Sitting of 17 March 1857

CLIFFORD'S BOAT APPARATUS.

  QUESTION.
  ADMIRAL WALCOTTsaid, he wished to ask the First Naval Lord of the Admiralty whether the same protection against loss of life afforded to emigrant ships had been or would be provided for the ships about to embark troops for China, by supplying them with Clifford's lifeboat apparatus, which had been subjected to the severest tests from Her Majesty's ships under different circumstances of weather, and at every rate of speed, and of the complete efficiency of which reports had been forwarded to the Admiralty.
  SIR MAURICE BERKELEYsaid that, had his hon. and gallant Friend given him notice of his question, he would have brought with him a list of the ships which had been fitted with the apparatus. He could only say, that in every trial which had been made of it, its use had been attended with complete success.

THE CRIMEAN COMMISSIONERS.

  ANSWER TO ADDRESS.
  VISCOUNT CASTLEROSSE,Controller of the Household, appeared at the bar, in full dress, and delivered Her Majesty's answer to the Address agreed to by the House on Thursday evening last, with regard to the services of Sir John M' Neill and Colonel Tulloch.
  Answer to Address [12th March] reported, as follows:—
  I HAVE received your Address, praying that some especial mark of approbation may be conferred upon Sir John M' Neill and Colonel Tulloch, in consideration of the able services rendered by them as Commissioners in the Crimea; and having taken the same into consideration, I have given directions for this purpose."

APPELLATE JURISDICTION.

  QUESTION—ADJOURNMENT MOVED.
  MR. BOWYERsaid, as he had a question to put, which would require a short statement, he would, to be in order, move that the House do adjourn. It related to the appellate jurisdiction of the House of Lords, as exemplified in an appeal in the case of Grey and others v. Pearson, which had been decided in the House of Lords on the previous day. It had been argued in favour of the creation of Lord Wensleydale, that such creation would facilitate the hearing of appeals. Now, the appeal in question was one from Lord Justice Turner, who was known as a Judge of great ability, to the Lord Chancellor. The Lord Chancellor took a different view of the case, and varied the judgment. The case was then brought by appeal before the House of Lords. It was heard by the Lord Chancellor, sitting in appeal from his own judgment, by Lord St. Leonards and by Lord Wensleydale. The Chancellor adhered to his former opinion. Lord St. Leonards delivered an opinion against the Chancellor, supporting his view by several strong decisions—among others, one of Lord Hardwicke's. Lord Wensleydale concurred with the Lord Chancellor. Now, Lord Wensleydale was, no doubt, an able common law Judge, but he had been all his life engaged in common law, and had no experience in equity. The result was, that Lord Justice Turner, a great equity Judge, and Lord St. Leonards, another great equity Judge, concurred in their opinions; while, on the other side, there was the Lord Chancellor, assisted by a common law Judge. Both the bar and the public would give preference to the opinion of Lord Justice Turner or Lord St. Leonards over the Lord Chancellor. Here was the fact, that two eminent Judges in equity had pronounced an opinion which was set at nought by one equity Judge, assisted by a common law Judge. Last year he himself had pointed out the probability of the very case which had now occurred. He would ask the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary whether, under these circumstances, the Government were not of opinion that much remained to be done before the appellate jurisdiction of the House of Lords would be in such a state as the wants of the country and the administration of justice required; and whether he would next Session bring forward a measure for the constitution of an appellate court of ultimate resort which
  2398
  should be fully adequate to the performance of its important duties?
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that the question seemed to him an extraordinary one. He could not say, because a case was decided yesterday by the House of Lords, that therefore great changes were required in its appellate jurisdiction. He knew nothing of the case but from the statement of the hon. Member, and there was nothing in that statement to lead him to such a conclusion. Two noble Lords had decided against one in a minority. This was a case of frequent occurrence, and did not convince him that any great changes were necessary in the jurisdiction of the House of Lords. He did not think that the House would usefully occupy its time by discussing the merits of particular Judges, and endeavouring to provide that, contrary to the general rule, the opinion of one Judge should prevail against those of two others. So far as he was concerned, he did not think that the circumstances of this case rendered necessary any interference with the appellate jurisdiction of the House of Lords.
  MR. BOWYERexplained that he did not complain of the decision of the House of Lords being given by the majority; he complained that the decision was made by an equity Judge, sitting on appeal from himself with a common law Judge who never practised or sat in a court of equity, against the opinion of two great equity Judges, one in the House and the other in the Court below. The casting vote was given by a common law Judge.

REMOVAL OF IRISH PAUPERS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. H. A. HERBERTsaid, seeing his right hon. Friend the President of the Poor Law Board in his place, he begged to ask him a question with respect to a matter which excited very great interest in Ireland—inasmuch as the grievance complained of was a very common one. It appeared that in the month of February last, a woman named Brosnahan applied for relief at the Killarney Union, being then on her way to Tralee; and she made a statement to the magistrates there that she had been married in London, and that her husband had been for five years a policeman in London, and subsequently had been employed in various parts of that city—that,

  2399
  in fact, she had been between ten and twelve years a resident in London. Her husband, however, subsequently deserted her, or left her with her own consent; and, although she stated most positively that the man had been born in England, yet, when she applied for relief at the Holborn Union, she was shipped on board the Bittern steamer and left to perish on the pier at Cork in a state of destitution. He would, therefore, ask his hon. Friend whether his attention had been called to the circumstances of the removal of a female pauper, named Honora Brosnahan, and her children, from the Holborn Union to Ireland; whether he had reason to believe that the said Honora Brosnahan's husband was born in England; and whether any remedy existed by the present law for the injustice inflicted on the woman herself and on the Tralee Union in Ireland, to which she had been removed?
  MR. BOUVERIEsaid, his attention had been called to the case through a communication from the Poor Law Commissioners of Ireland who, in their turn, had been attracted to it by the guardians of the Tralee Union. Inquiries had, therefore, been instituted into the circumstances by the English Poor Law Board, which elicited the following facts:—As the woman was the wife of a man who had been in the police in England, and the husband had deserted her and her children when she applied for relief to the Holborn Union, the question arose whether they were bound to give her relief—whether, in point of fact, she was settled or irremovable in that union. The guardians alleged that there was no evidence offered to them of any kind that the husband of the woman Brosnahan was either born or settled in England. It was disproved that there was any claim to irremovability on the ground of five years' residence, which was what was required by the law; and consequently the guardians were entitled to remove her to Ireland. The woman had stated subsequently that her husband was born in England, and that he had a settlement in some parish in this country; but the truth was, the statement was not supported by the evidence which would be requisite in a court of law. And he must add, that the guardians of the Holborn Union had assured the Board that the woman had of herself consented to go to Ireland, and that she had been treated with the greatest kindness previous to her transmission. He
  2400
  could not avoid stating that the relief of this very class of cases, which were so much to be deplored, was attempted by the Bill which he had the honour to introduce last Session of Parliament, but which unfortunately, as he thought, had not received the concurrence of the House.

THE LAND TRANSPORT CORPS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. T. DUNCOMBEsaid, it was not his intention, considering the state of matters, to proceed with his notice for the nomination of the Select Committee on the grievances of the Land Transport Corps. At the same time he was happy to state that those grievances were under the consideration of the War Department, and he hoped they would be adjusted to the satisfaction of all parties. Of course if they were not, it would be open to him to renew his notice early in the next Session of Parliament, if he should have the honour of a seat in that House. He wished, however, to remind the Government that the Order in Council with regard to the disbanding of the Land Transport Corps had not been as yet laid upon the table, as had been promised.
  SIR GEORGE GREY,on behalf of his hon. Friend the Under Secretary for War, would undertake to say that the papers in question would be presented before the dissolution of Parliament.
  Motion for adjournment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE SOUND DUES.

  PAPERS MOVED FOR.
  MR. BRAMLEY-MOOREclaimed the attention of the House for a few moments, wishing to call their notice to the subject of the Sound Dues, and to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if a treaty had been signed to capitalize those dues, and indemnify Denmark for giving up her reputed rights; and if it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government that such treaty should be acted upon before Parliament had voted the money for such object? The subject was one which had engaged a considerable degree of attention, and it was absolutely necessary to have further information with regard to it before Parliament committed the country to an expenditure of £1,000,000 sterling for the capitalization of those dues;—for it was stated

  2401
  that a treaty had been entered into with Denmark for their capitalization. A Committee sat last Session on the subject, and it was in accordance with one of its recommendations that the treaty was now about to be concluded with Denmark. He was one of those who had had the honour of a seat upon that Committee, which, as the right hon. Gentleman knew, had devoted a great deal of attention to this question; but he must state, as far as the evidence adduced before them went, it was entirely, or nearly so, the evidence of persons interested in the abolition of the dues. Now, inasmuch as the claim for dues affected only a special class, he did not think that their abolition ought to be taken as a national question. The claim was one of great antiquity. So far back as the year 1645, Sweden was specially exempted from the payment of the dues; she afterwards, however, in the year 1720, renounced the privilege in consideration of large concessions made to her in the shape of territory. But when Denmark ceased to be the owner of the two shores, it became a legitimate question with all nations whether they should any longer pay the dues. The Americans had recently reopened the subject. He had been always of opinion that the matter was one for adjustment by treaty, instead of being determined by a heavy expenditure on the part of the nation. But there was another consideration involved in the settlement. It was generally understood that the dues had been hypothecated in London for a loan of some £3,000,000 or £4,000,000, and, therefore, it ought to be declared how this payment of £1,000,000 sterling to the Danish Government would be appropriated; whether it was to be appropriated in payment of the loan, or whether the bondholders would lose their security. They ought, also, to be informed whether the proposed capitalization of the dues was founded upon a prospective increase or decrease in trade. This was important, because, if they referred to their experience since the repeal of the navigation laws in 1849, they would find that there had been a gradual decrease in trade as far as tonnage was concerned. The Returns established the following important facts:—The number of British vessels that had passed the Sound in 1849 was 6,876; in 1850, 5,464; in 1851, 4,794; in 1852, 3,902; in 1853, 4,654; and in 1854, 2,000. It was hardly fair to carry the figures farther, on account of the interruption of the war. But, on
  2402
  the other hand, it was necessary to guard the House against being led away by the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in introducing his Budget, as to the prosperity of the shipping interest. He stated that there had been a large increase in British tonnage between 1853 and 1856, and a small increase in foreign tonnage in the same period. There was considerable ingenuity in the selection of these two years for the purpose of comparison, because the first of them was the date at which British tonnage was at its lowest ebb since the repeal of the navigation laws; and if the right hon. Gentleman had taken the trouble to look into the Returns for 1853, he would have found that between them and the Returns for 1849 there was a difference in favour of the latter year of 222,000 tons; while, if he had pursued the inquiry up to 1856, which could count all the advantages of a resuscitated trade after the war, and compared that year with 1849, he would have seen that while the foreign tonnage had increased in this kingdom 180 per cent, British tonnage had increased only 33 per cent. However, to return to the subject more immediately before them—according to the evidence of the witnesses before the Select Committee the chief ground of complaint was not the expense which shipowners were put to through the levying of these dues, but it was the delay that was caused by their collection. Now, surely some arrangement might be made to obviate that delay. In the case of steamers that had been already done, for they merely delivered their papers and were not called upon to pay the dues until they got into the port of discharge. A similar arrangement for the benefit of sailing ships might be made by treaty, and then the dues, whether light or heavy, would fall upon those who ought to bear them. He believed the new treaty was to come into operation upon the 1st of April, and unless the explanations of the Government were satisfactory he should be prepared to give it his determined opposition. He should conclude with moving that the Papers relative to the treaty be laid upon the table of the House.
  Motion made, and Question proposed—
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, that She will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House, Copies of any Papers relating to a Treaty to capitalize the Sound Dues, and indemnify Denmark for giving up her reputed rights."
  MR. LIDDELLsaid, as he saw from the public journals that the treaty had been signed by the various Powers, he wished to ask—first of all whether it included the redemption of a portion of the transit dues; and secondly, whether one-fifth of those duties would still remain unredeemed?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid that the evidence taken by the Committee of last Session, as very truly stated by the hon. Member for Maldon, showed most conclusively that the Sound dues were onerous to navigation and detrimental to the trade of this country with the Baltic, not only on account of the sums which were levied upon ships passing through the Sound, but also by reason of the delays which they occasioned, and the additional charges incidental on those delays. It had been admitted on all hands for some years that if these dues could be extinguished by some sort of equitable redemption the change would be beneficial; and, in consequence of a question raised by the Government of the United States, negotiations had been going on during the last twelve months between the Danish Government and the Governments of all the principal States of Europe for the redemption of these dues. With that view, on the 14th of the present month two treaties had been signed at Copenhagen; the first between the Government of Denmark and the Governments of Russia, Prussia, France, Great Britain, and other States, which contained the general stipulations referring to all these States; and the other, a separate convention, signed on the same day, between the Governments of Great Britain and Denmark, which contained the particular stipulations affecting these two countries. Her Majesty's Government only knew of the signature of these treaties by a telegraphic despatch, and at present they had no copy of them as they were signed; but from the draughts in the possession of the Government, which he believed to be identical with the treaties signed—though, of course, he could not pledge himself that such was the case—he would shortly state what the effect of these treatise was. By the second Article of the general treaty the Sound dues were to expire on the first of April next; the amount of compensation to be paid by each State was fixed by the 4th Article; the 7th Article made the execution of the treaty dependent upon the sanction required by the constitutional laws of the respective countries;
  2404
  and the 8th Article stipulated for ratification in the usual manner. By the separate convention between Great Britain and Denmark it was provided that the amount of compensation to be paid by this country should be paid, in the event of the assent of Parliament being given to it, within three months after the passing of the requisite Act of Parliament ratifying the treaty. Although an early date had been fixed for the opening of the Sound, in order to meet the convenience of those States which had no Parliamentary Government, and were therefore able to pay their stipulated amount of compensation without consulting any legislative body, the Danish Government, by a protocol signed on the 16th of February, retained the right of maintaining a sort of status quo until the engagements of the 7th and 8th Articles of the general treaty were fulfilled. This would be done by taking a security from the vessels passing through the Sound for the eventual payment of the dues in case the arrangement made by the treaty was not sanctioned. The faith of Parliament was in no way engaged by the arrangement, and whatever change might take place on the first of April the next Parliament would be left quite free to come to whatever decision it might think fit. It would be the duty of the Government to lay the whole subject before Parliament at the earliest period, to explain on what grounds the negotiations had been carried on, and to suggest such means as it might think most advisable to carry out the arrangements arrived at. He was not aware that the treaty contained any engagement with respect to the application of the compensation received by Denmark. That was a matter between the Danish Government and the bondholders, and it would not be competent for the British Government to make any stipulation on the subject. As to the question of the hon. Member for Northumberland (Mr. Liddell) respecting the transit dues, he believed that four-fifths of them were to be remitted. He was not in a position to give the details of the stipulations on that point; but the proper time to explain the ground on which that arrangement was made would be when the treaty was before the House.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY: What is the amount of compensation which this country has undertaken to pay?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Our share amounts to £1,125,206.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  BREACHES OF TRUST—THE ROYAL BRITISH BANK—QUESTION.
  SIR FITZROY KELLYwished to put a question to his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General relative to a Bill, of which they had heard something, for winding up the affairs of the Royal British Bank, and which was to have been introduced during the present Session. Of course it was now too late to pass any Bill of the kind this Session, but he thought it would be a comfort to all concerned to be assured that as early as possible after the assembling of the new Parliament the Bill would be introduced.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALvery much regretted that the sudden termination of the present Parliament had prevented him bringing in two Bills—one with regard to fraudulent breaches of trust, which he hoped would be a means of punishing such delinquencies as had been exhibited in the case of the British Bank; and the other to remedy in some degree the distress which had been occasioned to the shareholders in the process of winding up that bank. The whole case of the British Bank was an opprobrium to British jurisprudence, inasmuch as it had exhibited the inability of the law to punish this class of offenders, and the utter incompetence of the tribunal which had attempted to wind up the affairs of the Bank. In the next Parliament it would be his desire to bring these two measures forward at the earliest possible period.

  AFFAIRS OF ITALY—EXPLANATIONS.
  On the Order of the Day for the House to go into Committee on the Exchequer Bills (£21,049,700) Bill, and the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill,
  MR. DISRAELIsaid: Sir, I take this opportunity of making an inquiry of the noble Lord at the head of the Government, which I was prevented from making at the commencement of business, in consequence of his absence from the House. It is in reference to certain papers which were laid upon the table in the early part of this Session. The House will understand that the papers I refer to are those connected with the communications between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the Two Sicilies. The papers were of a meagre character; and an hon. Gentleman having inquired whether they contained all the correspondence that had taken place between Her Majesty's Government
  2406
  and the Government of the Two Sicilies; the noble Lord said "No; that the remaining correspondence referred to a proposition which, having terminated without any result, it was therefore not necessary to lay it upon the table." Now, I find from some foreign journals and from one of our English papers, that foreigners and the public out of doors are more favoured than the British House of Commons in respect to this correspondence, inasmuch as such correspondence has appeared lately in a portion of those journals. It is in respect to one of the allegations contained in the correspondence thus given I wish to say a few words. It is therein stated that Her Majesty's Government had made an offer to a foreign Power to undertake, in case of any attempt being made to establish republican institutions in the south of Italy, to prevent, even if necessary, by force of arms, the occurrence of such an event. I wish to know from the noble Lord whether there is any authority for that statement; and whether it is true that a communication of that character, or in that spirit, was made to any foreign Government by the Government of which the noble Lord is the chief? I hope that the noble Lord will give me a frank and not a technical reply.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: The reply which I made to the communication of the hon. Member to whom the right hon. Gentleman referred, is not precisely as the right hon. Gentleman has represented it to be. What I stated in answer to the question put to me on the occasion alluded to was this—that the papers laid upon the table contained everything that bore upon the course of policy which Her Majesty's Government had adopted; but that there had been some instructions given to our agents at Naples, directing them as to the nature of their mission, and as to the course they were to pursue under certain contingencies, which, however, had not happened. As those contingencies did not happen, those instructions fell to the ground, and therefore it was not necessary to produce the correspondence containing them. I did not refer to communications made to Her Majesty's Government, but to instructions from Her Majesty's Government to their own agents at Naples. I stated also that other instructions had been given on matters wholly unimportant, and having no reference whatever to anything that had taken place. I understand the right hon. Gentleman wishes to know

  2407
  whether the British Government made any suggestion to a foreign Government that if any attempt were made to establish republican institutions in Italy, the British Government were prepared to oppose by force of arms such a movement. Am I correct in this understanding of the right hon. Gentleman's question?
  MR. DISRAELI: I wish to have my question perfectly and distinctly understood. I wish to know whether, in the course of communications which took place in reference to the affairs of Sicily, Her Majesty's Government had made an offer to a foreign Power, that if any attempt were made to establish republican institutions in Southern Italy, they were prepared to interfere, if necessary, even by force of arms, to prevent the establishment of such institutions?
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: No such offer was made by Her Majesty's Government.
  MR. HENLEY: Sir, I cannot help thinking that a little confusion has arisen from the answer given by the noble Lord to the question put to him by my right hon. Friend. I understood the noble Lord to say that the portion of the papers not laid upon the table on the occasion referred to consisted of communications made to the English agents in Naples, in reference to certain contingencies which did not arise. When pressed by my right hon. Friend for a categorical answer to his question, whether in the course of communications in reference to the affairs of Sicily, Her Majesty's Government had made any offer to a foreign Power, that in the event of an attempt being made to establish republican institutions in the south of Italy the British Government were prepared to interfere to prevent such a movement, even by force of arms, the noble Viscount answered that no such offer had been made. Now I confess that from the explanation of the noble Lord an impression was left on my mind that some of those communications that were made to the British agent at Naples, contemplating such a contingency as did not happen, did actually contain such an offer from our Government. I do not know whether the noble Lord wished that his statement should convey such an impression.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for affording me the opportunity of removing such an impression as it appears my language conveyed to his mind. The communications
  2408
  made to the British agents in Naples to a certain extent were as to the conduct they should pursue in the event of such and such overtures being made by the Neapolitan Government. But none were made to them; none of our instructions had any relation whatever to the contingency of republican institutions being attempted to be established. They merely said, "If the Neapolitan Government ask for so and so, you are to act so and so." But no such applications having been made by the Neapolitan Government the contingencies to which the instructions applied did not arise. As I have said, those instructions had nothing whatever to do with the establishment of republican institutions. I am quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman feels convinced that the British Government would never think of interposing by force of arms to prevent any form of Government being established in Southern Italy which the inhabitants themselves might think fit to decide upon. In such a case, no doubt, we might have our own opinions upon the subject; but those opinions we certainly should not think ourselves entitled to enforce by an appeal to arms.
  MR. DISRAELI: Am I, then, distinctly to understand from the noble Lord that no communications took place between Her Majesty's Government, of which he is the chief, and any foreign Power, in which the contingency of an attempt to establish republican institutions in Italy was contemplated, and in which was expressed the course Her Majesty's Government in that contingency were prepared to take?
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: That is quite a different question from the one first put by the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman asked me whether any offer was made by Her Majesty's Government to any foreign Power, in the event of an attempt being made to establish republican institutions in Italy, to co-operate—
  MR. DISRAELI: No, I did not say "to co-operate." I merely asked whether Her Majesty's Government had made any offer to a foreign Power.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Well, any offer to a foreign Power to do something, and that too, if necessary, by force of arms in reference to the establishment of republican institutions in Italy. As I have said, no offer of the kind was made.
  House in Committee.
  Bills considered in Committee.
  House resumed.
  Bills reported without Amendment; to be read 3° To-morrow.

  MUTINY BILL—THE BILLETING SYSTEM.
  On the Order of the Day for the consideration of the Amendments in this Bill,
  MR. G. DUNCANsaid it appeared to him that the system adopted for the billeting of soldiers in Scotland was the very worst that could have been selected. He was quite convinced that the Government, if they pleased, could effect their object in a much more satisfactory manner, and in a way that would be more convenient to all parties. When the noble Lord the Secretary of State for War was lately in Scotland, he (Mr. Duncan) had the honour of an interview with him, and pointed out to him the hardships of the present system in that part of the United Kingdom. The public-houses in Scotland were a different class of buildings to those belonging to the licensed victuallers of England. The borough which he had the honour to represent, would be greatly oppressed by this system, inasmuch as the public-houses there were comparatively few in number, and would have to bear the whole burden of this billeting system in that town. Generally speaking, public-houses were the very worst lodging-houses that could be selected for soldiers. He hoped that the noble Lord would re-consider this question, and consent to empower the authorities to order the troops to be billeted in other places than public-houses, if there were such accommodation to be found in the town.
  MR. KINNAIRD,wished to confirm all that had been said by his hon. Friend the Member for Dundee. The borough which he (Mr. Kinnaird) represented was in precisely the same situation. There were unoccupied barracks there which could be much better employed in lodging the soldiers than the public-houses.
  MR. W. EWARTconfirmed what had been said by the two hon. Members who had preceded him. Although the borough which he represented had no barracks in it, there were large storehouses which might be made available for the purpose. He was speaking as much for the good of the soldier as for the convenience of the people generally. The soldiers, he thought, ought to be kept as much as possible from coming into close contact with the population,
  2410
  as the communication had a demoralising tendency.
  SIR WILLIAM CODRINGTONasked if the power of billeting were to be done away, how were the troops to be marched? The men must be fed and lodged. He considered it would be impossible to move troops unless some such power as that of billeting were maintained.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON:—I think what has passed on this subject is an illustration of the maxim—"give an inch, and they will take an ell." Last year we were told—and I confess with somewhat of justice—that Scotland suffered from a great grievance, inasmuch as in that country the troops were quartered in private houses, while in England such houses were exempted from the burden. Well, we admitted the evil, and promised to redress the grievance. This year we introduced an Amendment into the Bill by which that evil was altogether remedied, and Scotland was placed in the same position in regard to this subject as England. Now the hon. Members representing Scotland urge upon us the hardship of subjecting the innkeepers and proprietors of public-houses to this burden of accommodating soldiers occasionally, which is borne by the same description of houses in England. As my hon. and gallant Friend (Sir W. Codrington) has observed, how is the public service to be provided for if this billeting system were to be given up? As I understood, my hon. Friend proposes that there should be a clause in the Mutiny Bill to provide that the troops, instead of being quartered in public-houses, should be afforded barrack accommodation in all towns where such accommodation is available. Well, that arrangement appears to be a proper one to be adopted on certain occasions. But that is a matter to be arranged by the military and the parties themselves, and not one for legislative interference. In towns were there are barracks no doubt it would be advantageous to locate troops when they are on the march in such quarters; but, in respect to small recruiting parties, the circumstances of the case would be different. It would be very difficult to make all the necessary arrangements in large barracks for only three or four men, unless a much larger expense than was actually necessary for so few men were resorted to. Now it may be a fair matter for consideration whether in England as well as in Scotland the allowances made for the accommodation

  2411
  of soldiers ought not to be increased. But that is a question for the Estimates. I quite agree with my hon. Friend (Mr. Ewart) that it would be far better for the troops, as well as for the community generally, that the soldiers should be placed in barracks, when it is possible or convenient to do so. Their discipline would obviously be much better preserved, and the convenience of the public would be much better consulted. Our feeling is so much in accordance with that expressed by my hon. Friend that we have been most anxious to increase the barrack accommodation all over the kingdom. This year, however, we have been obliged to postpone those barrack arrangements, in order that the Chancellor of the Exchequer may be able to make both ends meet. I, however, can assure the hon. Gentleman that I quite agree with him in principle. If there are places in which there are barracks without any troops being quartered in them, I am quite sure that my noble Friend at the head of the War Department would have no objection to make arrangements for the placing of the troops in those barracks; but, as I have observed, I do not think that they can be applied to the wants of small recruiting parties.
  Bill, as amended, considered; to be read 3° to-morrow.
  The House adjourned at a quarter before Six o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—2ª Customs' Duties; Racehorse Duty Act Amendment; Cinque Ports Act Amendment; Pauper Maintenance.
3a Commissioners of Supply (Scotland) Act, 1856, Amendment.

CRIMINAL BREACHES OF TRUST.

  OBSERVATION.
  LORD ST. LEONARDSsaid, he presumed that it was the intention of the Government to bring in next Session a Bill to render in certain cases breaches of trust by executors and trustees criminal acts. He had no doubt that that Bill would meet
  2382
  with very general acceptance. Great care, however, should be taken not to subject to criminal punishment such executors and trustees—whose office was merely gratuitous—as acted innocently, although erroneously. He regretted to see that the office of trustee and executor had been made a sort of business. Two Bills had been introduced into Parliament to enable the South Sea Company and another company to carry on, on a gigantic scale, the trade of executing the trusts of every estate in the kingdom. The project of the former company was a failure, but the latter company had commenced business on the limited liability principle. He could not help feeling that a great number of trustees and executors would be compelled to procure the aid of that company in the execution of the trusts which had been reposed in them by their testators; but nothing could be more dangerous to the best interests of society than the perversion of the office of trustee and executor into a mere trade. His main object in adverting to this subject was to urge upon the Government the necessity of accompanying their promised Bill to render criminal certain breaches of trust by another measure for the protection of such trustees as might have honourably and innocently, although erroneously, acted in the execution of their office. He regretted that at present the courts of equity punished with extreme harshness trustees and executors even when it was proved that they ought not to be regarded as answerable for the breaches of trust preferred against them; and he therefore hoped that in the ensuing recess his noble and learned Friend on the woolsack would consider the subject with the view of measures being brought in next Session not only for the punishment of criminals defaulting, but also for the protection of innocent, though misled, trustees.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that the noble and learned Lord was right in supposing that Government intended to bring in the Bill next Session on the subject of criminal breaches of trust, which would, if circumstances had permitted, have been introduced in the present Session. It was difficult to define what constituted a criminal breach of trust; but what had been done was to extend that denomination to certain defined breaches of trust, wilfully committed by the trustee for his own benefit. He did not mean to say that cases equally criminal might not

  2383
  be left untouched because of the impossibility of giving a definition to include them. With respect to the hardship that might affect innocent trustees for not having discharged their duty when they wished to do so, he feared that was a difficulty which it was impossible for the Legislature to meet.
  LORD ST. LEONARDSthought that the proposed Bill should be extended to any society taking on itself the office of trustee and executor.

THE HOSTILITIES IN CHINA.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKEwished to press on the noble Lord the Minister for War that the despatches from the commanders in the Chinese waters relating to naval and military operations should be made public, as it was customary to publish the despatches from commanders in chief with respect to naval actions fought. To-day, as usual, he had seen accounts from the correspondent of The Times, and also accounts in other papers, giving the whole history of the operations which had taken place, and therefore he thought it not unfair to ask the Government whether those accounts contained a true story—because, to use a vulgar phrase, we had been "licked" if the published news were true. He put the question to the Government, not from any feeling of joy or exultation at an event of that kind, but for the purpose of ascertaining whether those officers in whom the Government had put so much confidence, whom they considered able and well informed on the character and power of the Chinese nation, and whom they were about to support with all the strength of the State, were really fit to conduct undertakings of this kind—whether they were sufficiently acquainted with the nature of the Chinese waters and properly appreciated the events which were likely to occur, and whether they deserved to be trusted to the extent to which they were trusted? The Duke of Wellington once observed of a distinguished individual, that he was a very clever man, but never saw to the end of a campaign; and it certainly appeared to him that Sir John Bowring had not shown that prescient knowledge with respect to the character and power of the Chinese nation which he was supposed to possess. He pressed the Government for the production of these despatches because, if the published statements
  2384
  were untrue, it would be a great satisfaction to their Lordships to know so; and if on the other hand they were true, their Lordships ought to be satisfied, or rather dissatisfied, by being made acquainted with the fact that those officers, who were so much trusted by the Government, had neither the ability nor foresight to conduct operations of the magnitude and nature required.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he understood that his noble Friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs had stated the other evening that there was no objection to the production of the despatches desired by the noble Earl. He would make it his duty to inquire why they had not yet been produced. With respect to what had fallen from the noble Earl respecting the naval officers in the Chinese waters—
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKEwas understood to say that it was to Sir John Bowring that he had referred.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he really did think that Sir John Bowring had been made to bear so much that it was not necessary to throw on his shoulders responsibility for inefficiency and want of judgment in conducting naval operations, particularly as it appeared from the papers before Parliament that the instructions first given by Sir John Bowring were given with the full concurrence of Admiral Seymour and Consul Parkes. For the course pursued there were precedents in the China Seas, for on two previous occasions the British authorities there did, with only two vessels, what had been done now, and then the mandarins complied with the demands made. He denied, therefore, that the Admiral and Sir John Bowring were chargeable with want of judgment in commencing the operations with the force at their disposal.
  EARL GREYsaid, he believed that every one of these expeditions, made with a small force against a nation so numerous as the Chinese, acquainted to a certain extent with the implements and materials of warfare, and daily improving in their knowledge of them, always had the effect of teaching them something more, and led to the danger of collisions being repeated. This was one of many other considerations which the Duke of Wellington felt strongly when he (Earl Grey) sent out the orders in 1847 with the noble Duke's concurrence. It was the opinion of the Cabinet of that day, not only that no subordinate authority should decide whether cause for offensive

  2385
  war had arisen or not; but that, if cause had really arisen, it was the height of rashness and imprudence, without such preparation and means as would make insistence hopeless, to attempt hostilities. It was only by acting on such a principle that it was likely that bloodshed would be prevented on one side, and, on the other, that the risk of danger and discredit would be averted from this country. He asked whether the events which were now stated to have taken place did not afford a signal proof of the justice of this view of the question? What had happened? Admitting, for argument's sake, the war to be just and politic—though he thought otherwise—yet it had been begun with inefficient means, so that, after burning 7,000 houses in a defenceless town, and after committing acts of violence and cruelty—for so he must call them—on a defenceless population, the British forces were now reduced to a state of ignominious defence, waiting for reinforcements in order to enable further proceedings to be adopted. This was placing the British nation in a position not at all creditable, and it arose from the sanction which had been given to the adoption of a course directly opposite to that which had been adopted by successive Secretaries of State, and renewed so recently as 1853 by the Duke of Newcastle.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHobserved, that there was no charge against the Admiral. The charge against Sir John Bowring, the friend of the noble Earl the President of the Council, was that he had entered upon this war without foreseeing the probable results of the opposition that he would encounter. The excuse of the noble Earl was that other mandarins had been beaten by a smaller force—as if all mandarins, because they were alike in dress, had the same understanding. Sir John Bowring ought to have known that all depended upon the individual character of the man who had the disposal of the Chinese military and naval forces. Sir John Bowring knew the character of Commissioner Yeh, and he must have known the weakness of character of the mandarin with whom Sir John Davis had to deal, and the course he should have pursued was precisely the reverse of that pursued by the former Governor.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Ellenborough) had framed his argument upon the knowledge of the events to which he had referred,
  2386
  while Sir John Bowring had, of course, to form his judgment before the events occurred. His noble Friend (Earl Grey) had certainly sent instructions to General D' Aguilar not to repeat an attempt with an insufficient force; but if he was not mistaken his noble Friend had previously approved an attempt which had happened to be successful, although success had resulted from the very rashness of the undertaking. At the same time, he did not think he was illogical in saying that it was not fair to put on Sir John Bowring exclusively the odium, if any odium existed, of having miscalculated the strength of the military and naval forces at his disposal. The first duty of Sir John Bowring was to consult the Admiral, and to act upon the advice he received from him as to the disposition of the forces; and whatever ridicule might attach to him for saying so, he was of opinion that if a certain operation, with a very inferior force, had been successful under certain circumstances, some encouragement was thereby afforded to create a belief that a similar proceeding with a stronger force would be successful. He had the honour of the acquaintance of Sir John Bowring, and he certainly would not shrink from considering him as his friend at a moment when he was subject to unjust and intemperate attacks.
  EARL GREY: His noble Friend had said he (Earl Grey) had approved a similar attempt made by General D' Aguilar. If his noble Friend would read that despatch he would find that it was cautiously worded so as to approve the manner in which a certain enterprise was effected. He was careful to express no opinion upon the prudence of the attempt itself, but he thought the troops were entitled to praise for the gallant manner in which they had conducted the operation. His opinion of the prudence of the measure was to be collected from the peremptory terms in which a repetition of any such attempt without a previous reference to the Home Government was positively prohibited.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, that although in a question of military and naval tactics the Admiral and General would be the fittest judges, yet the question here turned upon very different considerations. The Admiral had only recently arrived upon the station, and he knew nothing, and could know nothing, whatever of the character, the disposition, and means of resistance which might be afforded by an

  2387
  exasperated population. Sir John Bowring, on the contrary, had been a resident at Canton for many years, and it was but becoming and necessary in all matters involving the feelings and character of those people that the Admiral should refer and defer to the advice and experience of Sir John Bowring. Now, upon two points Sir John Bowring had been proved to have made a gross miscalculation. Repeatedly, in the course of this correspondence, he informed the Secretary of State that it was only necessary when this question of entering into the city of Canton was mooted that we should make a demonstration, that such a demonstration would be at once successful, and that there was not the slightest reason for apprehending any disaster, the responsibility of which he expressed himself ready to take upon himself if he could only obtain the desired permission to make the attempt. Successive Secretaries of State had refused to give him leave, but in defiance of them he had endeavoured to carry out his own views, and he could not now escape from the responsibility. Again, in the course of the correspondence that had been laid on the table, Sir John Bowring had repeatedly asserted that the only objection to his entering the city was on the part of the mandarins, and that the Chinese population had no objection to it. If that were so at the commencement of these proceedings, there was the more reason to complain of the conduct of Sir John Bowring in having converted a population who were friendly into the most bitter and resentful enemies that this country ever had. Those were the charges against Sir John Bowring; and without considering the means at his disposal, and miscalculating the opposition he was likely to meet with, and of which the Admiral could know nothing, he had taken upon himself the responsibility of disobeying his positive instructions, and had plunged the country into a war the end and cost of which no man could foretell.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, there are now two distinct charges against Sir John Bowring. Their Lordships must see the inconvenience of a debate which thus turned upon the character of an absent authority. The noble Earl who first rose complained that our military operations had ended in defeat, and that the Admiral had been obliged to assume a defensive position.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHacknowledged that the debate was irregular,
  2388
  but he would not detain their Lordships more than a moment. He believed that Sir John Bowring held the position of commander in chief. He was not merely the Governor of Hong Kong, but all the military and naval forces were under his direction. No doubt it was his duty to communicate with the Admiral and General with regard to any military and naval operations; but, having heard the opinion of those officers, Sir John Bowring became responsible, not merely for what he ordered, but for what he permitted. He must exercise his own judgment; and it was not fair to go to a military or a naval man to divide the responsibility with him. They could make but one answer, and Sir John Bowring must stand between them and the difficulty in which they were placed.
  LORD PANMUREsaid, that no doubt Sir John Bowring, like the Governor General of Canada, was the commander in chief of the forces. But what was the meaning of that? The meaning was, that if warlike operations were to be undertaken he was to decide what was to be done; but, as to the manner and the mode in which the operations were to be conducted, he should like to know how it could occur to any man of sense that Sir John Bowring at Hong Kong could direct the operations at Canton? He did not wish to put upon Admiral Seymour any responsibility that ought to fall upon Sir John Bowring, but he must say that in carrying out the details of operations which had been arranged in a council of war, where the advice of Admiral Seymour had been called in, to throw the responsibility of those operations entirely upon Sir John Bowring's shoulders was scarcely fair. Admiral Seymour found himself in a narrow river with ships drawing a considerable draught of water, and assailed by ships that drew very little water, which were coming out both above and below him; and to say that, because Admiral Seymour had quitted one position to take up a stronger position, the British force had been "licked," was quite contrary to the fact. Admiral Seymour had not been beaten. He had taken up a position necessary for the defence of his fleet. He had destroyed all the defences of the Chinese in those waters, and in neither of the positions that he had taken up had he shown any want of ability in guarding his ships from the attempts of the enemy to set them on fire. With reference to the position of affairs in the Canton river, one

  2389
  fact ought to be known to their Lordships which was mentioned by Admiral Seymour in a letter written after his public despatch was sent off; it was to the effect that the Emperor had written to the Chinese officers at the four ports, directing them to remain on terms of peaceful and amicable relations with the English, notwithstanding what had happened at Canton.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, the statement he made the other day was founded on what appeared in the public papers—namely, that a fire-boat had blown up under the bows of one of Her Majesty's vessels. He stated that in his opinion no fire-boat ought to be allowed to come close enough for such an event to occur. The noble Earl was quite wrong in supposing a mere rowing guard would keep off fire-boats, and if he would take the trouble to read the despatches written during the last war, under the direction of Sir George Cockburn and the Duke of Wellington, he would find there were more effectual means than that for protecting the fleet against fire-boats. It ought to be distinctly understood that there was no charge against Sir Michael Seymour for the manner in which he had directed the force at his disposal. The charge was against Sir John Bowring for having undertaken the operations at all.
  THE MARQUESS OF BREADALBANEdefended, upon high authority, the operations undertaken by Sir John Bowring and Sir Michael Seymour.
  LORD COLCHESTERcontended that Sir Michael Seymour had acted wrongly under pressure put upon him by Sir John Bowring, and that the latter only was to blame.

  TICKET-OF-LEAVE MEN.—QUESTION.
  VISCOUNT DUNGANNON VISCOUNT DUNGANNON rose to ask the Lord Privy Seal whether the system of granting tickets of leave was or would be for the present suspended, until some means were found for disposing of them, by transportation or otherwise? He hoped that when the new Parliament assembled some measure would be produced with this object. There had been a Bill pending, which had been brought in by the Government, but which, with many other measures, had been lost for the present, by the sudden dissolution now intended. The present system was most fearful in its operation, tending to increase crime to a
  2390
  terrible extent, and dangerous to the peaceable part of the community. The public, therefore, had some claim for a satisfactory explanation on the subject before the close of the Session.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYsaid, it was not intended to suspend the operation of the ticket-of-leave system as to the small number of convicts to whom it could now be applied.
  VISCOUNT DUNGANNON: What is the number?
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYcould not tell the exact number, but it was very small. With regard to the future, the Government intended to re-introduce the Bill, recently withdrawn, for consideration in the new Parliament.

CHINA.

  PAY OF TROOPS, &c.—QUESTION.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEinquired of the Secretary of State for War what pay and allowances the officers and soldiers about to be sent to China were to receive; and whether he would lay upon the table of the House an estimate or return showing the comparative cost of the British regiments serving in the Persian Gulf and upon the coast of China? He (the Marquess of Clanricarde) understood that the troops about to serve in China were not likely to receive such high pay as the troops serving in the Persian Gulf; and he could not understand upon what ground the distinction was to be made, seeing that the troops about to proceed to China were embarking upon an enterprise fraught with danger to their lives and health, and one in which there would be as little excitement or hope of glory as any in which British troops could be employed. The noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Ellenborough), the other night, had alluded to the camp followers in India. He (the Marquess of Clanricarde) confessed he was ignorant of the necessity of attaching camp followers to the English troops on their arrival in China; but he had no doubt such necessity existed, inasmuch as their services appeared always to have been in requisition. Be that as it might, he should be glad to hear from his noble Friend the Secretary of State for War a reply to the question he had put to him.
  LORD PANMURE: My noble Friend is quite right in one respect—there is a difference between the pay of the troops serving in the Persian expedition and that

  2391
  of the troops about to be sent out in the expedition to China. The troops serving in the Persian expedition are drawn from the Indian establishment, and have been receiving the regular pay and allowances assigned to troops belonging to the East India Company; but the troops going from this country to China are in a different position. They are now going on an expedition from this country, which is to be paid for out of the funds of this country, and they will not be put on the same pay and allowances as the East India Company assigns to our troops serving within their territories. The troops will receive the usual pay, and every precaution besides will be taken that their rations—which will be above what are called the ordinary rations in time of war—are prepared and served with a view to the maintenance of their health; but there will be no increase of pay to the troops absolutely. With reference, however, to the officers, there is by the regulations an allowance called an "extraordinary field allowance," which every officer receives in advance, preparatory to taking the field. The officers will receive six months of this extraordinary field allowance, which will enable them to prepare for taking the field. But in Hong Kong there is a colonial allowance, as at the Mauritius and Ceylon, paid to the troops serving in that colony, and on arriving at Hong Kong that will be made good to the troops going out on this expedition, so as to place them in the same position as the troops now serving at Hong Kong. These are our intentions with regard to the troops about to serve in the Chinese expedition, and I shall have no objection to lay upon the table a return of the nature for which the noble Marquess has asked. I have only to add that, while this expedition will be conducted with a due regard to economy, every attention will be at the same time paid to the health of the troops and to their maintenance in a state of efficiency; and, for that purpose, the Government has resolved that, as the troops will land in China when the hot weather will prevail, an adequate number of camp followers from India shall be attached to them, and General Ashburnham has been instructed to apply his Indian experience in apportioning those camp followers among the troops on their arrival at Hong Kong. In addition to that, arrangements will be made at Penang for conveying the sick by means of steam vessels
  2392
  between Hong Kong and that station; and I trust that every precaution will be taken to prevent that sacrifice of life from disease which unfortunately happened among the troops during the former expedition to China.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH: The noble Lord is mistaken in supposing there is any difference in the pay of the privates—the only difference is in the allowance to the officers on the East India Establishment. With respect to the camp followers, the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Clanricarde) will, perhaps, by this time be satisfied of the necessity of attaching them to the expedition. Among those camp followers there are people called cooks, who, according to our notions, are certainly a necessary class of persons, and water-carriers who may be said to be invaluable. I should observe, also, that camp followers contribute considerably to the efficiency of a regiment, inasmuch as all these duties must be performed by the soldiers if not performed by them. From what fell from the noble Baron, I understand that, with true English feeling, he is about to supply the troops going to China with more to eat. Now, from considerable experience of hot climates, I can assure him that that is the very worst thing he can do; that in such climates the less a man eats the better, and that what the noble Baron proposes will be the greatest mistake he ever committed. I can assure the noble Baron that, if he ever went to India, it would be quite impossible for him to take that indulgence in the way of living which I dare say he takes now without the slightest harm. Passing from this, it appears to me that the Government are pursuing a course which is within the strict letter of the regulations; but, at the same time, I venture to represent that these officers will have to incur a great expense in fitting themselves out for this war. They will be required to prepare not for garrison duty only, but for actual warfare—a warfare, too, in which many things will be necessary which may be dispensed with in a European contest. If, therefore, any indulgence can be extended to them consistent with the interests of the service, and not leading to the establishment of an inconvenient precedent, it would be most desirable that such indulgence should be granted. Before sitting down I wish to call the attention of the noble Earl the President of the Council to an expression

  2393
  which fell from him last night with reference rather to France than to China, and which surely must have escaped him inadvertently. The noble Earl stated that the relations between this country and France were never of a more friendly character, and he expressed great satisfaction that French troops would again co-operate with our own in China. Now, I imagine the word "troops" must have been used inaccurately, and that the noble Earl only alluded to a marine force. But, my Lords, I most deeply regret that there is to be any co-operation whatever. We know nothing of any quarrel which the Emperor of the French has with the Emperor of China. We know that we have none with the Emperor of China. Our quarrel is at present confined to the Cantonese and to Commissioner Yeh; and nothing could be so inconvenient, so inconsistent with justice and with policy, as to extend that quarrel to the Emperor of China, and to light up a war in all the other ports as well as in that of Canton. My Lords, I deprecate the intervention of France at this moment. Why should she take advantage of the difficulty in which we are placing China in order to obtain for herself terms to which she is not entitled? There is no pretence for such intervention, and I can hardly imagine expressions which I should think too strong to apply to the conduct of our Government if we were to take advantage of a disposition on the part of France thus to interfere for her own purposes in order to obtain the assistance (of most questionable value) which would be afforded by the presence of a French squadron in the Chinese waters. We desire peace; we desire the re-establishment of friendly relations; we do not desire to extort new terms from the Emperor of China; we desire only to stand where we were, and to relieve ourselves from the difficulties in which Governor Bowring has plunged us. There is one other point, upon which I feel very strongly, and upon which I must venture to offer what can only be a suggestion to Her Majesty's Government, because I have not that knowledge of the facts which they possess, and which may lead them, possibly, to a different conclusion. I regret the accidental absence of the noble Earl the Foreign Secretary, because what I am about to say relates perhaps more particularly to his department. We have now a force at Bushire which is amply sufficient for the protection of that place. A force of about the same
  2394
  strength has been despatched from Bombay, and has not yet arrived. Those troops, I imagine, were not intended to strengthen the garrison in Bushire, already sufficient, but to conduct some new operation. Whatever was the course of proceeding determined on, the force in question is obviously not required at Bushire. There, as I understood the noble Earl (the Earl of Clarendon), no movement was to take place on either side until the ratification of the treaty. That new force therefore cannot move at Bushire, and can do nothing whatever. Now, I beg to suggest to the Government that they should instantly send positive orders to Bushire to despatch one European regiment and two native regiments of that force to China. The presence of those troops may be absolutely required for the protection of Singapore and Hong Kong. I feel satisfied that without the assistance of Native troops, the efforts, however gallant they may be, if the European troops we are sending will be of little or no avail, and that great risk will be encountered with little chance of success. These orders—absolute orders, leaving no discretion whatever to the officer in command, for I feel perfectly satisfied that if the least discretion were left to him he would keep the troops with him—would arrive at Bushire hence, I trust, in a month, and in a month from that time these troops would be at Singapore and Hong Kong. On the other hand the troops we are now sending out will not arrive in China for three months and a half, and the gain in these six weeks may be invaluable for the protection of our interests. There may be circumstances with which I am unacquainted which may render inexpedient this movement. I venture only to suggest it to the Government as a measure which, in my opinion, should be instantly adopted.
  LORD PANMURE: I have to thank the noble Earl for his suggestion. In all these matters he has given many valuable hints, some of which I have availed myself of, and I am sure that the counsel he tenders is offered with no other desire than that of being useful. With reference to the rations of the troops, alluded to by the noble Earl, I will just state that the object is not to increase the quantity served out to the troops to eat and drink, but to diversify their food so as to conduce more completely to their health and efficiency.
  EARL GREY: I confess that I have listened with some alarm to the conversation which has taken place this evening. When

  2395
  first it was announced that this force was to be sent out we were told that it was to protect the lives and property of British subjects in China. It now appears that a very large force is going to be sent, and that this force (if I correctly understand what has been said) is to be equipped in a manner which shall enable them to undertake operations of some importance on shore. Now, I do hope and trust we are not going to embark in that most dangerous and fatal measure—an invasion of the great empire of China. I hope that Her Majesty's Government, in pursuing the measures which they are now taking, have some clear and definite object before them—because, as far as we are yet informed, no such object appears to be in view. After all, my Lords, what do we want with China? Our interest in China is simply to carry on our trade. If we are to embark in a war, every blow which we inflict on China will recoil upon ourselves. We cannot destroy property in China, we cannot burn towns there and lay waste, or cause others to lay waste, any portion of territory, without, by such a destruction of Chinese property, rendering them worse customers of ours and less able to supply us with the goods we want from them. We were told at first that British lives and British property only were to be protected. For my own part, I confess that, with a very large naval force, and a certain amount of military force also, I cannot conceive how British property can be in any danger. Hong Kong is an island very easily defended, for the Chinese are totally incapable of competing with us at sea; Singapore is in the same position; and, at the four ports, I trust that, if prudential measures are adopted, anything like a struggle will be avoided. Of this, however, I am quite certain, that if we are to attempt anything like an invasion of China, we are at the beginning of a system which, once entered upon, it will be very difficult to put a stop to, and which will be most fatal to the true interests of this country.
  EARL GRANVILLE: I really think that in my noble Friend's very earnest and conscientious wish to preserve peace he sometimes overlooks the most obvious means of arriving at that end. I cannot imagine any of your Lordships will believe that the Plenipotentiary whom Her Majesty's Government have determined to send out to re-establish satisfactory relations between the two countries is less likely to accomplish that object if backed up by a considerable
  2396
  naval and military force. As to my affording any intimation with regard to the instructions which will be given to the commanders of this force, I am sure my noble Friend will, upon reflection, be the last to press me to make any such disclosure.
  House adjourned at half-past Six o'clock, till To-morrow, Twelve o'clock.