by no means interfere with us." This Bill had gone through both Houses last Session, and had only been lost eventually in the House of Lords on account of the late period of the Session at which it went back to that House. Two or three clauses which were in the Bill when originally introduced in the House of Lords last year, but which were omitted in its progress through Parliament, had indeed been again inadvertently inserted, but he intended to propose their omission. He thought that by pressing this Bill he should be doing his duty, by carrying out a real Chancery reform, and if before it was passed the other Chancery Reform Bill was introduced, and its propositions were found to be antagonistic to those of the present Bill, it would then be time enough to withdraw it. The purposes of its proposers would then be obtained, for he had always stated that, although there were no doubt some advantages attendant on a system of local courts, yet that he should prefer a thorough reform in the Superior Courts. Unless He heard some better reasons for delay than had yet been given, he should persist in going on with the Bill,
MR. JOHN STUARTsaid, he concurred with the hop. Member for Finsbury (Mr, Wakley) in thinking that the Bill came before them in a singular way, and he thought it seemed more extraordinary than ever, after the statement of the hon. Member for Lewes (Captain Fitzroy), for it seemed that it was intended that the Bill should be materially altered in Committee. It appeared from the "Votes of the House of Lords that a Bill called the County Courts Further Extension Bill No. 2, had been introduced into that House on the previous evening, or on Friday evening; and as the Government intended to introduce a Bill, founded upon the Report of the Chancery Reform Commissioners, to abolish the very jurisdiction which the Bill before the Committee proposed to confer, he thought that it would surely be reasonable to allow these two Bills to overtake the present measure, so that they might consider them together. He did not see for what useful purpose they could sit there as a legislative body if they acted in the way in which it was now proposed, and proceeded with this Bill. From a sense of the respect due to the position of their own proceedings before the public, let the Committee proceed calmly and deliberately first to consider whether the jurisdiction of these Courts should be extended, and, if so, how that extension should be carried out.
SIR GEORGE STRICKLANDhoped that the hon. Member for Lewes (Captain Fitzroy) would not be persuaded to postpone the consideration of the Bill. It was asked, why proceed with this Bill when a reform in the Court of Chancery is promised? But he had the most distinct recollection that for the last forty or fifty years a reform in the Court of Chancery had been solemnly promised either by the Government of the day or by private Members of that House, and yet not a single step had yet been taken to accomplish that most desirable object. This, which would be a very useful one, was an attempt to get that done by the County Court Judges which the Masters in Chancery now professed, but did not do. If a suit now got into the Masters' offices it stayed there for years, without the Masters doing anything, all that was done being that the Master's clerk signed hour warrants, putting off the business from one time to another till the unfortunate suitor was worn out. The Bill gave these Judges power to inquire into matters of account which never could
796
be done in the Masters' offices, but which there was some hope might be done in a rational manner by a vivâ voce examination. By the proposed Chancery Reform Bill founded on the Report of the Chancery Reform Commissioners, the Masters' offices would only be abolished in name, for the same work which their clerks had been in the habit of doing would in future be done by a clerk to the Lord Chancellor. He believed that that Bill would only substitute another set of unintelligible technicalities for those which existed at present, which constituted a total denial of justice, and which the country wished to see entirely swept away. As, however, there was no chance of getting such a reform in the Court of Chancery as he thought was desirable, he hoped the hon. Member would press this Bill, which would effect a real reform as far as it went.
LORD ROBERT GROSVENORsaid, that this Bill was a fac-simile of that which had last year passed both Houses of the Legislature, and it was not, therefore, necessary to discuss the question whether the County Courts should be extended, as the hon. and learned Member for Newark (Mr. J. Stuart) had proposed. That question had already been discussed and decided, and he hoped, therefore, that the Committee would allow this measure to proceed.
MR. MULLINGSsaid, the Bill, in its present form, was a complete mass of confusion. First came some clauses about Chancery, then some about County Courts, and then it jumped back again into Chancery, It would be practically useless to proceed with the Bill at present. It gave power to the Lord Chancellor and Lords Justices to frame certain rules; and this was the foundation of the measure. But if the Lord Chancellor and Lords Justices thought the measure not capable of being worked, by reason of a contemplated general measure of Chancery reform, of course they would not make these rules. He recommended that the Bill be reprinted with the Amendments.
SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURNsaid, he concurred in the course which had just been suggested by the hon. Member for Cirencester (Mr. Mullings). It seemed clear that there was, now, or would be shortly, before the House of Lords a Bill for the complete alteration of the present system of the Court of Chancery, and for the abolition of the Masters' offices. Now as this Bill proceeded on the principle of referring to the County Courts all work

797
done by the Masters in Chancery, it was clear that if the Parliament adopted the proposals of the Chancery Reform Commissioners, it would be absolutely necessary, if this Bill passed, to alter its machinery in order to adapt it to that of the larger measure. He thought it would, therefore, be expedient to allow the Chairman to report progress, and to keep this Bill in reserve, ready to pass it (having reprinted it with such verbal amendments as were necessary) if Parliament did not adopt the Bill for the reform of the Court of Chancery. If that Bill should be adopted, then his hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Captain Fitzroy) would pass so much of the present measure as still remained necessary, striking out so much as the other Bill superseded.
MR. VERNON SMITHsaid, that the Bill for the reform of the Court of Chancery had not yet been introduced, and as they did not even know whether it was the intention of the Government to introduce it, and press it through all its stages in the present Session, he thought it was very unreasonable to 'propose that this Bill should be delayed until the other Bill came down from the House of Lords. He would therefore recommend the hon. Member for Lewes to adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member for Cirencester (Mr. Mullings), but by no means to hang up this Bill in order to wait for the other.
CAPTAIN FITZROYsaid, that he would accede to the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Mullings), that the Chairman should report progress, for the purpose of reprinting the Bill; but he should certainly fix a day for proceeding with the Committee, unless sufficient reason could be shown for any further postponement. He thought that if the objection of the hon. and learned Attorney General was good for anything, it was fatal to the principle of the Bill, and might just as well have been urged against the second reading.
House resumed; Bill reported; to be printed as amended.

SUITORS IN CHANCERY RELIEF BILL.
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee.
Clause 1.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, this measure was called the Suitors in Chancery Relief Bill, but he did not think the suitors in Chancery would get much relief by it. However, as the Bill was
798
before the Committee, he would toy to make something out of it. It was supposed that a number of persons who had been paid by fees should in future be paid by salaries. They should take care that they gave salaries of a specific amount, and that they did not give salaries calculated on an average amount of fees for three years, of which they knew nothing. If they did not use proper caution, the same thing might occur as had formerly occurred in the case of the Six Clerks, He proposed as an Amendment to the clause on this subject, that those parties should be paid by salaries according to an amount to be fixed in a schedule annexed to the Act.
MR. MULLINGSsaid, he agreed in the principle that had been suggested by his hon. Friend; but he must go further than that. He knew the complaints that were made with respect to the payments that were made to certain individuals who had been officers of the Court of Chancery (Six Clerks), some of whom were receiving 7,000 l. a year; and it might be deemed desirable if in the present case the names of the parties could be inserted, with the salaries affixed to each of them.
Notice taken that forty Members were not present, Committee counted; and forty Members not being present, Mr. Speaker resumed the Chair; House counted; and forty Members not being present,
The House was adjourned at a quarter before Eight o'clock, till Monday 19th April.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Common Law Fees Regulation.
2a Bishopric of Quebec.
Reported.—Patent Law Amendment (No. 2); Mutiny; Marine Mutiny.
3a Indemnity.

TREATY WITH BELGIUM.
In reply to a question from Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY,
The EARL of MALMESBURYsaid that the treaty to which the noble Lord alluded was first negotiated by Her Majesty's late Government. A difficulty arose respecting the interpretation of that part of the treaty which referred to the duty upon salt, but that difficulty was got over; then came another difficulty as to the object of the negotiation—a difficulty which had arisen in the Belgian Chambers. The Belgian Chambers had altered the tariff on the articles mentioned in the treaty, from what the tariff on those articles was when that treaty was first entered into. The consequence was that the advantages which we expected to accrue from a negotiation were quite neutralised, and the whole spirit of the treaty was altered. For those reasons the late Government delayed the ratification of the treaty, and in that state of

775
suspense Her Majesty's present advisers found it upon coming into office. The present Government found it impossible to advise Her Majesty to ratify the treaty; but they took measures to have the tariffs placed on the same footing, both in the spirit and the letter, as they stood when those negotiations first commenced. The Government, in effect, drew up the treaty upon exactly the same terms as Mr. Labouchere had originally presented it to Belgium. Whatever advantages the English Government then expected from the treaty, which had not yet been ratified, would be thus obtained. The treaty was now about to be ratified. He expected it would be ratified before the 10th of this month; and he believed that, both in the spirit and the letter, without giving any opinion as to the merits, its provisions generally would remain identical with that treaty which was first negotiated by Mr. Labouchere between the Belgian and British Governments.

LOSS OF THE "BIRKENHEAD."
In reply to Lord MONTEAGLE,
The DUKE of NORTHUMBERLANDsaid that, with respect to the alleged loss of the Birkenhead, he was sorry to say the Admiralty had not received a report, nor any other information on the subject. The Admiralty, seeing the telegraphic message in the newspapers, sent a message by electric telegraph to Devon-port to the superintendent of the packet station, to know whether he had received any report of the accident, and if so why he, or the Admiral on the station, had not forwarded the news to the Admiralty, at least as soon as the newspapers had it. The Government, he repeated, had no further information than what was transmitted through the newspapers.

ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE.
The EARL of DERBY: My Lords, I rise to move the adjournment of the House, and in making this Motion, I think it right to ask your Lordships to adjourn to the same day as the House of Commons, namely, Monday, the 19th instant. I know your Lordships do not generally adjourn to exactly the same day as the other House, but upon the present occasion I think it is desirable to fix the meeting of your Lordships upon the day on which the House of Commons assembles; for it will be necessary not only to pass the Mutiny Bill, but there is also another Bill fixed for
776
Monday week, to which it is desirable the Royal Assent should be given as soon as possible.

THE INDIAN PRESS.
The EARL of ELLENBOROUGHsaid: My Lords, I wish to take this opportunity of making one or two observations which I refrained from making last night from a reluctance to detain your Lordships, Those observations arise out of the speech of my noble Friend opposite in reference to the war with Ava. My noble Friend at the head of the Government stated last night the intentions of the Governor General, in the military operations now going forward against the Burmese Government, and likewise the substance of two communications made by the Governor General to that Government. I feel it necessary to state to your Lordships that those intentions of the Governor General with regard to those military operations, and the substance of both those communications to the Burmese Government, were published in the Indian newspapers a month ago. A fortnight, at least, before these military operations were commenced, their nature and their object, the points against which they were to be directed, and the intentions of the Government to withdraw the troops before the rainy reason commenced, must all be well known, through these Indian newspapers, to the Burmese Government. My Lords, this constant, inveterate vice in the administration of the affairs of India, must be absolutely eradicated. It is essential to the credit of the Government, it is essential to the safety of the army, that complete secrecy should be observed on all their movements. I know all the difficulties that the several Governors General have had to contend with in preserving that necessary secrecy. Your Lordships can hardly form a notion of the extent to which the secrecy—even of State documents—of the intentions of the Indian Government is, I might almost say, universally betrayed. When I arrived at Madras, on my way to Calcutta, I saw in a Bombay newspaper one or two paragraphs respecting the war with China. These paragraphs, my Lords, I recognised as having proceeded from my own pen—as being a part of my own instructions for the conduct of the war—instructions which were written by me, when at the Board of Control. I sent for those instructions; and I found that those paragraphs in the Bombay newspapers stated not merely the substance, but every word: nay, my Lords,

777
that one to which I now refer had been so evidently copied from the original document that a literal error which had crept into the original, was also in the copy in the Bombay newspaper. The original I had in my own hands. I will mention another circumstance. About a fortnight after my arrival in India I received a report from the General commanding Lower Sinde, who was then about to advance to Candahar. He stated, in the most minute details, the positions in which he intended to place the troops in Sinde, and the strength of every detachment which was to occupy those positions severally. The whole of that important document giving this important information was conveyed to the enemy, for it was published in a Bombay newspaper three days before it was received in Calcutta. My Lords, no Government can possibly conduct the affairs of a great empire, especially in time of war, without incurring the greatest perils, if they are to be subjected to these betrayals of public confidence. I will mention another instance. About three months after my arrival in India, I thought it necessary to remain at Allahabad, at a great distance from the Commander-in-Chief, who was so much nearer to the army then in the field. I was not then so conversant as I afterwards became with military affairs, and I thought it expedient to give a discretionary power to the Commander-in-Chief to direct that the forces should remain at Jelalabad, or should retire, as he might think fit. My Lords, every particular of that order was, by means of private letters, known in the camp before the General could possibly give instructions for carrying out the measures the Commander-in-Chief had directed him to adopt. After that, my Lords, I determined that the knowledge of no military movements whatever should leave my own breast until the time of execution had arrived;' and from that hour no man in India but my own private secretary and my two aides-de-camp knew of the directions given or the contents of my letters; and by that secrecy so preserved, various military operation were conducted to a successful issue, and with a small loss of men. Through this want of secrecy, my Lords, although the object in view may be effected, it is frequently effected with a greater sacrifice of human life. Now, in the present case, the Governor General of India, being at Calcutta, cannot take the measures which I took, being then in the field at a distance from the Council. All the orders of the Government in Calcutta must be known
778
to all the Members of the Council, and to their Secretaries. I do most earnestly recommend to my noble Friend at the head of the Government, by the next mail which sails to India, to call the attention of the Governor General in Council to this scandalous betrayal of public confidence, and to tell him, that any measures which may be necessary to extirpate this evil, and to preserve the necessary secrecy as to the measures of the Indian Government, will receive the full and cordial support of the Government at home, even though it should involve the instant removal of any man, whatever his rank, who holds office under the Government of India.
The EARL of DERBYneed scarcely assure his noble Friend that he thought this subject one of deep and vital importance, and that he concurred in every word which his noble Friend had uttered regarding the impossibility of conducting the affairs, and especially the military affairs, of a Government, if all or any of its measures were made known to the enemy almost as soon as they were decided on. He would communicate on this subject with his noble Friend who was at the head of this department, and he had no doubt that proper instructions would be sent out by him by the next mail.
The Motion for adjournment agreed to.
House adjourned to Monday, the 19th instant.