Sitting of 8 February 1856

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBERS SWORN.—For Midhurst, Samuel Warren, esq.; for Tamworth, Viscount Raynham.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Ecclesiastical Courts Jurisdiction; Medical Profession; Church-Rates Abolition.
2° Partnership Amendment; Joint-stock Companies; Burial Grounds (Ireland); Juvenile Offenders (Ireland).
3° Metropolitan Police.

ARCTIC EXPEDITIONS—QUESTION.
ADMIRAL WALCOTT: Sir, as I was a Member of the Arctic Committee who unanimously resolved that the spirit of intrepidity and enterprise displayed by every officer and man engaged in the
452
hazardous Expeditions to the North Pole, entitle them to a recommendation to their Sovereign for a special medal in acknowledgment of their services, I put this question to the right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Admiralty, whether and when it was the intention of the Government to grant a medal to those engaged in the several Arctic Expeditions conformably with the recommendation to that effect contained in the Report of the Select Committee on the Arctic Expeditions in the last Session?
SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, the Queen had been graciously pleased to signify Her intention to confer a medal on the officers and men engaged in the Arctic Expeditions, and measures were being taken to carry that intention into effect. There was, however, great pressure at present in preparing the Crimean medals, and it would be some time before the Arctic medal could be prepared.

THE CRIMEAN COMMISSION REPORT— QUESTION.
LOUD WILLIAM GRAHAMsaid, he begged to ask the hon. Under-Secretary for War whether the officers animadverted on in the Crimean Report had sent in any further explanations on the subject to the Government, or the authorities at the Horse Guards; and if not, whether the Government intended to call for any?
MR. FREDERICK PEELsaid, he thought he might call on the noble Lord to state who were the officers he considered animadverted upon in the Report. Some of the officers who might be considered to have been animadverted upon were in the Crimea, and had had no opportunity of seeing the Report, still less of volunteering any statement in their own vindication, if they desired to do so. Others had been relieved from the offices they held at the time, and were no longer in the employment of the Government. He presumed that the Quartermaster-General at the Horse Guards was the principal person alluded to. It was not necessary to call for any explanation of the conduct of that officer, because, feeling that the Report reflected upon his administration under Lord Raglan, he had announced his intention to make a statement in vindication of his conduct. He was also informed that Lord Lucan had made a statement remonstrating against the manner in which he had been alluded to in the Report.

OPERATIONS IN THE CHINA SEAS— QUESTION.
MR. H. BAILLIEsaid, the question of which he had given notice in reference to the conduct of Admiral Stirling and Captain Elliot in the China Seas required a few words of explanation. A statement had appeared in the public papers, purporting to be the report of the proceedings of Her Majesty's fleet in those seas. (Cries of "Order!")
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman is out of order in making any statement in putting a question.
MR. II. BAILLIEsaid, he should then move the adjournment of the House, at its rising, till Monday. Although the Government might think proper to discredit the statements which appeared in the newspapers, they were not justified in allowing false statements and misrepresentations to pass current for a length of time without contradiction when they reflected on the honour and character of the British navy. The statement to which he was about to refer was this,—that Admiral Stirling, being in command of the British fleet in the China Seas, had received instructions to pursue, capture, and destroy a Russian squadron which was known to be in those waters, and that, under those circumstances, he thought it consistent with his duty to devolve that command upon a junior officer, and to occupy himself with a treaty—a so called commercial treaty with Japan. Captain Elliot, the officer in question, found the Russian squadron at anchor in De Castries Bay. Two statements had been published with respect to the strength of the Russian squadron. One statement, which differed very little from the other, was issued by the Russian Government, and published in the St. Petersburg Gazette, and according to that statement the Russian force consisted of one frigate, one corvette, and three transports encumbered and loaded with the fugitives—men,women, and children—from the Russian settlement of Petropaulovski. The other statement was made by a gentleman, who had lately published a book upon the subject, a friend of Captain Elliot, Captain Whittingham, an officer of Engineers, who was on board ship with Captain Elliot. He would read that statement to the House, though it differed very little from the Russian account. Captain Whittingham stated that there were a frigate and a long corvette, mounting eighteen or twenty guns, two
454
corvettes, or, perhaps, armed transports, mounting ten or twelve long guns each; a brig and a small steamer:—
"From each masthead of all the Russian vessels their white ensigns waved. From our masthead the number of guns seen on each vessel was reported, and it was conjectured that the frigate was the Aurora, of 44 guns: that the corvette was probably the Dwina, of 18 or 20; but whether the other vessels were corvette of 20, or armed transports of 10 or 12 guns, seemed problematical in the unaccountable and blamable state of ignorance all the officers seemed in of the number, sine, and description of the few vessels Russia possessed in these seas, and this lamentable ignorance existed thirteen months after the declaration of war."
It appeared from this statement that Captain Elliot had not really ascertained what the strength of the Russians was, or whether the ships before him were ships of war or transports. Having stated the strength of the Russian squadron, he would state also the strength of the English squadron. It consisted of a first-class frigate, the Sybille, of 40 guns, the Hornet, of 17 guns, and the Bittern, of 12 guns. It was under those circumstances, that Captain Elliot declined to engage the Russian squadron, lie determined to send one of his ships to search for the Admiral, who was, he believed, in Japan, 1,500 miles off, and appeared not to have thought it necessary to blockade the Russian force. He would give the statement of his proceedings:—
"No sooner had the daylight entirely failed than the three vessels stood out to sea, and during the two following days slowly sailed to the south, to accompany the Bittern (what did the Bittern want of their company?), which left us on the 23rd, when the frigate and corvette commenced cruising in a narrow part of the gulf, to prevent the escape southward of the Russian squadron, until the 27th, when the two vessels bore up to Do Castries Bay."
It appeared that, after a week, Captain Elliot thought it necessary to go and see what the Admiral was doing, and he appeared to have been surprised to find that the Russians had refused to wait for the convenience of himself and the gallant Admiral. As soon as they saw the coast clear, they set sail for the mouth of the Amoor River, and arrived at their destination. They passed the bar safely, and placed their ships in a state of security. That was the statement that had been current for some time, and which he believed to be true. He should be happy if the First Lord of the Admiralty could give a satisfactory explanation; but, in the

455
meanwhile, he wished to ask whether the Government had received an official statement of those proceedings; whether these despatches would be laid upon the table; whether the Government were satisfied with the conduct of their officers; or whether they intended to submit that conduct to a court martial? The hon. Member concluded by moving the adjournment of the House.
SIR CHARLES WOOD: Sir, I certainly have not seen the statements in newspapers to which the hon. Gentleman has alluded, and I certainly cannot admit that it is the duty of Her Majesty's Government to sift every story that may appear in the public papers. It would be a serious addition indeed to the duties of a Minister if he had to reconcile all the conflicting statements that appeared. The best course, I think, will be for me to state what I know to be the facts from the official accounts. There is no doubt that the admiral had the usual orders to take, capture, and destroy all the enemy's vessels that he could fall in with. It is not true that Admiral Stirling delegated to a junior officer the authority to search for the Russian squadron. He sent an officer (Captain Elliot) with some ships to intercept the escape of the crew of the Russian frigate Pallas, which was lost on the coast of Japan, and the crew of which was supposed to be endeavouring to effect their escape to their own country. Captain Elliot was also directed to cruise in the tipper waters of the Pacific, in the hope of meeting any Russian vessels that might happen to be there. There was no reason to suppose that the vessels from Petropaulovski would be found there. It is a part of the world of which very little is known, and of which no accurate chart was in the possession of Captain Elliot at the time he went there. Perhaps, in order that the House may clearly understand what occurred, I may be permitted very shortly to state the nature of those seas. There is a narrow sea between the island of Saghalien and the coast of Tartary, called the Gulf of Tartary; near the head of this gulf is De Castries Bay, and at its upper extremity is a narrow and shoal passage into the Gulf of the Amoor— a narrow strait, twenty-five miles in width, called La Perouse's Straits, separates the southern end of Saghalien from the islands of Japan. At the close of May, Captain Elliot reached the upper part of the Gulf of
456
Tartary, and on the 20th of May, with the force which the hon. Gentleman has accurately stated, consisting of the sailing frigate Sybille, of 40 guns, the sailing vessel Bittern, of 12 guns, and the Hornet steamer, he came in sight of De Castries Bay. In that bay they discovered the Russian vessels, and the Hornet was sent in to reconnoitre. Later in the day Captain Elliot went on board the Hornet and completed the reconnaissance. The Russian force consisted of the large frigate Aurora, of 44 guns; the large corvette Olovetska, of 24 guns; and the Dwina, another vessel of 20 guns, lying moored with their broadsides to the entrance of the bay, and behind them a larger vessel bearing a rear-admiral's flag. They could not make out whether this was a large armed transport or a corvette, but it turned out afterwards that it was an armed transport of eight guns. There was also a steamer of six guns, and another vessel, making in all six Russian vessels discovered in the harbour. Shots were exchanged with one of the corvettes, which fell short on both sides. The hon. Gentleman asks whether we are of opinion that Captain Elliot did wrong in not attempting to enter the harbour. The opinion we have formed is, that Captain Elliot was perfectly justified in not attempting to enter the harbour under the circumstances. He had two sailing vessels and only one steamer; it was an unknown harbour, the soundings of which had not been taken, and it now turns out that if they had attempted an entrance it is almost certain they would, from the shoally nature of the water, have been lost. It appears that the passage which they would have attempted, and which was the only one of which they then knew, was not the real one. The next question put by the hon. Gentleman is as to the blockade of the port. What Captain Elliot did was to lie off the harbour next day, and try to provoke the Russians to come out. But they knew their own game better than that, and remained safe in the harbour, defending the only possible entrance. The wind blew off the shore, and it was impossible for them to enter an unknown channel guarded by the broadsides of three vessels. Captain Elliot then had to consider what course was best to be taken to insure the objects for which he was there, and lo prevent the escape of the Russian fleet. I will read Captain Elliot's account of the course he adopted:—

457
"It appears to me highly probable that the Russian squadron will immediately attempt to escape to the southward, out of the Gulf of Tartary. My object will now be to prevent their doing so, and I shall take up such positions with the Sybille and the Hornet as to watch their movements should that be their intention. My opinion is, that if they move they will do so at once, and try to make their escape through the Straits of Perouse. This Strait being only twenty-five miles across, their squadron is less likely to escape me there than it would be by my cruising in the northern part of the Gulf of Tartary, where there is a greater breadth to guard; the alternate strong winds and thick fogs of those seas being much against successfully blockading or watching a port. The Gulf of Tartary is also somewhat contracted between Cape Lamarnon and the Isle de la Prise. I therefore propose guarding that channel for a day or two, should the weather remain favourable for my doing so, and then to cruise between Cape Romanzotf, in lat. 45° 25 N., long. 4418 34 E., and the opposite shore of Cape Crillon."
That is the official Report of the course which Captain Elliot thought it advisable to take, and that is confirmed by several private letters written by Captain Elliot which I have seen, and which state that the weather was so thick and the fog so prevalent that it was impossible to watch any port. What he really wanted was steamers small enough to enter the harbour, and he took the wise measure of sending to the Admiral to obtain more reinforcements, especially steamers. It was desirable that the enemy should not know the direction in which he was gone, and, therefore, Captain Elliot sailed at night. He proceeded to the southward to watch the narrow part of the Gulf of Tartary, because it was there that, in his opinion, he was likely to intercept the enemy. I will read the following extract from a private letter of Captain Elliot: —
"With my two ships I could only attempt to stop their going in what I thought the most likely direction for them to take, as it is impossible to keep sight of a place in the thick fogs of these seas, and with a constant south wind, a few hour's fog would be quite sufficient for them to run out of sight with."
These are the reasons that induced Captain Elliot to take the course he did. I am inclined, however, to think that he ought to have remained off the mouth of De Castries Bay, and I think no sufficient reason has been given for his not doing so. On the other hand, it would be rash of us sitting here, and not knowing the state of the weather at the time, to attempt to come to any decisive opinion. Captain
458
Elliot is a young and a very enterprising officer, as he proved during his service in the Mediterranean. He had looked forward most anxiously to the capture of the Russian frigate, and I have no doubt that he honestly and conscientiously believed, upon the grounds I have stated, that he was taking the course best calculated to insure that capture. There was great probability, that the Russian squadron would not be able to escape at all to the northward, and he thought that even if it should reach a place of refuge it certainly could not reach any port of the eastern seas, where it could do any injury to our trade. On the other hand, he well knew that it might be able to inflict serious injury on our trade if it succeeded in escaping through the Straits of Perouse. He believed that it was of paramount importance to prevent the Russians from going southward, and that if they escaped northward it would ultimately be in his power, when a reinforcement arrived, to effect their capture. I certainly think that he was wrong in not remaining off the mouth of the bay, but I cannot say that if he had remained there the result would have been different.
MR. ELLIOTthought that the friends of Captain Elliot had some reason to coin-plain of the mode in which this question had been brought before the House by the hon. Gentleman opposite. If the hon. Gentleman, on the notice of a question to the First Lord of the Admiralty, intended to make a statement injurious to Captain Elliot, it would surely have been but fair to put such a notice on the paper as would have enabled Captain Elliot's friends to prepare themselves to meet any accusations ho was about to bring against him. The hon. Gentleman, if he (Mr. Elliot) understood him rightly, made two distinct accusations against Captain Elliot. The first was, that he did not, when he ought to have done so, attack the Russian ships in Castries Bay. The second accusation was, that he had not blockaded Castries Bay; but, when he might have done so, had preferred to "sail away to the south," leaving it to be inferred that, by so doing, he wished to avoid the enemy. This insinuation he (Mr. Elliot) considered to be most ungenerous, and one which he felt sure the House would agree with him in thinking unworthy of being pointed against any officer in the British navy. Now, what was Captain Elliot's position? Having

459
arrived at Castries Bay, an unsurveyed port, on an unsurveyed coast, where he had bad weather and dense fogs with a lee shore, he found the enemy's ships anchored in a bay, the entrance to which was unknown, whilst they were apparently protected by shoals which lay between them and our ships. Captain Elliot, after making the best examination in his power, and after consulting the captains of the other ships, reluctantly came to the conclusion that he would not be justified in making the attack. He was not then aware that any passage existed from the north end of the Gulf of Tartary into the Gulf of the Amoor. He had no charts and no information of any such passage existing, and he therefore naturally concluded, if the Russian ships attempted to come out of Castries Bay, their only point of escape would be to the southward, down the Gulf of Tartary; and his great object, therefore, was to prevent their going in that direction. The question then was, how could this he host effected? His right hon. Friend had stated it to be his opinion that it would have been better had ho remained in sight of Castries Bay, but his right hon. Friend had read an extract from a letter of Captain Elliot's which showed that this was "impossible," which he (Mr. Elliot) would have thought a sufficient reason for not doing so. The weather appeared to have been gales of wind from the south and dense fogs. Had he attempted to remain off the bay under such circumstances, it is evident he could not have accomplished an effectual blockade. Every gale would have sot him to lee-wards, that is, to the northward of the bay, and would thus have left it in the power of the enemy to escape to the southward without his knowing what had become of them. The course he adopted, therefore, was to proceed himself to the southward, to a part of the Gulf of Tartary, which is narrower than the rest, and where he felt the Russian ships could not pass him unobserved, and having from thence despatched the Bittern with information to the admiral, he and the Hornet cruised in that narrow part of the gulf till he was satisfied the Russian ships had not attempted to run to the southward. He then returned to Castries Bay to see if they were still there, and on his arrival found they wore gone. Being then satisfied that they had not gone to the southward, he naturally inferred that they must
460
have gone to the north, and that, perhaps, there might be some entrance into the Amoor, or some other place of refuge in that direction. Captain Elliot's plan, then, had so far answered, that he had got satisfactory information of the Russian ships being at the head of the Gulf of Tartary, in what he had reason to believe was a cul-de-sac. Having satisfied himself on this point, he then proceeded to join the admiral at his rendezvous, under the firm belief that on the arrival of the reinforcements the Russian ships would be found somewhere at the head of the gulf, where they would be immediately pursued. A considerable delay, however, occurred before the admiral reached Jonquier Bay, nearly opposite Castries Bay in the gulf. As to what the causes of that delay were, he (Mr. Elliot) could form no opinion. When he did arrive, Captain Elliot was, of course, under his orders; and a day or two afterwards was sent once more to reconnoitre Castries Bay, with orders to return to the admiral the following day. Finding that the Russian ships were not there, he availed himself of the opportunity to attempt a survey of the flats, and to search for a passage to the northward, but which the state of the weather and the limited time allowed for his absence did not permit him to complete. On the return of Captain Elliot to Jonquier Bay, the admiral determined to sail with all the squadron to the south. It appeared to him (Mr. Elliot) that Captain Elliot could have done nothing better than he did. He would certainly not have been justified on entering the bay to attack a superior force in such a position without any knowledge of the shoals or soundings; had he done so, as his (Mr. Elliot's) right hon. Friend has shown, and as was afterwards proved, he would have run his ship on shore in the attempt. He was unable, from the fogs and the state of the weather, to keep sight of the port, and, consequently, to maintain an efficient blockade; and therefore, in cruising in the narrowest part of the Gulf of Tartary, he adopted the most sure course to intercept the Russian ships. And finally, he (Mr. Elliot) must add, that even at the last it is more than probable that these ships, which it has since been shown did not succeed in placing themselves in security in the Amoor for sonic weeks, would have been captured had they after the arrival of the squadron been pursued to the end of the gulf. He

461
(Mr. Elliot) must repeat that he considered this question to have been brought before the House in an unfair manner. He, however, felt perfectly satisfied that if any further inquiry or investigation should take place in this matter, that Captain Elliot's conduct on this occasion will he shown to be, what it always has been, that of a most zealous, enterprising, and gallant officer.

THE BUNHILL-FIELDS BURYING-GROUND—QUESTION.
MR. MIALLsaid, he begged to ask the hon. Under Secretary for the Home Department whether his attention had been called to the fact that arrangements were being made and notices served for the removal of the remains of persons buried in the late Bunhill Fields burying-ground, Church Street, Islington, and for using the ground for building purposes; and whether such proceedings were in accordance with law? To make the question intelligible, he must state to the House that a notice had been served upon the owner of one of the vaults, which notice required the removal, within seven days from the date of the receipt thereof, of the remains contained in the vault. He wished to know whether such a proceeding was in accordance with law?
MR. MASSEYsaid, the attention of the Government had been called to the matter. Two years ago, information was given to the Home Secretary that notices had been served upon the owners of private vaults and graves in the Bunhill Fields ground to remove the remains of their friends, as the ground was about to be appropriated for building purposes. In. order to put a stop to such gross indecency, the Solicitor to the Treasury was instructed to warn the person who had served those notices that they were illegal, and that he would be prosecuted if he persevered in his intention. This warning appeared to have had the desired effect, but about two days ago a representation was made to the Home Office that similar notices had again been issued. No doubt such notices were illegal at common law, and rendered the person who issued them liable to an indictment for misdemeanor. Parties having graves in that burying-ground might protect their rights by injunction from the Court of Chancery. He would, however, make further inquiry into the subject, and if it should be found necessary the law would be put in force.

DISPUTE WITH THE UNITED STATES.
MR. COBDEN: I rise, Sir, to ask for explanations from the Government for the non-production of the correspondence respecting our relations with America. I ask for these explanations, because the answer given by the noble Lord at the head of the Government to my inquiry the other night does not appear, for reasons I shall presently explain, founded exactly in fact. I asked the noble Lord whether there would be any objection to lay on the table of the House the correspondence respecting our present relations with America? The noble Lord stated, in reply, that the correspondence in neither of the cases to which my inquiry referred was quite completed, and on that ground he refused my application. Now, in order to make my observations the more readily intelligible, I must premise that, unhappily, there are two subjects of dispute existing at the present moment, and involving very serious and grave considerations between this country and the United States. The first has reference to the Central American question of 1850. The House is aware, though the country, perhaps, is not, that in 1850 the English and American Governments entered into a Convention, most benign in its object and somewhat novel in its character, for the purpose of promoting the construction of a canal across the Isthmus of Darien. The Convention begins by expressing a hope and desire that it might have the effect, among other things, of promoting peace and amity between the contracting Powers, and civilisation throughout the world. The object of the Convention was to enable parties to construct a ship canal through the narrow isthmus of Central America under a specific guarantee from the contracting Powers. The Convention was intended to be elastic in its operation, for the contracting Powers contemplated inviting other Powers to join with them in the guarantee. Among other things it was provided that, in case of war ships passing through this canal, or being within a certain distance of its entrance, they should not be subject to capture or molestation. History scarcely presented an example of a Convention being entered into for objects more worthy of approbation. The Convention was agreed to in 1850, but, owing to the unfortunate propensity of diplomatists to involve their sentences in phraseology which becomes unintelligible not only to others but to themselves, it seemed

463
likely to be the cause of a very serious quarrel between the two countries. His hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. W. Ewart) had proposed in this House that there should be an examination of candidates for employment in the diplomatic service, and I would suggest to him to require one qualification—namely, that they should be able to write plain and intelligible English. In the present case, this unfortunate disagreement seems to be the more unaccountable, because both the diplomatists spoke the same language, whereas, had it been a Convention between a German and an Englishman or a Frenchman and an Englishman, there might have been some excuse for the misunderstanding. From the year 1850 down to October in last year, this Convention had been the subject of correspondence between this country and the United States; and in October of last year, a letter written by M. Buchanan to Lord Clarendon closed the correspondence, and in December, on the meeting of Congress, the correspondence, so far as it relates to the American side of the controversy, was laid on the table of the Senate of the United States; and I mention this, because the noble Lord says that the correspondence is not complete. I wish to separate this subject from that of the enlistment, in respect to which we are unfortunately also involved in a dispute with America, and I hope the noble Lord will give an answer in reference to this subject as distinct from the other. We have the correspondence published in the United States; it has also been published in England, and I hold in my hand a pamphlet containing it, published and purchasable in London for 1s. Nevertheless I cannot quote this correspondence, though it is discussed in the newspapers, and is made a topic of conversation in private, nor can I bring forward a Motion in this House on documents such as those I have mentioned. We must have official documents from our own Government before we can use them in the House of Commons, and we are placed in this position—that whereas everyone else can discuss the question, no one in the House can deal with it in any satisfactory way. I must for a moment refer to the pamphlet which I have mentioned, because it bears on the answer which I received from the noble Lord on a former day. The noble Lord then said—"The correspondence is not complete." Now, the noble Lord must have been unconsciously in error when he
464
made that statement, because Lord Clarendon on the 28th of September, 1855, in his last letter to Mr. Buchanan on the subject, uses these words:—
"Her Majesty's Government had, indeed, refrained from pursuing the discussion by replying to Mr. Buchanan's note of the 22nd of July, 1854, because it appeared to them that the continuation of the correspondence was not likely to lead to any satisfactory conclusion; and, as Her Majesty's Ministers are still of that opinion, the undersigned will confine his answer to Mr. Buchanan's present note within the same limits as those which Mr. Buchanan has prescribed to himself."
Mr. Buchanan also, in last October, assents to Lord Clarendon's statement that the correspondence is concluded. He says—
"While far from intending to renew the general discussion of these questions, which has already been exhausted, the undersigned, in passing, would make a single observation," &c.
Moreover, it was Mr. Clayton himself, a party to the treaty, who in moving, in the American Senate, that the papers should be printed, stated that the correspondence was concluded. If I wanted any further proof that the correspondence was ended, I should find it in the fact stated by Lord Clarendon in the House of Lords, that the subject-matter of dispute had been offered to be referred to arbitration, thus plainly admitting that the discussion is absolutely at an end. I, therefore, think that this House ought not to be wholly unacquainted with the nature of that correspondence, and I hope that the noble Lord will not object to its production, or, if he does, that he will give some other ground for his objection than that alleged on the former occasion. The other subject of dispute is one of more recent date. Last year we sent emissaries to America to enlist men for our Foreign Legion. Now, I should like to know who were those wise individuals who, sitting in Council, and feeling a great want of men to fight this battle which we were told England was able to fight against all the world, sent to the United States for men to serve against the Russians. Why, the stream of human labour going from the East to the West every year amounts to 300,000 or 400,000 human beings. We ourselves send from 50,000 to 100,000 men annually to America, to seek their fortune by the superior remuneration of labour, and I should have thought it as likely to have rolled back the seasons, or to have turned the river in its course, as to send to the United States to find able-bodied men, where they are earning

465
4s. or 5s. a day each, to fight for us in a semi-barbarous region against men whose labour may be hired for sixpence a day, and to do so at a shilling a day. It was so absurd and foolish a project that I should like to know who are the parties responsible for it. We have no correspondence published on this subject, either here or in America, therefore I only go on common rumour, and on what was admitted by Lord Clarendon in another place. It seems that, on remonstrance from the United States, we admitted our error and countermanded our orders, withdrawing our enlistment establishments not only from the United States, but from our own North American Colonies. In this respect our amende and apology were most honourable. I do not know the terms of the apology, but I am told that the apology, when made, was considered satisfactory. But I am told that after that another transaction took place, not in violation of American law, but in evasion of it, which has reopened the grievance. I do not know how far this may be true, for we have no official information before us, and I only state what I am given to understand is the fact. All I wish to point out to the House is, that our Government has admitted itself to be in error. We are in the wrong, and when we have admitted that to be the case, whether we make reparation in one form or another does not appear to me to be of any great importance. If you tread on a man's toes, it does not very much matter whether you say to him, "I beg your pardon," or "I beg ten thousand pardons." That never would be a point on which any sensible man would go out to fight. Let it be borne in mind, then, that we are, by the confession of our own Government, in the wrong, and, as we stand responsible in the name of the country for the acts of our Government, I think it would be well if we had this correspondence laid before us, even if it be not completed; and for this reason, I am inclined to suspect that this question has assumed very much of a personal character, that it has been envenomed and embittered in the course of the protracted correspondence; and I think, therefore, that if it were taken away from the Foreign Office, and discussed in the country or in this House, there would be displayed such a magnanimous feeling on the part of the people and of the Members of this House, that the quarrel would be at once put a stop to. There has been a talk of arbitration in the other subject of dispute, and
466
I believe we should find some such mode of settling this question in an equally honourable and satisfactory manner. In private life, in quarrels on matters of etiquette, it is not the usual course for the person who has committed the wrong to fix the reparation. Seconds are called in, and they decide what shall be the apology to be made; and, if this question were brought before the House, I have no doubt we should readily find out a means of escaping from the difficulty. Besides, the country would be much more at ease if the subject were discussed by us, and there would be an end to that alarm and apprehension which now exists among the mercantile community lest every fresh packet should bring intelligence that Mr. Crampton has received his passports and is on his way home. At all events, I am quite sure that nothing will be gained by allowing these matters to remain veiled in the secresy of the Foreign Office. We have drifted into one war by the system of secret diplomacy, and we may get into another in the same way. "Where there is darkness there is danger" is as true in politics as in the material world. This second dispute about our attempts at enlistment, be it remembered, is more imminent than the first. I do not know whether the noble Lord intends to lay before us the papers relating to this part of the subject; but if he refuses, on the ground that the correspondence is not completed, I am at a loss to see how we are ever to get any more papers on any subject, for it was only last night that he declined to produce the papers relating to the case of Mr. Curtis, our Consul at Cologne, on the ground that the correspondence was closed and the whole matter finally settled. If he now refuses to give us these papers on the ground that they are not completed, he will invest himself with absolute irresponsibility; for if we are not to have the correspondence, either before or after it is finished, what hold can the country have upon the noble Lord and his Government? This question of our relations with the United States would, I think, be much safer in the hands of the people and of this House, than of the Government or of the press. If there be a war between us and the United States, it will not be a war upon which the people will enter with a willing spirit; if there be a collision, it will be provoked cither by secret diplomacy, or by the exasperating language of the press of this country. What has been

467
the language of the Ministerial journals of this country on the subject? Almost the first thing we heard of this dispute was from an article in The Times newspaper in November, which told us, to our astonishment, that we were ready to go to war with America, but that we should still "Hold our hand on the throat of the Northern despot." Within the last fortnight, too, I have seen similar language in the Morning Post and in The Times, which are the journals supposed to represent the opinions of the Ministry. I must say, though I have watched the language of the American journals with considerable interest, I have seen no such menaces in them as has appeared in The Times and the Morning Post. True, the journals of England generally have not taken that hostile course, but those journals which represent the Cabinet will be taken in America to speak for a large portion of our people. I am anxious, therefore, that we should not be the only persons in the country who are not to discuss this subject. I desire that we should be, in fact, the pulse of the nation in this question, as we are on any domestic question in which the people feel interested. I can hardly view as possible so great a calamity, to both countries and to the world, as a hostile collision between England and the United States, and yet we are talking about it daily in the press, we are speculating about it in private, and the Government, in their correspondence, is bringing us to a deadlock which will take away all chance of escape. A war between this country and the United States, on whichever side success might rest, would be the most horrible, the most inhuman calamity, even to the victor, which could possibly happen. Were we to succeed, it would be very much like destroying our own offspring, and, were the United States to crush England, it would be little better than parricide. I hope, therefore, that we shall not be afraid to approach this question, that we shall not refuse to understand what it is we are quarrelling about, but that we shall call for the Papers and shall show the country that we are prepared to deal fearlessly and honestly with the difficulty, whatever it may he, which may be laid before us.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, in answering the hon. Member, I shall observe that distinction between the two questions involved in this matter which he has himself drawn, and which he has recommended
468
to me. And first, then, I will deal with the question of Central America. The hon. Gentleman is perfectly correct in saying that the Treaty of 1850 was a Treaty honourable to both parties, and which had in view objects that could only conduce to the improvement of commerce and the extension of civilisation over every part of the world. It is well known that great interest was excited upon the subject of the opening of a ship canal through the Isthmus of Darien between the Atlantic and the Pacific. Jealousies grew up between England and the United States, each supposing that the other had some exclusive object in view, and meant by some means or other to establish itself to the prejudice of the other, either at one end or other of the canal if it were made. The object of the Treaty concluded by my right hon. Friend Sir Henry Bulwer with Mr. Clayton was to remove all possible cause of jealousy upon that point, and the provisions of that Treaty, as explained by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the West Riding, were in my mind perfectly calculated to accomplish that end. The project of cutting a ship canal between the two oceans has, however, been found liable to physical difficulties which there is not much chance of overcoming, and practically, therefore, that part of the arrangement has ceased to have any immediate application. But there were further provisions in that Treaty, by which, in order entirely to do away with the jealousies which each of the two countries entertained of the views of the other, both countries disclaimed any intention to appropriate any territory in Central America, or to colonise or obtain any possessions therein. There was an exception made, however, with respect to possessions which we had already there—Belize and its dependencies— and with respect to certain duties of protection which had been performed by us for a long course of time, and which were at that moment existing. I do not think myself that the Treaty is liable at all to the criticism which the hon. Gentleman has passed upon it. It seems to me that the words of the Treaty are plain, and its meaning perfectly obvious, and I really do not see that any other construction but that which we contend for can be put upon it. The Treaty was prospective, and not retrospective in its operation. At the same time the American Government has endeavoured to establish a different construction, and a long correspondence

469
has taken place between the two Governments on the subject. We contend for our construction, and the American Minister here contends for a different one. We have stated, however, that notwithstanding that we are perfectly convinced that our interpretation is the just one, we are ready to submit the question to the arbitration of any third Power. To that offer we have not yet been able to obtain an answer, and so the question at present stands. I did say, the other day, in answer to the hon. Member, that I did not think the correspondence sufficiently closed to be laid before Parliament, but upon referring to the state of the correspondence I feel that we shall be perfectly prepared to produce it, and I am quite ready to lay it on the table at once. The correspondence is not, perhaps, technically closed, but I think it is sufficiently closed to be laid before Parliament for the purpose of showing what are the views of the two Governments on the points at issue. The other subject adverted to by the hon. Gentleman relates to our Foreign Legion. When the Act was passed, a little more than a year ago, which enabled the Crown to enlist foreigners, it was represented to Her Majesty's Government that there were in the United States a considerable number of Germans who might be disposed to enlist in the military service of this country. The hon. Member seems to think it a moral and political absurdity to expect that the tide of emigration which has been setting from East to West can, with regard to individuals, turn back and flow from West to East; but he must know, or at least he ought to know, that in point of fact that ebb of the tide has already commenced, and that, in regard to Ireland, hardly a month or a week passes that a certain number of individuals who have emigrated to the United States do not return to their native land, either having amassed what they consider a competency, or, on the other hand, having been disappointed in their expectations; but whatever is the cause the fact I have stated is undoubted—persons are constantly returning from America to these islands. It was not, therefore, an unreasonable surmise that a considerable number of Germans would be willing to enlist, and orders wore therefore given to establish a recruiting depot within our provinces, with instructions that any persons capable of service who might present themselves for enlistment, and were fit for service, should
470
be enrolled. At the same time strict and specific orders were given that nothing should be done which should infringe the municipal regulations of the States, or violate the law of the Union. Several hundreds of Germans went to Halifax and enlisted, and some of them are now in this country. Her Majesty's Government, however, very soon found that it would be exceedingly difficult in carrying on this enlistment to avoid that which might cause offence to the American Government; and, being most anxious that nothing should occur which could give umbrage to the United States, we issued orders that these proceedings should be entirely discontinued. Soon afterwards an official representation was made by the Government of America, complaining of the enlistment. The answer given to that was, that, anticipating that they might take umbrage at the proceedings which had been commenced, Her Majesty's Government had of their own accord ordered that they should be discontinued. In giving this answer we expressed our regret for anything which might, contrary to our intentions and instructions, have been done in violation of their laws, though we were disposed to think that no such violation had occurred; and referred, as a proof of the sincerity of such regret, to the fact that we had of our own accord stopped the proceedings of which the American Government complained. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cobden) has said, that the relations of Governments should be regulated by those rules which apply to the conduct of gentlemen towards each other; and I would ask, what could be more satisfactory as between gentleman and gentleman than that one should say to the other, "I thought I foresaw that what my servants were doing might give you reason for complaint, I have stopped their proceedings; but, nevertheless, if they have, contrary to my instructions, done anything with which you have reason to find fault, I beg your pardon; I am very sorry for it; and express my regret?" When the communication to which I have referred was made to the American Minister in London, he expressed himself satisfied with the explanation, and said that he felt confident that his Government would entertain a similar feeling in regard to it. For some time we heard nothing more. Subsequently, however, complaints wore renewed, the question was re-opened, and a correspondence has gone on upon this

471
subject. Three days before that on which Parliament met I thought that we should be able to lay that correspondence on the table of the House. There was nothing in it which we could wish to conceal; on the contrary, we were anxious that it should be in the hands of hon. Members. On the very day, however, before the meeting of Parliament, the American Minister presented to my noble Friend (Lord Clarendon) an exceedingly voluminous despatch, containing a long recital of circumstances alleged to have occurred in connection with this enlistment. My noble Friend felt that it would be impossible to answer that despatch in a manner consistent with the respect which ought to be shown to the Government of America, and with a due regard to the character of the British Government, without referring to Her Majesty's Minister at Washington for a report upon a variety of minute details, upon which the information possessed by the Foreign Office was imperfect. This circumstance has necessarily delayed the reply to the last despatch of the American Government; and the matter therefore stands thus:—If the correspondence were to be produced now, it would end with a long paper from the United States' Government, to which no answer has yet been given, because the materials on which such answer must be founded have not yet reached this country. It would not be fair to the American Government to omit from the correspondence this last paper, which they would not have sent had they not considered it an important one; and, on the other hand, it would not be fair to the British Government to give that statement without giving also the reply to it. I hope that no long period of time will elapse before we are able to close the correspondence by giving an answer to that paper; and I can assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that when that has been done, we shall be most ready and most anxious to lay the papers upon the table. I quite agree with the hon. Member for the West Riding that this matter is of the utmost importance in its bearing upon the interests of the two countries. I fully concur with him in thinking that there could hardly be any conflict between two nations which would be more lamentable and calamitous to both than would be a contest between ourselves and the people of America. I say, to both nations, because, though we should suffer severely, depend upon it that those with
472
whom we deal on the other side of the Atlantic would suffer quite as much. It would indeed be painful if in these days two nations, bound together by so many ties of common origin and common interests, should go to war with each other without some real overbearing and unavoidable cause. I cannot but think that, if the same spirit of fairness and conciliation is exhibited by both parties, an adjustment of the difference may be arrived at which will be compatible with the honour of both nations. I can assure the House that, on the part of Her Majesty's Government, nothing consistent with a due regard for the honour, character, and dignity of this country—which I am sure no one would wish to see disregarded— shall be omitted in order to bring about such a result. Nothing, I say, which in a matter of private honour could be done, shall be done for the purpose of avoiding a collision which would, in my opinion, be a reproach to both countries. I have already said that, with respect to one portion of the correspondence, I am prepared to lay it upon the table; and, as to the other part, as soon as the correspondence is terminated, which cannot be distant, I shall be prepared to lay that also before Parliament.
SIR DE LACY EVANSsaid that, after the speech of the hon. Member for the West Riding, the reply of the noble Lord must have been heard with great satisfaction. If international affairs were to be discussed in the spirit in which this matter had been treated by the hon. Member (Mr. Cobden), he had much rather leave them in the secrecy of the Foreign Office. The hon. Member had said that we had drifted into the war with Russia. In his (Sir De L. Evans's) opinion, one cause of that war had been the too frequent and earnest deprecation of hostilities; and he was afraid that, in the present instance, the exaggerated expression of a similar feeling would rather encourage party feeling on the other side of the Atlantic than conduce to a just and proper settlement of the difference. With regard to the enlistment in the United States, he agreed with the hon. Member for the West Riding. It was a most remarkable and inconsistent proceeding. He had been assured, on good authority, that persons of the highest respectability in Canada, gentlemen having seats in the legislature, had offered to raise in that colony two regiments of 1,000 men each, to serve in the Crimea,

473
the only condition being that these regiments should be called the "Royal Canadian Regiments," or something of that sort. He believed that Sir Allan M'Nab, the President of Council in Canada, who was in England at the time, had arranged the matter, but that some red-tapism of the Horse Guards interposed, and it was entirely dropped. This occurred several months ago; and it was after neglecting to avail themselves of the men who might thus have been raised within our own frontier that the Government sent persons into the United States to recruit, and provoked this absurd and ridiculous controversy.
Motion for the adjournment of the House till Monday agreed to.

METROPOLITAN POLICE BILL.
Order for Third Reading read.
SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, he must renew the suggestion he had repeatedly offered, that a clause should be inserted, rendering it imperative on the Chief Commissioner of Police to qualify his signature to proclamations with the words, "By order of the Secretary of State for the Home Department."
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that, as the Commissioner signed in his character of magistrate, it would be manifestly inconvenient to use the words in question. It was the practice, however, as he had previously stated, to submit all important proclamations to the consideration of the Home Secretary, whose approval was a necessary condition of publication.
Bill read 3° and passed.

PARTNERSHIP AMENDMENT BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
MR. SPOONERfeared that if the Bill were passed in its present form injurious consequences would result. It was rather more plausible than just, on the part of the right hon. Gentleman who introduced the measure, to exclaim against the "unfairness" of making a dormant partner liable, not only in the proportion of the capital invested, but to the full extent of his fortune. The Bill did more than apply a remedy to the so-called grievance. It gave the dormant partner privileges which it would be difficult to vindicate on any principle of consistency or fair dealing. A man entering into partnership and advancing for its purposes a large sum of money, might afford the means of extended credit being given to it, even though his name should never appear in its transactions
474
The capital he had embarked might enable the business to be so conducted as to establish the reputation of the house and attract the confidence of the public. Things might go on prosperously for a short time, and large profits might be realised; but commerce, like all things else, was liable to vicissitudes; and was it to be tolerated that, at the first approach of adversity, this partner, who, though unseen, had been mainly instrumental in inducing others to put faith in the establishment, should silently and gradually withdraw his capital, and unscathed leave the creditors to the consequences? To make the law at all equitable, it should provide that in case the concern became insolvent, the sleeping partner should be liable to the amount of capital he had withdrawn, and also to reimburse any profit he had received. Unless the right hon. Gentleman met this reasonable objection in Committee, he (Mr. Spooner) should feel it his duty to divide the House upon the Bill; and he believed, when the public knew what the effect of this provision would be, there would be very great opposition to the measure. He contended that it was not right to bring on so important a Bill, and he regretted that the right hon. Gentleman had not acceded to the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire to postpone it to a future day. The consequence would be a renewed discussion on a later stage of the Bill.
MR. WATSONsaid, he was favourable to be principle of the Bill, but thought some of its provisions stood in need of amendment. For example, it was very desirable that the position of a dormant partner should be clearly defined. That might be done by declaring a dormant partner to be a person who took no active part in the business of the concern, but loft the entire management in the hands of the individual who was known to the whole world as conducting it. With all due deference to the opinion of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Spooner), the man who merely advanced his money to the avowed and only ostensible parties in a trading enterprise, and whose relation to the concern was, therefore, unknown to the commercial public, ought not to be held legally responsible for the debts of the company. The system of remunerating clerks, foremen, and other employés by a share in the profits of the concern would act as a stimulus to them to promote its prosperity by their industry and

475
vigilance; but its introduction had been discouraged by the decision in the case of "Waugh v. Carver," which rendered such persons liable as partners for the debts of the firm. This Bill, however, by removing this serious anomaly would effect a, very valuable improvement in the law; and the measure should, therefore, have his best, support.
MR. MUNTZsaid, he must reiterate his previously-expressed conviction, that the Bill would spread a great delusion among the public. The hon. and learned Member who last addressed the House, viewing its principles exclusively with a lawyer's eye, very naturally could not perceive the practical dangers which it would create. It would enable any man to give an air of prosperity to a bad concern by obtaining a loan from another party, who, by collusion with the first, could secretly withdraw his capital as soon as he saw that things were going wrong, and yet the concern would retain the false credit in the commercial world to which it was no longer entitled. It was said that they ought to copy the American law on this matter, but, let them also adopt the safeguard which the American law provided—namely, make it compulsory on sleeping partners to publish to the world when they advanced their money to any concern, and when they withdrew it again. He did not, however, object to Her Majesty's Government riding their hobby if they would only ride it in public. But, if they did not, and rode their hobby in secret, they would ride in confusion.
Mr. CAIRNSsaid, he did not rise to oppose the Bill, but simply to justify the course which he and other hon. Members near him pursued when the question was before the House during the last Session. A Bill, with the title of the present measure, and another on limited liability, were then introduced and discussed in that House by the Government. Various Amendments were proposed in the Partnership Bill; and he (Mr. Cairns) thinking the measure as framed by the Government too cumbrous in its provisions, moved the substitution of three simpler and shorter clauses in lieu of them. Now, what had the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Board of Trade done in the case of his present Bill? Why, he had taken his (Mr. Cairns') three clauses of last year and inserted them word for word (with the single exception of the words "not being the trade of a banker") in the measure now before the House. Now,
476
that is the conduct of a Government, Members of which last year taunted Gentlemen on that (the Opposition) side for their "factious" resistance to the Bills then before the House, and charged them with seeking to throw them out under cover of a pretended assent to their principles. Again, in the case of the Limited Liability Bill of last year, he (Mr. Cairns) proposed certain Amendments, and the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Card-well) proposed certain others; many divisions took place upon them, and the Government always voted against them, the present Vice President of the Board of Trade also by his vote aiding them in rejecting them. Three of those very Amendments—namely, those relating to the number of shares, the amount of capital, and the number of shareholders, which the Government last year stoutly opposed, as inconsistent with the objects of their Bill, were incorporated in the corresponding measure which they had now introduced.
MR. MOFFATTsaid, he thought the commercial community was deeply indebted to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lowe) for the introduction of the Bill, which might be fitly regarded as the natural corollary and complement of the repeal of the usury laws, admitting as it did of as unrestricted a trade in money as was allowed in any other commodity—namely, upon such terms as the borrower and the lender mutually deemed best for their interests. The whole commercial fabric of the country in all its ramifications was based upon credit, and the effect of the measure would be to bring that increased capital into the channels of commerce which artificial restrictions had hitherto kept out of them. On the first clause of the Bill there was a difference of opinion in the country; but, in the main, the opinion was strongly and distinctly in favour of the measure passing, chiefly on account of its extreme simplicity. As to the apprehension that the Bill would offer facilities to trading upon a false credit, that evil was not prevented under the existing system; and all that the Bill did was, to provide that the remuneration of the lender should be such as the working of the capital invested could afford, than which a more equitable mode of advancing money could not be conceived. The trading community of that city was strongly in favour of the measure; and it was extremely doubtful whether it would not be injurious rather than beneficial to attempt, by its provisions,

477
to define in what a sleeping partnership consisted, as the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Watson) had recommended. The old law of partnership was so essentially rotten that it could not be long kept from falling to pieces. He considered that the emancipation of capital for application to commercial purposes would be attended with great national advantages. The opinion in the City was unanimous in favour of the second clause, and he thought a more beneficial proposition could scarcely have been made. He was, therefore, quite ready to give his assent to the second reading of the Bill.
MR. T. BARINGsaid, that, although in the opinion of the hon. Member for Ashburton the feeling of the commercial community of London was in favour of the Bill, for his own part he (Mr. Baring) did not believe that commercial men were thoroughly aware of the manner in which the measure would operate. [Mr. MOFFATT said, he had referred more particularly to the second clause.] He (Mr. Baring) had that day spoken to several gentlemen in the City who had just seen the Bill for the first time, and they expressed their astonishment at its introduction in its present form, and their hope that it would not pass without great alterations were made in it. However, be that as it might, whether the Bill was the child of his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Cairns), or of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lowe), it would be necessary to introduce some alterations in its provisions that would control and regulate its operations. For good or for evil, undoubtedly the measure proposed great changes in the commercial habits and usages of the country. That change might be called for, but he confessed he did not see the necessity of any change as to partnerships or private business. Various countries had been referred to as having adopted a law in some respects similar to that now proposed, but there were differences in the circumstances of countries which justified the establishment of a different code of commercial regulations and laws. The habits, and customs, and laws of one country were not applicable to every other; and if they had to choose a model for commercial usages and laws, what country would they select? Would they not choose that country which possessed the most extended commerce, which could command the largest capital, and which had displayed the greatest enterprise— namely, England? Where had been the failure of their present system in developing
478
the resources and the commerce of this country? He believed there was not a country in the world in which such a law existed as would be established by the Bill. The measure would introduce quite a novel principle; it proposed an experiment without the test of any experience. The two clauses of the Bill, short as they were, introduced a mass of novel principle and of experimental change. The same Government by which the Bill was introduced had last year brought forward a measure on the same subject, but of an entirely different nature. The present Bill was a complete contradiction to that of last year, and the Government could not be right with regard to both. Now what said the Bill of last year? The Bill of last year provided for publicity and registration; under it persons could readily ascertain the amount of capital advanced; it provided that, in case of failure, no portion of that capital should be returned to the lenders until other creditors were satisfied, and that any payment to a lender within three months before a failure should be invalid, and should be returned for the benefit of the general creditors. But what said the Bill now before the House? Why the Bill would actually prevent publicity; and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ashburton (Mr. Moffatt), who assumed to represent the commercial community of London, said, "What we want is a lender who advances an amount which is only known to the person who lends and to him who borrows." But would that answer the purpose of the borrower, who wished his credit to be based upon capital, who was desirous it should be known that he was supported by Mr. So and So—a very rich man; and who, on the supposition that he was so supported would readily obtain credit? Well, what might happen? The borrower might extend his business, and the lender, having set the man going, and having thus gained him credit, might withdraw his capital without that fact gaining any publicity. Now, he would ask, was that a system which ought to be introduced into this country? Was it a system under which commercial affairs were likely to prosper? In his opinion the measure held out a premium not to trade but to fraud, and if it were adopted he believed it would seriously affect the commercial reputation of the country. Although he did not intend to offer any direct opposition to the Bill, he must say that he thought its principle was erroneous, and that it must be

479
detrimental to trade. Upon what did credit rest in this country? Partly upon capital actually engaged in trade, partly upon capital which was responsible in case of failure, and as much upon the management and conduct of the business. The Bill, however, would separate management and capital, bat what gave confidence in commercial transactions was the consideration that a man engaged in trade knew that he risked everything—not only his whole capital, but also his reputation. The Bill, however, seemed to treat trade merely as a game in which a man played for a certain amount. It had been said that the measure would lead to the investment of additional capital, to a considerable extent, in trading and commercial enterprises; but he believed that every branch of trade which afforded profit would attract capital, and that there was enterprise enough in the country to engage in trade in any part of the globe where there was a prospect that it could be successfully carried on. A measure establishing limited lability in partnership might do very well for a country like the United States, where there was enterprise without capital; or for a country like France, where there was capital without enterprise; but it certainly was not wanted in this country, which had as much capital as could be employed in trade, and not only as much enterprise as was necessary, but, perhaps, rather more than was sometimes desirable. His (Mr. Baring's) objections did not apply to the Joint-Stock Companies' Bill, but he did object to this measure, because they had no authority in favour of its principle, and because he thought it would lead men who had the management of businesses to care very little about losing their capital.
SIR WILLIAM CLAYsaid, that if the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. T. Baring) entertained so strong an impression that the Bill would introduce a dangerous element into the commercial law of the country, he was surprised that he did not oppose the second reading. He believed the reason was because the hon. Member was sensible that the measure was popular with the country generally. The hon. Member said, that he should have thought it natural that any one wishing to introduce some new principle of commercial law, would have looked to the experience of England, the greatest commercial nation in the world, and of the highest reputation, and as no such law of partnership existed here, therefore the hon. Gentleman wished
480
the House to infer that a principle which England had not sanctioned could not be right or good in itself. Surely such an argument as that would have been valid for retaining all the old and now happily extinct restrictions on trade—the corn laws, for instance, and the trading monopoly of the East India Company. They had gradually got rid of false principles—of all monopolies and restrictions, and this was one of the last of them. It was certain that the general rule with regard to commercial law was, that the law should never interfere except in a case of plain and urgent necessity. It should be assumed, as a general principle, that reasonable men would conduct their affairs in the mode best suited to their interests. The hon. Gentleman asked if there was any want of capital in this country. In one sense there was not, for great capitalists were always ready to enter upon any enterprise that promised profit; but was it true that there was always a sufficiency of capital among the humbler classes of society? He did not believe it, and he felt satisfied that there were many trades the development of which would be valuable and useful to the community, and which would draw forth a great accession of capital if the existing system were done away with. The false principle on which we had hitherto acted had prevented persons of small capital from investing their savings in useful and profitable enterprises at home, and had been the cause of millions of money being swallowed up in foreign loans and South American mines. He believed that a great portion of that amount of capital would not have been lost to the country if there had been at home greater facilities for the investment of it. The hon. Gentleman had likewise spoken of fraud. Did the present law afford no facilities for fraud? Had not the world been recently astounded by great cases of fraud which had occurred under the existing law? No doubt there might be fraud under the new law—for he was afraid that fraud would be perpetrated under any system which could be devised;—but he believed that under it there would be less fraud and less spurious credit than there was under the old law. He did not see why there might not he introduced into the measure some of the provisions to which the hon. Member for Huntingdon had alluded, but he (Sir W. Clay) could not allow the second reading of the Bill to pass without tendering to the Government and to his right hon. Friend (Mr. Lowe) his thanks

481
for having introduced a measure which was based on sound economic principles, which abstained from interfering with the enterprise of the people, and which, in its results, he believed would be eminently useful to the public. Without committing himself to all its details, he should now give to the second reading his most cordial support.
MR. ARCHIBALD HASTIEsaid, he hoped, after the clear and able description which had been given of the Bill, that the Vice President of the Board of Trade would see the propriety of postponing the second reading. It was said there was a strong feeling in favour of the Bill out of doors. If so a postponement would only enable him to carry it hereafter with greater éclat; but in any case he protested against proceeding with so important a measure till the country had an opportunity of considering and understanding it. Before the right hon. Gentleman introduced such a Bill he was bound to prove that there was a deficiency of capital in the country, and when he had shown it to be necessary that additional capital should be brought in he was bound to propose such a scheme as would not lead to the commission of frauds. Now, it was his belief, that the Bill would open a wide door to fraud. The Bill referred to dormant partners; but how was it to be known when such partners put capital into a concern, or when they took it out? Care might be taken to let the world know that a certain partner had put his money into a concern, but afterwards he might take it out privately and leave the rest of the partners behind with no means to meet their engagements, so that the public would in the end be defrauded. The hon. Baronet (Sir W. Clay) said the Bill would bring a large amount of capital into the transactions of commerce; but he would ask him whether he ever found in any enterprise that offered fair remuneration that capital was wanting? There was no want of capital. In fact, there was a redundance of capital in the country, and the present measure would only have the effect of encouraging frauds. Some hon. Members said credit was too cheap in the country, and that if the present measure was to destroy credit altogether so much the better. Those who said so knew very little of the subject. He did not know on what ground the Government had brought in the Bill. There had certainly been a great cry for it amongst the lawyers and the political economists. But it was impossible
482
to form a just opinion of what would be beneficial to commerce, unless hon. Gentlemen had a practical experience of its working. The commerce of this country was founded more on its credit than on its capital; and its credit amongst foreign nations arose mainly from the circumstance of our having unlimited liability. When a foreign merchant now got a credit upon a British merchant, he knew that the house was liable to the full extent of the power of payment; but if the Bill were passed, he would never know whether it was a house trading on limited or unlimited liability, or to what extent it was liable Such had been the effect of the law, which said that all persons joined together in copartnership were liable for the whole amount of the debts of the firm; while the effect of the present Bill would be to destroy all that confidence. They were asked to pass the Bill on the authority of the Board of Trade. Now, he would ask, who had been at the head of the Board of Trade for the last twenty years? With one or two exceptions, they had been men entirely ignorant of commerce—either briefless barristers or persons placed there by the favour of the Government, not on account of their knowledge of trade, but because of their political services. Hence arose those absurd Bills which tended only to destroy credit and to enable persons to defraud the public by abortive schemes. He hoped the Vice President of the Board of Trade would see the propriety of not pressing the Bill through the House with undue precipitancy, but would postpone it until the country should have an opportunity of considering its provisions.
MR. BIGGSsaid, he believed there was an almost universal feeling out of doors in favour of the Bill. The present law of partnership was thought not to be just or equitable, and the opinion was strong that the Legislature, by adopting the principle of limited liability, should afford facilities to men to engage in commercial undertakings who had hitherto abstained from such pursuits. It could not be denied, however, that the Bill in its present shape had given rise to a sense of insecurity, and certainly it would be improved by the introduction of clauses requiring registration and publicity, as in America and France; but still he was willing to accept it as a step in the right direction, and as a decided improvement upon the existing law. He himself knew several instances,

483
and had heard of many more, in which men who had retired from business at an advanced age, but had, for the encouragement of young friends or relatives, become partners to a small extent in commercial undertakings, had been entirely ruined, and thrown upon the world without the means of supporting themselves. Such were some of the results of the present system, and he could not but think that the sooner a change in the law was effected the better. Another defect of the existing law was, that it did not afford those facilities for the accumulation of wealth by men of talent and industry which were to be found in other countries. He read the other day in a pamphlet that half of the riband manufacturers in the South of France had attained their position by availing themselves of the present law of partnership in that country. They could not have raised themselves by such means in England. With respect to the other Bill introduced by the Vice President of the Board of Trade, there was a strong feeling among the working classes in favour of associations; they believed, whether right or wrong, that capital oppressed them, and that they had not a fair share of the proceeds of their labour. Any measure, therefore, which would allow them to associate together, with the view of carrying on business on their own account, would give immense satisfaction, and could not fail to be productive of good. If the working classes were right, they would reap the advantages of their exertions; if wrong, they would profit by experience. On the whole, if the Vice President of the Board of Trade succeeded in passing his Bills, he would confer greater benefits upon the present generation than any Gentleman who had been at the head of that Board for the last thirty years.
MR. GLYNsaid, he could scarcely think that the Vice President of the Board of Trade would be induced to accede to the request of the hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. Hastie), and to postpone the Bill. For his own part, although not altogether in favour of the measure, he did not see the slightest ground for postponing it. Indeed, he was not at all sure whether, viewing the Bill with reference to the particular case to which it was meant to apply, it was not on the whole the best settlement of the question at which they could arrive. It was impossible for any one connected with the commercial affairs of the country to disguise from himself that
484
a very great alteration had taken place with respect to the law of partnerships since the abolition of usury; and if it were only for the purpose of preventing the lending of money upon a high rate of interest, with the right of the lender to come in as a creditor on the estate, he should give his support to the Bill. But, at the same time, he must confess that he had not heard from the Vice President of the Board of Trade any reason whatever for the omission of the clauses introduced into the Bill of last year for the purpose of securing registration and publicity. There was no difficulty connected with those clauses—no large machinery was required to carry them out; they were in themselves exceedingly simple, and, he thought, were well calculated to effect the object now in view, which was, as far as possible, to give some security against the sudden withdrawal of capital invested in any commercial undertaking by partners not actively engaged in the management of the business. Without some security of that kind he was afraid that the Bill would open a door to frauds of all sorts. If the Vice President of the Board of Trade would remember how very large a portion of the commercial transactions of the country took place not only upon book credit, but upon bill credit, he would at once see that his measure would facilitate the commission of many frauds, and cause great inconvenience with respect to the passing from one hand to another of bills of exchange. But, although he thought the machinery of the Bill imperfect, he did not object to its principle, and would therefore support the second reading.
MR. MALINSsaid, that, having concurred in the principle of the Bill, notwithstanding the remarks which had fallen from his hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. T. Baring), he then only desired to say a few words with respect to a few modifications which he thought it required. Amongst the provisions which it was proposed to make with respect to dormant partners, in the expediency of which he concurred, were that contracts should be made in writing, so that there should be no mistake as to the parties, and that the capital should not be drawn out upon the eve of bankruptcy. But adhering, as he did, to the principle of the Bill, he thought that the changes to which he referred should be made in Committee.
MR. CARDWELLsaid, he was glad they were going to give a unanimous vote

485
in favour of the second reading of the Bill. He quite agreed with the observation of the hon. Member (Mr. Glynn), that since the repeal of the usury laws, the law of partnership required to come under the consideration of Parliament. One of the most able writers on the subject of partnership declared that the present law was maintained upon two grounds, but that both had been either destroyed or weakened by the abolition of the usury laws. In the first place, men were now able to obtain an extravagant interest without subjecting themselves to the penalties of the usury laws. In the next, there was nothing to prevent the withdrawal of a portion of the funds on which the creditors ought to rely. Therefore, it was necessary to make some alteration in the law of partnership. He thought that the appeal which had been made for the postponement of the second reading of the Bill was one to which his right hon. Friend could not accede. Having himself on a former occasion ventured to complain at being called upon to legislate in haste on this subject, he gave great credit to his right hon. Friend for having introduced these measures at so early a period of the Session as to admit of a full consideration of their details in Committee. It was important that those details should be well discussed; and the question which would mainly arise in the Committee would be this:—whether a contract between a dormant partner and other partners, that he should receive a rate of interest proportionate to the profits arising from the trade was solely a question between him and his partners; because, if so, registration and publicity would be unnecessary; but if on the other hand it were a matter in which the community and the public were concerned, then registration and publicity might fairly be called for, and clauses should be inserted in the Bill to provide for them. As that was a question, however, which would properly be discussed in Committee, he should not say more upon it at this time. It would not have been right for him to remain silent, because, after what had been said by the hon. Member for Belfast (Mr. Cairns) he might have obtained a credit in this matter from those who supported the Bills which he did not deserve. The history of the affair was this: in the Sessions of 1850 and 1851 a Committee of the House was successively appointed for the consideration of this subject, which was presided over by Mr.
486
Slaney. That Committee recommended that power should be given to lend money for periods of not less than twelve months at a rate of interest varying with the profits, the claim for the repayment of such loans being postponed till after the payment of all other creditors. In obedience to the recommendation of that Committee, a Commission was appointed, the members of which were equally divided upon the question of whether in a private partnership a person who advanced money should be deemed to be a creditor or a partner. The measure which he (Mr. Cardwell) had prepared, and of which he had given notice to the House, would have contained provisions entirely in conformity with the recommendation of the Committee; and the effect of that mode of legislation would have been that a person so advancing money would be a creditor, and not a partner; but, inasmuch as he was a creditor having the special advantage of receiving a rate of interest proportionate with the profits of the business, he would, in return for that advantage, be the last person to be paid in case of insolvency. He thought that this recommendation had been somewhat lost sight of in the present measure, but he joined most cordially in supporting the second reading of the Bill.
MR. PELLATTsaid, he entirely concurred in the objects of the Bill. He believed that the effects of the present state of the law of partnership were most prejudicial by impeding the free circulation of capital, and preventing those who might he so inclined from advancing money to persons to carry on or increase their business. He was sorry that there was no provision compelling gas and water companies to furnish gas and water of a certain standard quality, at fixed rates. He merely threw this out as a suggestion, but in other respects he gave the Bill his cordial support.
MR. MITCHELLsaid, he could not admit that the Bill was rendered necessary on account of the repeal of the usury laws, the operations of the two measures being entirely distinct. Every merchant in business knew that men wishing to carry on a legitimate trade did not borrow money for a permanence at a high rate of interest. Supposing that he lent £5,000 at 8 or 10 per cent, it was his obvious interest that the person who borrowed the money should be as prudent as possible, because the lender, not being a partner, had no interest in the profits; and if the trader lost

487
his own money, he would lose that also of the person who advanced him money; but if, on the other hand, he lent £5,000, and was to receive a portion of the profits, it would be to his direct interest to encourage everything like reasonable speculation, in order that he might take his chance of gaining perhaps £20,000 or £30,000 at the risk of losing £5,000. He did not see, therefore, how the repeal of the usury laws necessarily called for this measure.
MR. SERJEANT SHEEsaid, he thought that they were much indebted to the right hon. Gentleman for bringing this measure forward at so early a period of the Session. The law of partnership undoubtedly required a change, inasmuch as in its present condition it was most unsatisfactory, not only to commercial men, but also to those who were engaged in the administration of the law. The evil of the present system was, that any person advancing his money to a trading partnership, with a stipulation that he should receive an uncertain share of the profits—no matter how small that share might be, provided it fluctuate with the profits—might be liable to the whole debts of the firm. But in their attempt to remedy an admitted evil, they should be careful not to fall into a greater one. He could not help thinking that the present Bill as it stood might probably lead to greater evils than even those it proposed to remedy. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman what was the exact meaning of those words in the 1st clause of the Bill—"the person carrying on such trade and undertaking." If they were intended to mean the principal of the firm, one or more, might not an evil of another character arise? Might not the person lending the money be the owner of all the shares in a firm except one, or half a one, held by the person or persons actually carrying on the trade? Let them suppose, for example, a Mr. Charles Jones, carrying on a trade or business, to contract with an elderly lady in the north of England —that if she advance £20,000, she shall have nineteen shares of the profits out of the twenty shares. Now, although Charles Jones would have only one share in the business, the money advanced by the old lady would give him an appearance of wealth and credit. But by the Bill as it stood, the person advancing all this money would be allowed to come in as a creditor, and not be subject to any of the liabilities as a partner. Such a state of things might lead to great injustice and inconvenience to
488
all those persons who dealt with Jones and Co. The lady might say, "Now you can go on upon the credit of the capital which I advanced, and I shall now withdraw it." Such an evil as he had supposed might easily arise under the Bill, as it stood at present. These inconveniences, however, might be obviated by the introduction of certain amendments which could not injure the character of the Bill. It might, however, be said that similar evils existed at present. No doubt they did, but the facts of the case would be very soon known. When a firm was borrowing money at large interest the circumstances soon became known, to the injury of the credit of such firm. On the other hand, if a man were asked to lend money at a reasonable rate of interest, he would insist on receiving the best security, so that the evils referred to were thereby checked. It was a common thing for commercial men to say that these Lawyers knew nothing about mercantile affairs, but he begged to state that lawyers knew quite as much about commercial affairs as mercantile men themselves did, and he, as a lawyer, ventured to warn the House to beware that the remedy applied to cure what he admitted was an existing evil was not in itself productive of still greater inconvenience. It would, however, be better to discuss those details when the Bill was in Committee.
MR. J. G. PHILLIMOREsaid, he thought that the evil which the hon. and learned Gentleman complained of existed at that moment, and nothing could prevent it, and he also doubted the possibility of giving commercial sagacity by legislative interference. The case of the old lady referred to by his hon. and learned Friend might happen under the present system, and he thought that the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Board of Trade would do well to allow the Bill to remain as it was. As to the observation of the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Baring), that this was a country of activity and enterprise, it must be remembered that such enterprise and activity were the work of the merchants, while the evils which had arisen were owing to the lawyers. It was, therefore, just that the law should remove the evils which itself had created.
MR. LAINGsaid, he begged to express his gratification at the present attempt to repeal the present law, which was an impertinent interference with the natural rights of individuals. The sound principle

489
to adopt was, to allow any one who chose to advance a given sum to any parties upon the condition of participating in the profits, provided he made the facts known to the public, so that any persons dealing with the firm could make themselves acquainted with them. He could hardly imagine a more monstrous state of things than that a person should be at liberty to advance money to a man of straw, or a trader of small capital, to take large profits while there were any, and when reverses occurred to step in as a creditor for the whole amount of his advances. He thought the principle of publicity was a proper one. As to the objection which had been raised that such could be done in the present state of the law, he regarded it as an argument for carrying legislation still further. He believed it would be a great advantage to the community at large if the right hon. Gentleman, who had shown in this Bill a capacity to grasp the whole subject of commercial legislation, would devote his attention still further to the subject, and see whether the laws which guarded commerce against fraud were sufficiently stringent. It had been seen that, sometimes through mistaken humanity, sometimes through legal defects and technicalities, the punishments inflicted under the existing law for commercial frauds were far from adequate to the offences committed. This state of the law held out a positive temptation to fraud. The wealthy railway director who published a fraudulent prospectus, and the small trader who defrauded his creditors, and then passed through the Insolvent Debtors' Court, might alike calculate to a great extent upon complete impunity. If the right hon. Gentleman would take a general review of the commercial laws, and, without interfering with the transactions between individuals, could devise an efficient remedy in cases of commercial fraud, he would confer a very great benefit to all classes. He (Mr. Laing) should cheerfully vote for the principle of the Bill, with the reservation that he held himself at liberty in Committee to support such clauses as should be necessary to carry out his views.
MR. MONTAGU CHAMBERSsaid, he was prepared to give his cordial assent to the principle of the Bill, as he regarded it as a step in the right direction towards promoting the trading prosperity of the country. He thought that the abolition of the usury laws had led to great inconvenience
490
and evil with regard to the advances of capital. He had observed it happen frequently that persons who had their own interests principally in view would advance their small capital at a high rate of interest to an industrious man. The latter struggled to pay, and succeeded in doing so at the end of the first year of his business. Then, finding himself going back in the world, he was ultimately pressed down by his supposed benefactor withdrawing his capital, and his prospects were destroyed. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the county of Kilkenny (Mr. Serjeant Shee) had expressed his surprise at the enormous rate of interest charged on advances made to traders; but it was well known that very high rates of interest were charged for what were called secret loans. These loans were contracted in order to prevent the publicity of getting hills discounted at more than the ordinary rate of interest. Secret loans, therefore, became general, and led to the evils denounced by those who opposed the principle of the present Bill. He believed that the Bill now under discussion would effect a large amount of good, and that industrious and ingenious persons would be able to advance themselves in the world through its agency. The great security the public have in respect to the advance of capital in business or speculation was, that the lender was naturally watchful and vigilant as to the proceedings of the concern or business, and was desirous that the concern in which he had invested his money should be prosperous and successful. There was, he must confess, great difficulty in introducing words to prevent abuses occurring. When the Bill went into Committee he was sure some valuable suggestions would be made by which the Bill would be rendered a most useful and important measure. He hoped that all the lawyers and mercantile men in the House would lend their assistance to render the measure perfect for its objects, as he considered it to be a step in the right direction towards the trade and commercial prosperity of the country.
MR. LOWEsaid, he begged to return his thanks to the House for the very kind manner in which it had received the Bill, and would show his gratitude by not troubling them with any lengthened remarks on the present occasion. With respect to the principle he would say nothing; but there had been a tolerably general expression of opinion that the Bill required to be

491
accompanied with many safeguards. It had been pointed out, and with great truth that that which was proposed by the Bill, was the law of partnership as it now existed, but deprived of one of its harshest and most vexatious incidents—an incident so harsh and vexatious that even Lord Eldon, who was not apt to be moved by legal grievances, expressed his regret that's the law should have been so decided. The feeling of the House seemed to be, that the proposed change of the partnership laws would give rise to some amount of fraud, and must be met by some safeguards; but he was sure that all that had been mentioned about putting forward men of straw, lending capital, withdrawing capital, and winding men up, was pursued on a large scale under the present laws. Since the usury laws had been repealed, and to very little less extent before the repeal of those laws, a plan of plundering persons through the medium of partnerships had been carried on. It was within his own knowledge that persons who stood very high had made a practice of this. He could mention the names of persons who did this long before the present state of the law existed, and he did not see that any law could prevent the evil. The attempt to prevent fraud must check freedom of action in partnership concerns, and the Bill now before the House did not aim at this. He begged hon. Members to consider that any safeguard they could devise would not merely prove nugatory, but would have the effect of aggravating the very evils they were intended to remedy. He should be delighted to hear any proposition by the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny (Mr. Serjeant Shee) to prevent fraud. He (Mr. Lowe) would not say that it was impossible for human ingenuity to devise such a remedy, but he would say this, that if the hon. and learned Gentleman did succeed in framing a provision that would prevent fraud, he would be the first legislator of the human race that had ever done such a thing. It was said "let us register," but if they should establish a system of registry what were they to register? The names of the partners? If they did they would not follow the example of France. They did not do this in France; and the reason was, that the name of a partner who had advanced a limited sum might be used as a puff; besides, it would induce the giving of bribes to persons to allow their names to appear as partners although no money was
492
advanced by them. Well, then, would they register the amount of money advanced by each partner, and say he was not to withdraw it? Where would the registry be? A registry office would prove to be a dead letter; and if they required the registry to be kept in the place where the partnership business was carried on, there would be the same sort of indelicacy as in asking a banker to allow one to see if one's securities were safe. Then, if the register was to be any protection, they must ascertain that it was not a name merely, but a reality. Cases without end would arise of advances registered which were never advanced, and there would be a great outcry for further intervention to ascertain that the money was bonâ fide paid up. Then, to make sure the money was still in the business, a periodical inspection must follow to see that it was not withdrawn or applied to some other purpose. It would be found to come to this— that if they once began any legislative interference they must go on step by step in the vain endeavour to render it efficient, until they had made these partnerships into little joint-stock companies, subject to all the rules and vexations of the Act of 1844, which they were about to repeal. They would frame troublesome machinery, and still fraud would after all prevail, and probably the very machinery they had devised for the prevention of fraud would be made use of to further it. He was most anxious that hon. Members should have an opportunity of considering this important subject; and in order that they might have ample opportunity for so doing he would put off the going into Committee on the Bill till Monday fortnight. In the meantime hon. Gentlemen could elicit public opinion on the subject, and put their Amendments on the paper. But he would beg of them not to satisfy themselves by saying that they had devised a remedy which would cure a particular evil. They should see what the consequences in other respects of their Amendments would be, and leave no loopholes for the introduction of practices equally objectionable as those against which they had provided. His opinion was, that the introduction of the safeguards suggested would lead to a complicated system that would end in nothing at all; and he thought he should not have been dealing fairly by the House if he had not expressed that opinion. The hon. Member for Wick (Mr. Laing) had suggested the introduction of penal provisions

493
for cases of fraud. Now, the dealing with criminal matters was not within his (Mr. Lowe's) official province. At the same time he felt that the subject was well worthy of consideration. According to the existing law, to be guilty of larceny the party must not only have appropriated to his own use the property of another with a felonious intent, but he must have taken it out of that other person's possession. That was the quibble upon which persons who appropriated to themselves money handed to them by another, or trustees who made away with money entrusted to them—perhaps for orphan children—escaped the operation of our criminal law. He believed that a law which should explode that state of things —a law which would make the application by a man to his own use of money handed to him for other purposes, whether by way of trust or otherwise, a felony without reference to the possession—would be one of the greatest boons that could be conferred on society. To do this, as he had previously said, was not his province, hut he had stated that as his opinion; and he hoped the matter would be taken up by some one who would be more competent to deal with it. He should conclude by stating that if the House agreed to the second reading, he should name Monday fortnight for going into Committee.
Bill read 2°.

BURIAL-GROUNDS (IRELAND) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he did not rise to oppose the second reading of the Bill, but he would beg to ask the Government not to name too early a day for going into Committee, for the measure was one on which Irish Members would wish to have the opinion of their constituents. Every gentleman connected with Ireland, or who had any knowledge of Ireland, was aware that the Irish people had peculiar feelings with regard to the burial of their deceased relatives and friends, and had a very strong attachment to the places where those relatives and friends were interred. Under these circumstances he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland would accede to his suggestion. He thought that some day after Easter would be soon enough for going into Committee.
MR. HORSMANsaid, the Bill was one upon which the Government were very anxious to have the opinion of the country.
494
That part of it which related to the shutting up of old burial-grounds was the same that was passed last Session, and was sent to the House of Lords. It stopped there because there was no provision in it for opening new burying-grounds. He had no objection to postpone going into Committee until after such time as would enable the people of Ireland to consider the measure.
MR. SERJEANT SHEEsaid, he believed that, according to the law as it now stood, the majority of the people of Ireland could not bury in their own parish churchyards with any prayer or religions ceremony without the permission in writing of the Protestant incumbent of the parish. Practically speaking, that amounted, in a vast number of instances, to an absolute impediment to the burial of those who professed the faith of a large proportion of the people of Ireland in their own parish churchyards. It seemed to him that that difficulty might easily be obviated. The majority of the people of Ireland, like members of the Established. Church, desired that their friends should be buried in consecrated ground, and the churchyards in Ireland—or most of them, at least— were, in the estimation of the Catholic people as well as the Protestants, consecrated ground. They would not have the least objection to their friends being buried in those places whore the Protestant churches stand, if they were not obliged, before they could have any ceremony, to obtain the written permission of the Protestant clergyman. That was exceedingly unpleasant to apply for, although he was bound to say that he did not know of any instances in which it had been churlishly refused, or in which unreasonable conditions had been attached to it. Still there was a feeling upon the matter, which was frequently strong enough to induce them to abstain from applying for the permission. If Catholics were allowed to inter within certain hours that might be obviated. It might be done after the services in the parish church were closed, so that there might be no conflicts of any kind. He trusted some clause providing for that matter might be introduced into the Bill.
MR. VINCENT SCULLYsaid, he did not see any objection to the principle of the Bill, but there were many of the details—such as the increase of rates and the shutting up of old burial-grounds without compensation—to which he could not

495
agree. The Bill was only delivered to Members on the previous day, and he thought the second reading should not have been pressed on so soon. He was very anxious to consult his constituents upon it, although he did not see that the Bill involved any objectionable principles. He would consent to the second reading upon condition that the whole subject might be debated, on the Motion that Mr. Speaker do leave the Chair for the purpose of going into Committee.
Bill read 2°.

JUVENILE OFFENDERS (IRELAND) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
MR. VINCENT SCULLYsaid, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland would postpone this measure until Irish Members had an opportunity of consulting their constituents. [An hon. MEMBER: The Bill is merely a copy of that which was passed last Session for England.] He was aware of that, and he begged to say that the Roman Catholic Members of that House entertained strong objections to that measure, because it gave too great facilities to the county magistrates to proselytise the children who might be sent to the juvenile reformatories. He should have been very glad to have seen a Bill brought forward in common to both England and Ireland. Special clauses could then have been introduced to have met the case of Ireland. In England, Roman Catholics formed a very small portion of the community, but Ireland was an essentially Roman Catholic country, and it was not just to place such powers in the hands of magistrates whose religious opinions were, in the main, opposed to those of the great mass of the people. What would be the effect of the Bill in Ireland? He understood that, with the permission of the Lord Lieutenant, any person might open a reformatory school, subject to certain rules and regulations. He understood, too, that to carry out these reformatory schools properly, there must be Protestant, Presbyterian, and Roman Catholic Schools; for if the principle were not based upon religion it would entirely fail. By the third section of the Bill, magistrates could order juvenile offenders convicted before them to any reformatory school, and the only protection there was against Roman Catholic children being sent to Protestant reformatory schools was, that the Lord Lieutenant might remove any juvenile offender from one reformatory school to another, which,
496
in practice, was no protection at all. Such a question would not be likely to arise in England; but in Ireland it was different, for the magistrates there frequently differed in religious opinions from the offenders who were brought before them, besides which, prejudice might have more sway in Ireland than it would be allowed to have in England. Altogether, he (Mr. V. Scully) thought that the Bill should not be pressed to a second reading, and the principle of it absolutely confirmed, before Irish Members had had time to communicate with their constituents on the subject. For these reasons, he must ask that the second reading of the Bill should be postponed.
MR. KENNEDYsaid, he wished to press upon those having the charge of the Bill the advisability of having an initiatory measure to reform the condition of the masses in Ireland with respect to industrial institutions. They should consider, that in these reformatory schools juvenile offenders were maintained and instructed in a better manner than those who had committed no offence could be in the workhouses or national schools; and such being the case, whether, in the present condition of the poor in Ireland, these schools might not hold out a premium to crime. He did not wish to impede the progress of the measure, but he thought, at the same time, that some adequate provision should be made for the industrial education of the general poor in Ireland.
MR. HORSMANsaid, that if he fancied that there was anything new in the principle of the measure before the House, he should not press the second reading of the Bill on the present occasion. The great principle of the Bill was, that there should be reformatory schools in Ireland. As far as he understood the objections of the hon. and learned Member for Cork (Mr. Scully) they were—that the Bill gave power to magistrates to send Roman Catholic children to Protestant reformatory schools, and vice versâ, and that the schools might be made instruments for proselytism. If that objection really existed, it would be as strongly felt by Her Majesty's Government as by any hon. Members of that House. When the House went into Committee on the Bill, the hon. and learned Member might bring forward that or any other objections that might reach him from Ireland, and suggest any plans to provide against the danger he apprehended, and the Government would do all they could to remove

497
any grievance that might exist. He proposed that the second reading of the Bill should now be taken, but, at the same time, he was quite willing to delay going into Committee upon the Bill for a fortnight, or even for a longer period, if it was so wished.
MR. MAGUIREsaid, he had little faith in the assurances of Government, but still he believed that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland was anxious to make the Bill as perfect as he could. The Bill itself was little more than a reprint of the Scotch and English Bills. The Scotch Bill was persisted in against the wishes of many Irish Members, who feared that its provisions might be turned into proselytising purposes. The Irish Members at last drove the Government into a corner, and the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate on the opposite side, with the late Mr. Lucas, himself (Mr. Maguire), and some others, entered into a solemn compact that a clause should be placed in the Bill providing against that danger. To his great surprise that clause was never introduced. In Ireland there was a great rage for proselytism, and religion and charity very often masqueraded themselves in that country in a very strange garb. He knew several people kind and good, and others perhaps not so, who made great sacrifices for the purpose of extending ragged schools. They could not break down the faith of higher and better fed people, so they picked up the very scrapings of the streets, and added them to the list of members of the Established Church. No doubt the Bill was necessary, and Bills of this kind were of the utmost service. The Government had done a merciful thing in bringing in the Bill, but he implored them not to throw a bone of contention amongst the religious parties in Ireland by pressing on the measure without the protective provisions he had referred to. Under these circumstances, the responsibility would fall on the Government if they did not adopt the suggestion of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. V. Scully), or frame a stringent clause to protect the religion of the children in these institutions.
Bill read 2°.

MEDICAL PROFESSION BILL.
MR. HEADLAM,in asking leave to bring in a Bill to amend the laws relating to the medical profession, said that the measure was first introduced to the House
498
in the latter part of last Session, but it was not then prosecuted further in concurrence of an understanding to that effect between the gentlemen who represented the medical profession and the Secretary of State for the Home Office, who, on his part, undertook to circulate the measure during the recess among the several medical societies throughout the kingdom, and thereby ascertain what were the opinions of the profession upon the measure. It was accordingly sent to the Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons in London, Edinburgh, Dublin, Glasgow, and all the medical societies and universities of the kingdom; and also to a large number of individuals practising in the medical profession. From the numerous answers returned to the questions asked, he found that so much unanimity now prevailed among the members of the profession with regard to some reform being necessary, and such a general desire to concede the extreme privileges and rights of particular bodies, that he (Mr. Headlam) was placed in a more favourable position than that which any Gentleman had occupied who had yet attempted to legislate upon this very difficult subject. With regard to the Bill itself, he would first state to the House what the measure did not pretend to do. It did not, for instance, seek to interfere with the present right of the British subject, a right which he certainly exercised with very great freedom—namely, the right of obtaining medical advice and assistance from any person whatsoever, although the person from whom he obtained that advice and assistance had not gone through any professional education or passed any examination, or was in any other way qualified to give that medical advice and assistance. But one part of the Bill provided for the registration of legally- qualified practitioners, and he thought it was due both to the public and the profession that there should he a penalty against any person who, not having gone through an examination, and not having had a medical education, pretended to be that which he was not, that was to say, who pretended to be a registered and legally-qualified practitioner. He left it open to persons to go to non-educated and nonqualified individuals if they chose; but he would give the public the opportunity of ascertaining whether a particular individual was or was not a regularly-qualified practitioner. That would be a protection to the public if they chose to use it, and it would be a protection also to the certified

499
practitioner, who, having gained his status at great expense and severe study, was entitled to have his degree and authority known and respected. There were at present altogether in the United Kingdom, about twenty-two different bodies exercising various powers of licensing persons to practise the medical profession. In England there were the Universities of Oxford, Cambridge, and London, all of which had the power of conferring degrees; at the same time, certain doubts existed as to the validity of those degrees in conferring a licence to practise. In London the College of Physicians—perhaps the highest body in the medical profession in the realm—exercised the privilege of licensing to exclusive practice within the district of London and seven miles beyond, and also the power to license in the rest of England, though not to exclusive practice. The College of Surgeons, too, had the power to license for practice throughout England. But coming to Scotland he found various bodies there which had the power of licensing to practise medicine only within particular districts, and at the present moment there was not one body in the kingdom that had the power to license persons to practise medicine generally throughout the kingdom. Again, no one could now say what strictly constituted a legally-qualified practitioner. A gentleman might have obtained a degree of the Royal College of Edinburgh, and be the most eminent physician in his profession, yet he would have no right to practise in London or within seven miles of it. Nay, it was even doubtful whether he had a strict right to practise in England. On the other hand, the most eminent medical man in London had not power to practise either in Scotland or Ireland. These instances, he thought, would serve to show the extreme confusion of the law upon the subject. These inconveniences were rendered still greater by the language of some of the recent Acts of Parliament wherein reference was made to what are called "legally-qualified medical practitioners." No one can say what is the exact meaning of such a title. See how the evil of this uncertainty operated. By the Nuisances' Removal Bill a power was given to magistrates to convict for certain offences upon the certificate of two legally-qualified practitioners. Suppose the magistrates convicted, an objection may be taken to the title of the medical practitioners upon whose certificate the conviction rested. As the law
500
now stands, no magistrate can be cognisant of the fact, whether an individual is or is not, in the language of the Act, "a legally-qualified medical practitioner." If certificate is made by a person not legally qualified, the conviction would fail. What he sought to do by this Bill was, first to ensure generally throughout Great Britain and Ireland that there should be equality of education; that was to say, that the word "physician," whether applied to a man educated in London, Edinburgh, or Dublin, should mean the same thing; that it should mean a man who had gone through a certain course of liberal education, in the first instance, and a certain curriculum of professional education in addition thereto. That there should be a certainty that he had undergone the same education wherever he came from. A similar provision would apply to surgeons; that was to say, that whether in London, Edinburgh, Dublin, or elsewhere, a surgeon should go through a certain and the same education to qualify him for the profession he sought to practise. Having secured that equality of education with respect to all gentlemen practising in medicine, the next thing the Bill would do was to establish a reciprocity of practice; which meant, that a gentleman who had been educated, say in Edinburgh, should, if he chose, become a Member of the College of Physicians in London, and practise in London, and a member of the College of Physicians in London should, in like manner, if ho choose, become a member of the College of Physicians in Edinburgh, and be at liberty to practise there. Thirdly, he proposed that there should be a general register of legally-qualified practitioners. Every other profession in the country almost had its authorised "list." There were, for example, the Clergy List, the Army List, the Navy List, and the Law List; but at that moment there was no Medical List to which reference could be made for the purpose of ascertaining whether any individual was a legally-qualified practitioner or not; and it appeared by the census returns, that the number of persons who assumed to themselves the title of "surgeons," or other medical appellations, was nearly double the number of persons who were on the books of the learned medical societies of the kingdom. In other words, there were nearly as many unqualified as qualified practitioners in the kingdom. These three principles were the main provisions of the Bill:—First, equality of education; secondly,

501
reciprocity of practice; and, thirdly, a general register. He would now state how he measure had been received by the profession, The numerous answers received during the recess from the several medical colleges showed that great unanimity prevailed amongst those bodies on all these principles. The Royal College of Physicians of London, in their answer, stated that the measure was founded upon a principle which they had always approved of and endeavoured to carry out, and that it would harmonise well with a new charter for that institution. He would here take the opportunity of stating, that it was in consequence of the dissensions amongst the medical men themselves that that Royal College had not obtained the charter which they had a right to expect. He hoped that, contemporaneously with the passing of this Bill, the Government would see fit to grant this charter. The Royal College of Physicians in Edinburgh expressed their general approval of the Bill; and the Royal College of Physicians in Ireland did the same, adding that it was a like comprehensive and liberal, and adapted to elevate the profession and increase its scientific character. The latter body suggested that the several medical societies should have power to remove from their respective lists the name of any medical practitioners who, in their opinion, had been guilty of improper practices, and he (Mr. Headlam), in accordance with the recommendation, had introduced a clause to that effect. The College of Physicians in Glasgow said the Bill embraced almost every object which had hitherto been advocated by the faculty, and dealt fairly with all. The College of Surgeons in London, however, did not quite so cordially approve of the measure. They stated that they approved of the establishment of a register—a most important point certainly; but, with that exception, they thought there was no sufficient reason for any Parliamentary enactment for the infliction of penalties beyond those which the courts of law were already competent to levy. There were differences of opinion upon the details, certainly; but some of the objections he had been able to remove by the Bill in the shape in which he now submitted it to the House, though there might be some arising out of conflicts between the different learned bodies which he had not been able wholly to meet. He (Mr. Headlam) would be happy to receive suggestions, and willing to alter the provisions
502
of the Bill where practicable. He thought he had shown enough to convince the House that the Bill was received favourably by the learned medical bodies, and he could assure the House with great confidence, that it had been most cordially received by the great mass of the individual practitioners throughout the country. The mode in which the different provisions would be carried out he would state generally. He proposed that there should be a medical council, which should be composed of physicians and surgeons; a physician and surgeon to be chosen by each of the Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons in England, Scotland, and Ireland; one person by each of the Universities in England, Scotland, and Ireland; and eight persons by the body of medical practitioners throughout the kingdom. The election of these lost would be effected with little difficulty or trouble through the Post Office, and according to a certain form, which would be transmitted to the electors, He attached great value to the representative principle, because there was a general feeling throughout the country that such representation ought to exist in a council that was to have jurisdiction over the entire profession. In the first instance, however, the eight members would be nominated by Government. As soon as the medical council was appointed, they would have to appoint a registrar, whose duty it would be to register every person who was now licensed to practise, without any further examination. All that was requisite was, that every person now licensed to practise as a physician or surgeon should send in his name, and upon payment of a small fee he would be entitled to be registered without further examination. Thus there would be no difficulty whatever in registering persons already in practice; and they would be placed in this improved position—that after such, registration they would be able to practise in every part of the United Kingdom. All others who were registered would have first to pass through a regular examination in medicine, and it would be the duty of the council to see that that examination was the same in all parts of the kingdom. As soon as the Bill came into operation, a physician would have to prove that he was twenty-six years of age, had graduated at one of the Universities, and passed through the necessary examination, before he could be registered. A similar provision applied to surgeons, with this exception, that they

503
must be twenty-two years of age. In conclusion, he would state, that the Bill had been framed on a feeling of the greatest deference and respect to those learned societies in the medical profession, who came down to us honoured by the recollection of the great men that have been enrolled in their lists. It was also framed with the earnest wish to protect the rights and conciliate the feelings of the large body of the eminent practitioners on whom the community at large mostly relies for medical advice and consolation; and many of whom for small pecuniary remuneration were in the habit of doing deeds of almost unrivalled benevolence. He confessed he felt pride and satisfaction in their names, to ask the leave of the House to introduce the Bill.
MR. BRADYsaid, he willingly seconded the Motion, but he regretted to hear it stated that legislation upon the subject had been hitherto prevented solely by differences amongst the medical bodies themselves. To that assertion he gave a decided contradiction, for they were most fully alive to the necessity for a great and comprehensive measure. Previous attempts had failed because they had not been entered upon with a full determination to succeed, and because the persons making the attempts had submitted to the influence of those interested in keeping things as they were. Even the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carlisle (Sir J. Graham) on one occasion made this admission—"I may he excused for saying that if I could have anticipated the extensive difficulties of this subject I should not probably have presumed to interfere with them;" in fact, he regarded it as an Augean stable, that he had no hope of cleansing. It was a great error to suppose that the medical profession were alone interested in the Bill, or that, like Sir Lucius O'Trigger, they found it a very pretty quarrel, and wished to keep it so. It was a general measure, calculated to raise the standard of the profession—to make them, as it were, a part of the police of the country, and one that should be supported by the Government. It was much to be regretted that the Bill had not been brought in by a Member of the Government, from the greater facilities it would then have received in its progress through the House.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, I have to thank my hon. and learned Friend for introducing this Bill, and I am sure the House has listened with great satisfaction
504
to the able and interesting statement he has made in proposing this measure. I give him great credit for that, and I shall give him more credit still if he succeed in passing it, and thus, as the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Brady) observed, settle the question for ever. My hon. and learned Friend has not exaggerated either the importance of the measure itself, or the difficulties which he has had to contend with, and I speak with some experience on this subject, because, when I had the honour to be at the Home Office, I endeavoured to do that which my hon. and learned Friend has now undertaken. I confess to finding difficulties that I felt I could not surmount, but which I hope my hon. and learned Friend will succeed in overcoming. If he does, he will be entitled to the thanks of the whole country for the great benefits this measure will confer when passed. I wish him every possible success, and with my colleagues will give him all the assistance in our power to carry it through Parliament.
Leave given.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. HEADLAM, Mr. BRADY, and Mr. CRAUFURD.
Bill read 1°.
House adjourned at half after nine o'clock till Monday next.

MINUTES.
Sat First in Parliament.—The Lord Delamere, after the Death of his Father.
PUBLIC BILL.—1a Vice President of Committee of Council on Education.

THE FERMOY PEERAGE.
The EARL OF DERBYsaid, it would be in the recollection of their Lordships that last Session he had taken occasion to raise a question as to the validity of a patent which had been granted to a gentleman named Roche, constituting him Baron Fermoy, in the peerage of Ireland; and the ground of objection he took to the patent was, that there had not then become extinct the three Irish peerages necessary to enable Her Majesty to create a new one. The question involved considerations of great legal and constitutional importance; and he (the Earl of Derby) then proposed that the matter should be referred to a Committee of Privileges. It had, however, been suggested that upon Baron Fermoy presenting his petition in the ordinary way, praying that he might be allowed to substantiate his right to vote for a representative Peer for Ireland, the question would more properly arise. He had waited, therefore, for the commencement of the present Session, and he had I been given to understand by the noble Earl the President of the Council, that in the course of a few days Lord Fermoy's petition would be presented. Fortunately the case was now deprived of all personal interest as far as the noble Lord was concerned. Lord Fermoy could not now be affected in the slightest degree by the result of the inquiry; for since last Session another Irish peerage had become extinct, and consequently the only difference the inquiry would make to the noble Lord I would be whether his peerage was to date I from 1855 or 1856. He (the Earl of Derby) wished to ask his noble Friend whether there was any reason to believe that the petition of Lord Fermoy would in a short time be presented? If it were not so presented before the end of a fortnight, he should move that the subject should be referred to a Committee of Privileges.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that before the opening of the present Session he had received a letter from Lord Fermoy expressing his earnest desire that that question should be brought to a decision as soon

449
as possible, and asking him (Earl Granville) whether he concurred in his feeling upon the subject. He had answered that question in the affirmative, and had requested Lord Fermoy to desire his legal adviser to call on him in London. He had seen that gentleman; and from his interview with him he had found that a petition in favour of Lord Fermoy's claim had been drawn up last Session, but had since been mislaid, and that another would be immediately prepared. He (Earl Granville) was in daily expectation that that petition would be laid before the House; and he took it for granted that their Lordships would receive it previously to the expiration of the fortnight, at the end of which period his noble Friend had given notice that he would bring forward his Motion.

VICE PRESIDENT OF COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION BILL.
EARL GRANVILLE presented a Bill for the Appointment of a Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education. It was proposed by the Bill that that officer should have a seat in the House of Commons; and on the occasion of the second reading he would take the opportunity of explaining to their Lordships the nature of the changes to be effected by an Order in Council, transferring certain departments at present connected with other offices to the Vice Presidency of the Council.
Bill read la.

BARON WENSLEYDALE—QUESTION.
EARL GREY: In the absence of the noble and learned Lord who moved the Resolution the House adopted last night (Lord Lyndhurst), I beg leave to ask the noble and learned Lord Chief Justice, whether he can give us any information as to the period when the Committee of Privileges which has been voted is to sit, and what is the course that it is intended we should take upon that question?
LORD CAMPBELL: In the absence of my noble and learned Friend it is impossible for me to give any satisfactory answer to the question that has been addressed to me. But I may take this opportunity of expressing a hope that a course will be adopted by Her Majesty's Government which will render the meeting of the Committee of Privileges unnecessary. Of course I cannot take upon myself to give advice to Her Majesty's Government; they can have that advice from other quarters
450
much more entitled to consideration; but as a Member of this House I may earnestly express a hope that they will take a step which would, in my opinion, be of infinite advantage; and that is that they will recommend Her Majesty graciously to confer on the right lion. Sir James Parke, late Baron of the Exchequer, the title of Baron Wensleydale, to be enjoyed by him and the heirs male of his body. That being done, we shall most joyously receive him in this House, and thus put an end to an agitation which scorns to me calculated to lead to no good. Nothing would thereby be decided; the question would be still left open; and if a pressing necessity should arise for making a Peer for life, that may still be done as well as it can he done now. I am sure I should rejoice exceedingly if this course were adopted, and I do most sincerely feel that it would be of great service to the nation at large.
THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, I certainly have still less right than the noble and learned Lord opposite to offer any recommendation, or even to make any suggestion, to Her Majesty's Government. But I cannot help feeling that the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord is one that is well deserving of their consideration, inasmuch as I am quite sure it cannot be their object to raise unnecessarily a question which is manifestly one of extreme difficulty as between the Prerogative of the Crown and the House of Lords. Even if there could be no doubt as to the legality of this creation, yet—after what passed in the House last night—after the general opinion expressed upon this subject by the law Lords—by the Lord Chief Justice, who, as far he can take any part in politics, is attached to Her Majesty's Government—by my noble and learned Friends near me, and by all the great law authorities in this House, save and except the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack—after they had all, with that exception, given their opinion that even if this precedent was strictly legal, it is in the highest degree unconstitutional—after noble Lords who usually support Her Majesty's Government have recorded their votes last night in opposition to the course which has been adopted in this case, and thus proved at least how distasteful that exercise of the prerogative would be to this House—I cannot but think that Her Majesty's Government would be consulting the public interest, and also, what I consider identified with the public interest, the rights of

451
the Crown, if they did not unnecessarily raise this question of prerogative, and if they consented—not to cancel the patent— but to issue a fresh patent which would involve no new consequences to the individual immediately interested in the subject. That second patent might be produced with the writ when Lord Wensleydale shall come to take his seat in this House. I am quite sure that those noble Lords with whom I have the honour of acting will gladly receive that solution of the difficulty into which they have been most unwillingly drawn, and that there will then be but one feeling of congratulation among us at the reception in this House of so distinguished a lawyer as Baron Parke. I have not seen my noble and learned Friend who brought forward the question since he left the House last night; I have no idea what course he intends to pursue with regard to the Committee; but on public grounds I entirely join the Lord Chief Justice in hoping that there may be no occasion to have this question considered by that tribunal to which your Lordships last night decided, and, as I think, properly decided, that it should be referred.
LORD BROUGHAM: It appears to me that in the absence of my noble and learned Friend who brought forward the Motion, it would be premature to give any opinion as to the course he would pursue in reference to the question.
EARL GRANVILLE EARL GRANVILLE moved, that the House do now adjourn.
House adjourned to Monday next.