Sitting of 12 May 1857

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1o Sale of Beer; Property Qualification; Aggravated Assaults; Savings Banks.

LORDS COMMISSIONERS' SPEECH—HER MAJESTY'S ANSWER TO THE ADDRESS.
THE COMPTROLLER OF THE HOUSEHOLD (Viscount Castlerosse)reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:
"I HAVE received with much satisfaction your loyal and dutiful Address.
"IT is gratifying to Me to be assured that the measures which will be proposed to you will receive your earnest consideration, and I feel confident that you will concur with Me in My endeavours to promote the well being and prosperity of My people throughout My Dominions."

EXCHEQUER CHAMBER (IRELAND).

  QUESTION.
  MR. LOFTUS BLANDasked the Attorney General for Ireland whether Her Majesty's Government intended to bring in a Bill this present Session to assimilate the Court of Exchequer Chamber in Ireland to that of England?
  MR. FITZGERALDsaid, that in the month of March last, in reply to a similar question, he had stated that he would during the recess take the opportunity of consulting the Irish Judges on the subject, and that he had now to state that he had drawn up a Bill with their almost unanimous concurrence, which he should lay before the House in a few days.

CITY CORPORATION REFORM.

  QUESTION.
  MR. LAURIEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Government meant to proceed with the Corporation of London Bill this Session?
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he could not give a decided answer to the question until he had seen what progress was made with other and more important business.

PETTY SESSIONS CLERKS (IRELAND).

  QUESTION.
  MR. GREGORYasked the Attorney General for Ireland whether it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to bring in any Bill during the present Session for the regulation of Petty Sessions Clerks' salaries in Ireland?
  MR. FITZGERALDsaid, it was the intention of the Government to reintroduce in the course of the present Session the Bill which had been laid before the last Parliament with modifications.

AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. CAIRDasked the Vice President of the Board of Trade whether the Government intended to take any steps for collecting agricultural statistics in England?
  MR. LOWEsaid, he was not aware that the Government had any such intention at present.

THE KING OF OUDE'S DEBTS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. FAGANasked the President of the Board of Control whether it was intended to apply any portion of the money borrowed by the Government of India from the King of Oude [see printed Return, No. 102, 14th March, 1856] to the payment of public and bonâ fide debts still unpaid and payable to the creditors of that Prince?—[See printed Return, No. 140, 18th March, 1857.]
  MR. V. SMITHsaid, that all the public and bonâ fide debts of the King of Oude would be referred to the Government of India, and, though he was not prepared to say that any particular sum would be allotted for the purpose of defraying them, yet any debt which was shown to be public and bonâ fide would no doubt be paid out of the ordinary revenues of the, country.

CIVIL SERVICE SUPERANNUATION.

  QUESTION.
  MR. MACARTNEYasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Report of the Civil Service Superannuation Commission would be laid upon the table, and whether the Government contemplated introducing, at an early day, a Bill to alter

  209
  the system under which the superannuation allowances were at present provided?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that he had been informed by the Secretary to the Commissioners that the Report would probably be presented in the course of the next week, and until they had seen the Report the Government could not come to any decision upon the subject of their inquiries.

  SHIPPING DUES—QUESTION.
  MR. HUDSONasked the Vice President of the Board of Trade when he intended to introduce a Bill for the abolition of the Passing Tolls; also, whether he proposed to introduce any Bill for the abolition of the charges on shipping at Liverpool and other places, and also for taking away the power of the Trinity House at Newcastle in the appointment of pilots for the port of Sunderland?
  MR. LOWEsaid, that it was the intention of the Government, when the stale of public business would allow, to introduce a Bill founded on some of the recommendations of the Commissioners for inquiring into the subject of the shipping dues, who reported in 1854, but it would be more convenient if he were to reserve a statement of its details until he asked for leave to introduce the Bill.

THE ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSION.

  QUESTION.
  LORD ROBERT CECILasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it was his intention to bring in a Bill embodying such of the suggestions of the Committee of last Session upon the Ecclesiastical Commission as required the sanction of Parliament?
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that he hoped very soon to be able to give notice of a Bill founded on the Report of the Commissioners.

  THE UNITED STATES AND NEW GRANADA.
  MR. WYLDsaid, he wished to put to the noble Lord at the head of the Government a question of which he had given notice. He believed it was well known that an expedition was being fitted out in the ports of the United States the destination of which was said to be the coasts of central America and the territory of
  210
  New Granada. The question he had to ask was, whether Her Majesty's Government intended to station a naval force in that quarter for the protection of British interests?
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, in reply to the question of my hon. Friend, I have to state that the Government have stationed, or are about to station, on the coasts of Central America, on both sides, naval forces which they think sufficient for the protection of British interests; but, considering the interest—I may say the anxiety—which has been excited in the public mind by the rumours to which my hon. Friend has referred, it would be more agreeable probably to the House that I should give a short explanation of this question, and of its present position. My hon. Friend and the House are aware that some months ago there occurred a very deplorable scene of violence and outrage at the Isthmus of Panama; that a quarrel began—nobody well knew how—some people say that it was a simple dispute between a passenger and a native about a water-melon; but, at all events, it acted like a spark thrown upon a smouldering fire, which burst out into a flame, and the reciprocal dislike which had been long growing up led to acts of great violence and scenes of bloodshed which everybody must deeply deplore. The United States' Government applied for redress for the past and security for the future, but I am sorry to say that the Government of New Granada, which is not particularly celebrated for accurate recollections of duties or performance of obligations, refused compliance with those demands. Thence arose negotiations and communications between the United States and New Granada Governments, which have not yet led to any satisfactory termination. It is quite clear, I think, that that which is true in regard to private property is true also in regard to sovereignty—that there is attached to it duties as well as rights; and that the Government of New Granada is bound to provide for the security of persons and property passing along the railway through its dominions. The excuse which it gave for refusing compensation to those who suffered by these excesses was, I think, to a certain degree, its own condemnation, because it alleged that the high-handed proceedings of the passengers for a long time before had created great exasperation, and it, therefore, was not wonderful that a

  211
  slight cause should produce very considerable results. Now, I must say that if they knew that this great exasperation existed, it was their duty to take measures to prevent the commission of outrages, either by foreigners upon their own subjects, or by their own subjects upon foreigners. We have been in communication with the United States Government upon this matter—a matter which evidently concerns not merely the interests of the citizens of the United States, but also those of the citizens of all other nations whose people are in the habit of traversing this isthmus. I am happy to say that the United States' Government profess the most just and honourable intentions. They disclaim any desire to occupy or take possession of any portion of the territory of New Granada, or of occupying the railway. That which they say they are naturally entitled to expect is security for their citizens in passing and repassing the isthmus by railway; and they naturally also require some redress for the injuries which were sustained upon the occasion to which I have referred. I am happy to say that their requirements are such as would be made by any Government in a similar position, and that they entirely disclaim any intention of taking advantage of this quarrel for the purpose of putting forward any unjust or aggressive demands against the Government of the State of New Granada.

AGGRAVATED ASSAULTS BILL.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  MR. DILLWYN,in moving for leave to introduce a Bill to repeal the Act 16 & 17 Vict., c. 30, and to make better provision for the prevention and punishment of Aggravated Assaults upon Women and Children, and for preventing delay and expense in the Administration of certain parts of the Criminal Law, said, that he trusted that he should be able to show to Her Majesty's Government that the time had now arrived when some alteration in the Act of Parliament upon this subject was imperative, and that he would have their support for the Bill he now proposed. When a similar proposition was brought forward in 1853 the noble Lord at the head of Her Majesty's Government, speaking of an Amendment to the existing Act, moved by his Friend Mr. Phinn, then Member for Bath, by which Amendment it was proposed to inflict corporal punish-
  212
  ment for aggravated assaults upon women and children, asked the House first of all to try the remedy then proposed, and then if it failed he should not oppose the introduction of some stronger measure. Experience had shown that such a measure was now necessary, the offence in question not being perceptibly affected by the Act in question, and being very far indeed from a light one. He said this Bill was similar to that which he introduced last year, and one of his reasons for proposing it again was, that he had a new House to appeal to on the subject. He did not intend his measure to apply to cases in which a man had simply struck a woman, although that was unmanly enough, or had reasonably chastised a child. The cases with which he wished to deal were those in which a man, infuriated by evil passions or by drink, knocked down, kicked, trampled upon, and dragged by the hair the unfortunate victim of his brutality, or systematically beat a young child. To show that such cases really occurred, he quoted two cases from the police reports of the last year. In the first of these cases, which was tried at the Westminster Police-court—
  "William Eberland, a tinker, living at Maidenhead-court, St. Ermine's-hill, Westminster, was charged with cruelty to Ellen Eberland, his child, aged twelve years.
  "Complainant, a wretched picture of misery and neglect, said,—The defendant is my father. I have a mother, who lived at home with us, but is now in prison. My father heat me last night with a whip, because he had left some money on the shelf, which got lost, though I knew nothing about it. My father was drunk; he never beats me when he is sober. My mother has been away a long while. My two little sisters and brother were the only persons in the house. He took me out of bed, and beat me with the whip. I had nothing on but my chemise. I cried out till a woman came into the room, and then I went down stairs, and was taken to the workhouse.
  "Ferris Carr, 206 B, said,—About half-past I this morning I was fetched to the house. I went upstairs and found the child naked, excepting a bit of a skirt round her body, bleeding from the shoulders and back. The prisoner had got a gutta percha whip in his hand, which he threw away when I entered. I told him I should take him to the station, when he said, 'I'll throw you out of the window.' I got assistance and took him into custody. He was drunk, but knew well what he was about.
  "Mr. Arnold: What was the condition of the children?
  "Witness: Most wretched; I never saw anything so bad in my life.
  "Mrs. Elizabeth Perry, the next witness, said,—I was passing and heard shrieks and cries. I heard the poor child say, 'Father, father, pray don't beat me any more, I'll try and find the

  213
  money;' but he kept on boating her. A woman told me he had been beating her for two hours. I went to her; she had no skirt on. She was naked. I put the skirt on her, and covered her with the shawl she now wears. I noticed her back. She had been much beaten about and ill-used. I saw blood from the marks of the whip on her back and shoulders.
  "The child was here examined, and her back appeared one mass of severe lacerations, reaching from the shoulders down to the waist. The gutta percha, whip (a stout riding whip with a thin point) was produced in court.
  "A sergeant said that besides the lacerations exhibited on the body and shoulders, the child's legs were literally covered with wounds.
  "A nurse from the workhouse proved that the child's back was bleeding very much. There were similar injuries on both thighs and the calves of the legs. All the children were in the most filthy state.
  "A next-door neighbour to the accused proved hearing fearful cries of distress from the child for half an hour. She remonstrated, but he continued to beat her. Witness never heard cries before.
  "The case was adjourned, in order to procure the evidence of other persons in the same house to show prisoner's previous treatment of the child.''
  In the second —
  "James Martin, a carpenter, was charged before Mr. D'Eyncourt with cruelty to his wife.
  "Bristow, N 59, said, at two this morning, while on duty in Hoxton, I heard the sobs of a woman in Founder's-place, and on going a little further found the prisoner's wife crying, with a little child, which was almost naked, in her arms, and six other children in grief clinging to her. She said her husband had turned them all out, and on my asking why he had done so he invited me in. I refused, and as the woman and children came trembling up he exclaimed to his wife, with an oath, that he ' would give it to her,' and dealt a kick at her with all his force. The woman did not cry out, but I seized him, saying I could not see him commit such violence as that, and he instantly exclaimed 'I'll do for you, and struck her with his fist in the face. The blow, in my opinion, was struck as hard as he could hit her, for she reeled staggering against the wall of the passage, and when I saw her face full half an hour after wards it was very badly swollen. The man was somewhat the worse for drink, while the woman was perfectly sober, and, as she refused to charge him, I took hint to the Robert-street station and charged him myself.
  "Mr.D'Eyncourt: I find that half the outrages upon women brought here arise from drunkenness. What do you say to the charge?
  "Prisoner: Why, I don't recollect much about it. I have not had any work since Christmas.
  "Mr. D'Eyncourt: And yet you can find money enough to get intoxicated, and while in that state ill-treat your wife and turn her and the whole of your children into the street at two in the morning. This is really too gross; you will go for two months' hard labour in the House of Correction, where, in spite of your inclination to the contrary, you will be kept sober, and when you come out of prison do remember the ties that
  214
  bind you, and try and keep sober in consideration of your wife and her helpless children. (To the officer of the district.) You will see if a little assistance is not wanted by his family during the man's imprisonment,"
  Cases infinitely worse than these had occurred, but, as he did not wish to overstate his case, he would not refer to any others. The crime was one of frequent occurrence. In order to ascertain what effect the liability to a long imprisonment had in deterring persons from committing such assaults, he had moved for certain returns, by which he found that in the years 1854, 1355, the total number of convictions for this offence in the metropolis was 877. During the course of last year the number of convictions in the metropolis under the present Act were 374, and although the number was smaller than that of the preceding year, the diminution was very small, and there were a great many cases in which men who had been previously convicted of aggravated assaults were again brought before the magistrate charged with the same offence,—a circumstance which clearly proved that the present punishment of a lengthened imprisonment was inadequate to deter men from the commission of those assaults. In the Bill which he now asked for leave to introduce, he proposed to give power to inflict the only punishment which he believed would tend to check the offence, He proposed to diminish the term of imprisonment, but at the same time to place in the hands of the magistrates a power of ordering the ruffians a sound flogging, which was the only thing, he believed, that would be found really effectual. When he had brought forward this subject before, one of the leading prints had entirely mistaken the object he had in view, and had spoken of it as an interference between husbands and wives. In reality, it was not a question between a man and his wife, but between man and woman—between brute force and helpless weakness, as was easily proved; for during the past year, in the Hammersmith Police-court, out of forty-seven of these assaults, only twenty-seven were committed upon wives, while there had been one upon a sister, fourteen upon strangers, and five upon children, He hoped, therefore, that there would be no misapprehension that he intended to interfere between a man and his wife. The evil existed to a great extent, and having tried both fines and imprisonment, he appealed to the House to

  215
  try something which the perpetrators of it would feel. Generally he was averse to corporal punishment, but in these cases he thought it deserved. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving for leave to bring in a Bill to repeal the Act of the 16 & 17 Vict. c. 30, and to make better provision for the prevention and punishment of Aggravated Assaults upon Women and Children, and for preventing delay and expense in the administration of certain parts of the Criminal Law.
  MR. BENTINCKseconded the Motion.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he had no great confidence in the efficiency of the remedy proposed, but would offer no objection to the introduction of the Bill; he wished, however, to add that in his opinion the hon. Gentleman had incorrectly assumed that the Act at present in force had been inoperative because a great number of cases of assault had been brought before the police-courts. The great object of that Act was to provide a remedy by affording immediate means of punishment. Before that Act it was found that in cases of Aggravated Assaults it was necessary to send them to sessions, and then in a vast majority of cases the sufferers would not come forward to give evidence, and the culprits escaped. That Act, however, provided that the person committing an assault could be brought before a magistrate immediately after the injury had been inflicted, and be summarily sentenced to six months' imprisonment with hard labour. Under these circumstances, no doubt, a greater number of cases were brought under the notice of the public than had been under the previous system; but still he had no doubt that that Act had in reality tended to diminish the actual number of these assaults. It had not, nor had any criminal act, put a complete stop to the crime which it was intended to reach, but it had produced results decidedly beneficial, and they would do well to pause and examine the matter well before they adopted an experimental remedy. If any further remedy, however, could be proposed, it was the duty of the House to take it into consideration, and he should not therefore oppose the introduction of the Bill.
  Leave given.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. DILLWYN, Mr. BENTINCK, and Viscount RAYNHAM,
  Bill presented, and read 1o.

SALE OF BEER—COMMITTEE.

  RESOLUTION. BILL PRESENTED. FIRST READING.
  MR. HARDYmoved, that the Acts to Regulate the Sale of Beer be read at the table.
  Acts read.
  House in Committee.
  MR. HARDYrose to move for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the laws relating to the general sale of beer by retail, and to regulate certain places of public resort, refreshment, and entertainment; and observed, that it was not his intention to occupy the Committee with any lengthened remarks in introducing this measure, because it was before the House last Session, and it was quite clear that the subject to which he referred required legislation. Indeed, the Secretary for the Home Department stated, only a few days ago, that the whole of the licencing system required consideration, but at the same time did not hold out any expectation that the Government, either in this or in any other Session, would introduce a measure upon it. [Sir G. GREY: I said that I should not oppose its introduction.] But even if it had been the intention of the Government to have done so, he should have felt it to be his duty to persevere with his Bill, in favour of which he had received the strongest assurances of support from all parts of the country. Now, without referring to the details which had been laid before the Committee who had sat upon the subject of the Bill, he should content himself with appealing to the experience of those hon. Gentlemen who were accustomed to act as magistrates and grand jurors whether that subject was not one which demanded the most careful scrutiny?
  At present there was an extraordinary anomaly existing in connection with it to which his attention had been particularly directed, and which consisted in the fact that there were two descriptions of houses licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquors—namely, those public-houses which had been established for the sale of wines and spirits, and those houses known under the name of beer-shops, which had been established since the year 1830. Now, it seemed to him to be somewhat remarkable that the latter class of houses, which had originally been licensed for the purpose of meeting the wants of the poorer classes

  217
  of society by supplying them with a wholesome beverage, which they might either drink on the premises, or carry home to their own houses, should be permitted to receive their licenses without any satisfactory examination being entered into as to the characters of their proprietors or the general fitness of the establishments themselves, while the higher class of public-houses were liable to a much stricter scrutiny. It was also, in his opinion, a great anomaly that, when magistrates in the exercise of their jurisdiction deprived the keepers of public-houses of their licences in consequence of some misconduct, those very persons, as a matter of every-day occurrence, opened beer-shops for the sale of intoxicating liquors, under the very noses of the magistrates, and gathered around them the very class of people who had previously been their customers, and who had brought their establishments into disrepute. He wished, therefore, to see both descriptions of houses placed upon the same footing, and the main object of this Bill was, that beer-shops should be licensed in the same manner as public-houses. It had been said that the question was one with which it was difficult to deal on account of the amount of capital which was invested in the trade; but he had also directed his attention to that point, and he did not propose to interfere with the existing beer-shops, which would still continue, as at present, under the Excise while in the same hands, unless by some misconduct upon the part of their proprietors they were brought under the cognizance of the magistrates. When such an occurrence took place, he proposed that the person who sought to obtain a licence should go to the magistrates and not to the Excise, as was at present the case, He wished, moreover, to extend the operation of the Tippling Act, and thus to put a stop to that system of giving credit in beer-shops which was the cause of the ruin of so many families. It constantly happened that men under the influence of intoxication ran up considerable scores at those places, the payment of which they always disputed, for a man when drunk could not tell what quantity of liquor he had had, and the consequence was that the County Courts were very frequently occupied in trying actions for debts of that description, which under the beneficial rule which prevailed in the old Courts of Request could not lawfully be recovered. That was an
  218
  evil with which the Bill proposed to deal. There was also another matter, in reference to which he wished to make a few remarks.
  A question had been asked as to the manner in which he would treat places of public entertainment—not public-houses in the ordinary sense of the word. That question was gone into very fully by the Committee of 1853–54, and the result of their inquiries was to convince him that it would be beneficial to place coffee-shops, and places of that description where spirituous liquors were not sold, under the superintendence of the police, and to regulate them so, that if their proprietors happened to lose their licences for misconduct, a certain time should elapse before the licence could be renewed; and his firm conviction was, that by making these coffee-shops more respectable, a great benefit would be conferred upon the classes by whom they were frequented. He had heard a great deal said upon the subject of unfair licensing, but he felt assured that anybody who had paid attention to the report of the Committee must perceive that the imputation of unfairness which had been cast upon the magistrates was to be attributed rather to the colouring which disappointed applicants for licences had given to their acts, than to any want of fairness in those acts themselves. As the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department had informed him that he would not oppose the introduction of the measure, he should not trouble the Committee further, but would at once conclude by moving to resolve—
  "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Laws relating to the general Sale of Beer and Cider by retail in England, and to regulate certain places of public resort, refreshment, and entertainment."
  MR. KER SEYMERregretted that the hon. Gentleman had not asked for leave to introduce two separate Bills to effect the two distinct objects which he seemed to have in view—namely, the licensing, under certain restrictions, of coffee as well as of beer-shops. There was no doubt in his (Mr. Seymer's) opinion that coffee-shops and similar places of public entertainment, did require regulation, and that they ought to have a moderate licence imposed upon them as a means of bringing them from time to time under the cognizance of some public authority. If his hon. Friend had brought forward a Bill to effect that object, he would have had his sup-

  219
  port. He, however, not only did so, but proposed to carry to a greater extent the anomalous state of things in reference to public-houses and beer-shops which had been already condemned by the report of a Committee of that House. That anomaly of having two classes of licensed houses for the sale of wine, spirits, and beer, the Committee had suggested should be got rid of by granting but one licence, and by the institution of a strict investigation into the character of those establishments. No magistrate, however, ought to be called upon to decide what were the wants of a district or neighbourhood; and the present system under which the beer trade was regulated involved, in point of fact, the question of monopoly or free trade. His hon. Friend, however, had adopted a different course, and as he (Mr. Seymer) believed the question involved in the Bill to be one of principle, he should most certainly oppose it when it came on for second reading.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, that he felt great regret that Her Majesty's Government would not deal with the subject of the Bill instead of leaving it in the hands of a private Member. He was a Member of the Committee which had just been referred to, and should much have wished to see legislation follow on their Report. The evils connected with the existence of the present state of things was so great that he for one felt disposed to support any measure by which relief from those two evils could be obtained. He could not, however, hope that his hon. Friend near him was likely to carry his Bill to a successful issue, considering the brief period which would probably elapse before the close of the Session, and he therefore was anxious to ascertain from the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department whether, considering that the Committee had been presided over by a Member of the Government—had been promoted entirely by the Government—and that fourteen years had elapsed since their reports were presented to the House, he could hold out any hope that in the next Session of Parliament the Government would themselves bring in a Bill upon the subject? If any such hope could be held out, although he could not pretend to say what course his hon. Friend might choose to adopt, he should advise him not to press his measure now, but wait the appearance of a Government Bill.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that the hon.
  220
  Gentleman who asked for leave to introduce the Bill under the notice of the Committee had last Session brought in a similar measure, which had stood for a second reading, but which, the House had never had an opportunity of discussing at that stage of its progress. He had therefore informed the hon. Gentleman that he should offer no opposition to its reintroduction. He had not, however, pledged himself to support the Bill, and he might now state to the Committee that he had received several communications expressing the strongest desire that it should not pass into a law. The enormous amount of capital which was invested in the beer trade rendered it necessary that the question should be dealt with with the utmost care. Coffee-shops might be much more easily regulated than the other establishments to which reference had been made, but he must at the same time observe that he did not think it would be advisable to consider the two classes of houses separately. In answer to the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich, he could only say that the Government had no intention to introduce a measure to regulate the sale of beer during the present Session, nor could he make any promise with reference to the introduction of a Bill next year which would justify him in asking the hon. Gentleman opposite to withdraw the Bill which he had submitted to their consideration. They must, first of all, see what were the evils it was desired to remedy, and also the difficulties in which the subject was involved. The discussion on the second reading of the present Bill might clear the way to a considerable extent; but if the measure was the same as that introduced last year, he was afraid he could hold out very little hope of its receiving the support of the Government.
  MR. HARDY,referring to the observations which had fallen from the hon. Member for Dorset (Mr. K. Seymer), said, that if the hon. Gentleman should introduce a Bill in strict accordance with the suggestions contained in the Report of the Committee, but—as he (Mr. Hardy) should undertake to show—not in accordance with the evidence, he should be prepared to offer to it as strenuous an opposition as the hon. Gentleman had promised to offer to the measure under the notice of the Committee. It had been said that the Bill he proposed was contrary to the principle of free trade. But the report of the Committee was not in favour

  221
  of free trade. It was free trade with a prohibition, for it was recommended to put on such a duty as would prove a prohibition to all but the richer class of tradesmen.
  Motion agreed to.
  Resolved, "That the Chairman be directed to move the House, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Laws relating to the general Sale of Beer and Cider by retail in England, and to regulate certain places of public resort, refreshment, and entertainment."
  House resumed.
  Resolution reported.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. HARDY and Mr. HEADLAM "To amend the Laws relating to the general Sale of Beer and Cyder by retail in England, and to regulate certain places of public resort, refreshment, and entertainment."
  Bill presented, and read 1o.

PROPERTY QUALIFICATION BILL.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  MR. LOCKE KING,in moving for leave to bring in a Bill to abolish Property Qualification for Members of Parliament, said that it appeared to him a fitting time for bringing the question forward when the whole House, with some few exceptions, had been so recently compelled—many of them at some trouble and expense—to hand in a statement of their qualifications. The present state of the law was surrounded by anomalies, He was well aware that it was still considered by some to be desirable that differences and anomalies in the qualifications of electors should be kept up—that while an inhabitant in one locality was represented if he occupied a house of a certain value, an inhabitant in another locality must occupy five times as much in value in order to be an elector. He could not understand why there should be anomalies among the elected—but county Members were obliged to have a property qualification of £600 a year, while borough Members were only called upon to show a property qualification of £300. Gentlemen north of the Tweed were elected without any property qualification at all. Members for the Universities, the eldest sons of Peers, and the sons of knights of the shire also took their seats without producing any property qualification. When he compared those Members who produced a property qualification with those who were exempt from this necessity, he could not see that the Members for counties, and for England, Wales, and Ireland generally, were
  222
  so superior to those from Scotland and the Universities as to show the necessity for the distinction. Among other anomalies which the present state of the law presented, it would be in the recollection of many Members that an hon. Gentleman had a seat in that House, and remained a Member of it for forty years. He sat as the eldest son of a Peer, and at the general election after his father's death he continued to sit without banding in his qualification. Had it not been for the leniency of the House in acceding to a Motion that he might be allowed to hand in his qualification, this Gentleman might have been in a serious dilemma. The case of the son of a knight of the shire was another absurd anomaly, for if re-elected after his father's death he could not take his place without handing in his qualification. But the strongest argument of all was that supplied by the right hon. Gentleman in the chair. He had been unanimously elected by the House, and the Crown had approved the election; yet the right hon. Gentleman stood upon the steps of the chair, and before he could take his seat in it, was obliged to hand in a statement of his qualification. The property qualification had its origin at a period when it was considered desirable to shut out the trading classes from the House, and an actual qualification, in landed property, was accordingly insisted upon. But that necessity for a qualification had been removed, and the trading classes were now allowed to sit without landed qualification if they possessed the requisite amount of personal property. If Members were elected by universal suffrage there might be some argument in favour of a property qualification, but as there was no approach to such a state of things, he saw no reason for any longer insisting upon a property qualification. He would accordingly move for leave to bring in a Bill to abolish the Property Qualification for Members of Parliament.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, I thought it had been the understanding of the House that all questions connected with the representation of the people in Parliament and the organization of this House, should be postponed until next Session, and should not be brought into discussion in the meantime. At the same time, if my hon. Friend is desirous, as he may well be, of laying before Parliament the ideas that he wishes to see embodied

  223
  in a Bill on this subject, I am not going to oppose his intention. It will be satisfactory to him, no doubt, to lay before Parliament the arrangement that he prefers to see adopted in the place of that which exists. Under these circumstances, I hope he will not think it amiss if I abstain from entering upon a discussion of the Bill that he proposes, that I approve of it, and I hope he will forgive me if I say that he has not stated any very conclusive grounds why we should agree to the change he proposes. It appears to me that my hon. Friend has himself acted on the understanding that exists, that discussion on these subjects is not desirable during the present Session. I trust, therefore, he will not complain if I follow his example; and if, while he has not given us any reason in favour of his Bill, except that there are anomalies at every point in in our legislation, I should, on the other hand, abstain from entering into a discussion or from offering any objection to the Bill, I shall not offer any obstruction to the introduction of the Bill, but I hope my hon. Friend will be content to let his Bill lie on the table for consideration between this and the next Session of Parliament.
  Leave given.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. LOCKE KING, Mr. H. G. LANGTON, and Mr. COBBETT.
  Bill presented, and read 1o.

BANK ACTS.

  COMMITTEE NOMINATED.
  On the Motion of the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, it was agreed that the Select Committee on the Bank Acts should consist of the undermentioned twenty-five Members.
  Committee nominated—The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, Mr. DISRAELI, Sir JAMES GRAHAM, Mr. SPOONER, Mr. GLADSTONE, Mr. GEORGE ALEXANDER HAMILTON, Sir CHARLES WOOD, Mr. GLYN, Mr. WILSON, Mr. CAYLEY, Sir FRANCIS BARING, Mr. VANCE, Mr. WEGUELIN, Mr. HILDYARD, Mr. HANKEY, Mr. BLACKBURN, Mr. M. TUCKER SMITH, Mr. FERGUS, Mr. HOPE JOHNSTONE, Mr. JOHN LEWIS RICARDO, Mr. ENNIS, Mr. TITE, Mr. PULLER, Mr. BALL, and the EARL of GIFFORD:—Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum.
  Report of last Session referred.

  SUPPLY.
  Committee on Motion, "That a Supply be granted to Her Majesty."
  Lord Commissioners' Speech referred.
  Motion considered.
  Lords Commissioners' Speech read.
  Resolved, "That a Supply be granted to Her Majesty."
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow.
  House adjourned at half after Six o'clock.

MINUTES.
Took the Oaths.—The Lord Gage; Several Lords.

CIVIL SERVICE SUPERANNUATION.
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH,in presenting a petition from the Customs Departments Clerks of Gloucester for alteration of the existing system of Superannuation, said, that the complaint of the petitioners was, that they paid a great deal into the superannuation fund and received little from it, and their prayer was that they should get more and pay nothing. Their Lordships had really nothing whatever to do with the subject. They had no power to deal with money matters, and could not make any of the alterations in the Superannuation Act which the petitioners suggested, He should look with, great interest to the conduct of the House of Commons on this subject, because it would be a test of the sincerity of their desire to establish economy in the administration of public affairs. He had no doubt that Report of the Gentlemen who had been appointed to investigate the matter would suggest an improved system for the future; he had no doubt that the Government would propose some measure gene-

199
rally in accordance with the recommendations of that Report; but he had as little doubt that that measure would be defeated in the House of Commons, because his impression was that canvassing and jobbing would be infinitely more powerful than Her Majesty's Ministers upon this subject.
Petitions to the same effect were presented by the Marquess of BREADALBANE, the Earl of EGLINTON, and other noble Lords.

DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL CAUSES BILL.

  SECOND READING PUT OFF.
  In reply to Lord LYNDHURST,
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that if it were the wish of their Lordships to discuss these Bills separately, he could not object. He would take the second reading of the Divorce Bill on Tuesday next instead of Monday next.
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORD,who was not in the House when this arrangement was made, appealed to the Lord Chancellor on behalf of his most rev. and right rev. Brethren to give a longer time for the consideration of the Divorce Bill. The Bill would not be in the hands of their Lordships until Wednesday, and he thought it exceedingly undesirable to proceed with such a degree of haste in so very important a matter as to take the second reading on the following Tuesday. It was of the utmost importance that the Bishops should come down to the House with their minds fully made up on a principle which touched the ecclesiastical law in a most vital point, and he trusted the noble and learned Lord would allow them a reasonable time for the consideration of the measure.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he had already postponed the second reading from Monday to Tuesday. The subject was discussed at the greatest possible length last year, and was again discussed in the short Session this year. The alterations in the Bill, though very important, were very slight, and it was unreasonable to ask for further time when the whole Session might be lost by the Bill not going down early enough to the other House. The right rev. Prelate had no doubt made up his mind upon the principle, and as to the details, there would be no discussion of them until the Bill went into Committee. Their Lordships had had too frequent experience
  200
  of the ill effects of postponement of this kind.
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORDsaid, there were several right rev. Prelates who had had no opportunity of expressing their opinion upon the subject. Before making a grave alteration in the ecclesiastical law of England, the English Bishops ought to come to some understanding, if possible, of the views which they entertained. The noble and learned Lord had supplied another reason for postponement in stating that the alterations in the Bill were both slight and important. He thought sufficient time ought to be given to the bench of Bishops to consider the Bill with due deliberation.
  LORD LYNDHURSTreminded their Lordships that only two of the right rev. Prelates had attended a former discussion of the measure.
  Second 'reading (which stands appointed for Monday next) put off to Tuesday next.

TREATMENT OF CHINESE PRISONERS.

  QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVON,in pursuance of notice, rose to inquire into the truth of certain statements in the China Mail of the 5th of February last respecting the confinement of Chinese prisoners at Hong Kong; and to move for any papers connected with this subject, and with the trial of a baker and others on the charge of poisoning. He begged their Lordships to believe that he had no wish whatever to revive any discussion upon the recent unhappy hostilities in which we had become involved with the Chinese, and that he did not ask the question with any unfriendly feeling towards the Government. It was impossible to identify the Government with the facts to which the question referred. No doubt the Government were ignorant of the circumstances. It would only be necessary for him to read a few extracts from the Hong Kong papers, and when he had stated the circumstances, he was sure the Government would be as ready to give as it was the duty of the House to ask for explanation. About two months after the commencement of hostilities, as their Lordships were aware, an atrocious attempt was made on the lives of the foreign residents in Hong Kong by some Chinese miscreants introducing arsenic into the bread. By a curious coincidence, the very morning the attempt was discovered by a number

  201
  of persons being seized with sickness, the baker from whose factory the bread had been issued sailed for Macao. Suspicion fell upon him, a vessel was sent in pursuit, and he was arrested; but it was only just to say he was on the point of returning to give himself up, and that he protested that, so far from being the poisoner, he, himself, and every member of his family had suffered from the effects of the bread. However, with some fifty other Chinese, he was arrested, and the following was the account of the China Mail of the 5th of February—
  "We yesterday morning were witnesses to a scene such as our readers will have difficulty in crediting—one we can scarcely believe would be perpetrated under the most savage and tyrannical Government, and such as no one could have ever dreamt of seeing in a British colony. We allude to forty-two Chinese crammed into a cell sixteen feet long by fifteen broad, furnished with only one small aperture for ventilation, and confined there for twenty days, with the bare and damp ground for a bed, and in this space they had to perform all the requirements of nature. Covering they, required none, for, as may easily be supposed, the den was in a perfect stew, the air-hole being only eleven inches high by six feet long, and placed in the extreme upper corner of the room. We assure our readers this is a fact that can be substantiated by several witnesses. And will it be believed, too, that the miserable wretches subjected to this brutal treatment are not condemned felons,—no, for them the best of treatment is reserved—but men under no charge, against whom the most active inquiries of our most active Attorney General, enlisted heart and soul in the cause, have been unable to ferret out even a breath of suspicion. Some of them old men tottering to their graves, some mere boys yet in their teens. … Better far to have deported, or hanged, or shot them at once than to have exposed them to such frightful sufferings as they must have undergone during twenty days' suffocation in this black hole of Hong Kong, the walls of which are newly erected, and the plaster and floor not even dry."
  When their Lordships remembered the space in which the prisoners were confined and the length of time during which they were exposed to such horrible physical degradation, the account appeared almost incredible. In England they placed a hardened and condemned ruffian in a cell about ten feet long by eight feet broad, with every comfort, so far as cleanliness and ventilation were concerned. But here they read of forty-two wretched beings in China confined in a place not much larger than twice the size of their Lordships table, although they were untried, and, as circumstances turned out, were entirely innocent of the offence charg-
  202
  ed against them. Scarcely 100 years ago, after a, gallant but unsuccessful defence, 145 brave Englishmen were thrust into a dungeon, very little larger, by an Eastern tyrant, and that place had become a bye-word for extreme misery down to the present time. There were very few Englishmen who had not heard of the Black-hole in Calcutta, but the natural indignation which the recital of that atrocity excited was attended with the satisfaction that Englishmen were the victims and not the oppressors. But if these statements were true, that consolation now was denied, for in an English colony, surrounded by English laws, and in the name of English justice, one of the most barbarous acts ever recorded had been committed. It seemed that the case of those unfortunate men was not the only one of the kind which had taken place at Hong Kong, in proof of which he would read to the House another extract from the China Mail of the 12th of February. It was as follows—
  "We have another case to adduce, if such be wanting, of that callous indifference to the sufferings of others which marks the heads of the police and gaol departments. It may be remembered that a few weeks ago about 150 men were apprehended somewhere in the Taipingshan, but afterwards all liberated, except half-a-dozen. These men were taken up on the Friday, and placed within that portion of the gaol compound where the treadmill stands, there being, no room for them in the prison itself; and there they were left, all night, some of them until Sunday evening, if not longer. We say nothing of the inhumanity of leaving men thus exposed to the sun by day and the dews by night without covering of any sort, and without even a mat to lie down upon; but on the Sunday the neighbours were alarmed by their cries, and it has since been ascertained that nothing was given them in the shape of food from Saturday at 10a.m. till Sunday at 2p.m.—twenty-eight hours. Yet, on inquiry, we are told no one is responsible for such cruel neglect. Some one surely must be. These men, be it noted, were afterwards discharged on finding security; they were accused of no crime."
  He (the Earl of Carnarvon) thought no one would deny that grave responsibility attached to the authorities at Hong Kong for proceedings such as those; and he would say that, if that was the spirit which animated our Administration in that part of our Eastern dominions, he could not wonder if among Eastern nations the English name was hated wherever it was known, or if we heard of risings against our rule from Singapore to Borneo. He begged, also, to move for all

  203
  the papers relating to the trial of the baker and others at Hong Kong on the charge of poisoning; and in adverting to that subject he felt it his duty to bring under their Lordships' notice the line of conduct which the Attorney General for the colony took upon that occasion, and which appeared, if truly reported, to him most extraordinary and unparalleled. On the trial of the men in question, the Attorney General was reported in the Hong Kong journals to have said, "If technicalities of the British law procured their release the Chinese authorities would be encouraged to repeat their diabolical attempt." Again, "In a case of poisoning the mercy of the law should be restrained, not relaxed, in order to bring them to punishment." In England, on the trial of the most hardened ruffian, the prisoner was invariably told that he was not bound to say anything to criminate himself; but at Hong Kong, a British colony, the Attorney General, on the trial in question, apparently deported himself in such a manner that Mr. Bowra, one of the jurymen, thought it his duty to complain of the learned gentleman's conduct as being harsh and unjust towards the prisoners. The Attorney General appealed on the occasion, not to the justice of the case, but to the political contingencies likely to result from the proceedings. It was, if true, one of the most monstrous cases of which he (the Earl of Carnarvon) had ever heard. He trusted the Government would think it their duty to produce all the papers bearing on this subject; and if the statements he had read to the House, so lowering and debasing as they were to the English name, should be substantiated by official documents, he hoped the Government would not shrink from visiting the parties who were to blame with the censure which from their high office they were empowered and bound to inflict. The noble Earl concluded by moving—
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, for Copies of or Extracts from any Papers connected with the Confinement of Chinese Prisoners at Hong Kong, and with the Trial of a Baker and others on the Charge of poisoning."
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYsaid, that in reply to his noble Friend, he certainly did not feel himself called upon to enter into the Speech of the Attorney General at Hong Kong; but he would remind his noble Friend and the House that the result
  204
  of the legal proceedings at Hong Kong, in dealing with the prisoners in question, went to show, on the whole, that a full and fair trial had been given to men to whom it would be admitted on all hands strong suspicion attached of the commission of a heinous crime. So far from thinking that the administration of the law in the English Colonies was such as to warrant the strong language which his noble Friend had used, he believed, on the contrary, that it was administered there, as in the mother country, with a calmness and consideration towards the prisoners which had elicited the admiration and astonishment of foreigners of every nation. [Adverting to the statements which had been read to the House by the Earl of Carnarvon as to the treatment of the prisoners in what was called "the Black Hole at Hong Kong," Lord Harrowby proceeded to read, but in so low a tone that the purport of it was not audible in the gallery, a counter-statement, made by the superintendent of Police at Hong Kong, from which it appeared that the room in which the prisoners had been placed by him was situate on the ground floor of the building, and seemed to him a suitable place. It was, however, the only one at his disposal. This room was dry and lofty, fifteen feet square, and was ventilated by a chimney and an opening at the top, as well as by a door which was frequently opened. The air in the room was certainly close, but not of that oppressive character which had been described in the public prints. None of the prisoners were ill, and none of them died; while, with respect to their food, the usual prison rations were supplied to them during their confinement.] The noble Earl added that that was the sum of the information which had reached the Government on the subject which his noble Friend had brought under the notice of the House, and he submitted that it was not of a character to warrant the assumption that the English name had been degraded by the authorities at Hong Kong by unnecessary severities. The officers of the Government in distant colonies were in a position which involved serious responsibility; indeed their responsibility could scarcely be appreciated by residents in this country: and when it is remembered that the British representatives in China had been surrounded by men who were prepared to resort to every refinement of treachery for the destruction of the European residents, it was not sur-

  205
  prising that the authorities should have deemed it necessary to resort to somewhat stringent measures. Under the special circumstances, an ordinance had been passed, authorizing the adoption of strong measures, and in consequence seven persons were deported, and others were imprisoned. The accused persons were tried; the trial was conducted with the most perfect fairness, and those who were acquitted were set at liberty, with the exception of one individual, who, under a special order, was kept in confinement until instructions should be received from the Home Government. Those instructions had been sent out, and they directed that if any new circumstances should have come to light since the first trial, the person believed to be the chief offender should again be brought to trial. He (the Earl of Harrowby) must say he thought that accusations similar to those made by the noble Earl ought not to be brought against officers of the British Government unless there was a reasonable presumption that the charges were well founded. There would be no objection to produce all the papers bearing upon this subject which were in the possession of the Government.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURYthought that if his noble Friend (the Earl of Carnarvon) had had as much experience as the oldest Member of their Lordships' House he could not have guarded himself more carefully than he had done against making attacks upon any persons. Indeed, the noble Earl had not said a word which could convey an impression that he himself believed in the correctness of any of the charges to which he had referred; on the contrary, he commenced by stating that he did not blame, and that nobody could blame, Her Majesty's Government for what had occurred in China, and that his object was merely to put a question to them on the subject of those occurrences. The Government were the only persons likely to be correctly informed as to the facts, and the noble Earl had only adopted the course which it was his right and duty—as it was the right and duty of any Member of that House—to pursue, in applying to the Government with the object of ascertaining the truth. Instead of rebuking his noble Friend for bringing the subject forward, he (the Earl of Malmesbury) thought the noble Earl opposite ought to have been thankful to him for doing so, because it was the interest of
  206
  the Government that the truth should he known, in order that the public might not be misled by misstatements contained in newspapers published at a distance of thousands of miles from this country. The object of his noble Friend was to ascertain whether the Government had received any authentic information, and the noble Earl (the Earl of Harrowby) could not have said more than he had done in reply. He (the Earl of Malmesbury) was very glad to hear from that noble Earl that the Government had written for further information, and he hoped that when such information was obtained it would be laid before Parliament. He wished to call the attention of the noble Earl opposite to one point. A-lum and the persons who were tried with him were acquitted, and that acquittal, after the course which was said to have been taken by the Attorney General, was most honourable to the jury; but it appeared that after the trial A-lum, and nine of the persons accused along with him, were sent back to prison. He thought it a startling circumstance that men who had been publicly acquitted after a fair trial should be recommitted to prison, merely because, according to the newspapers, they were considered dangerous characters. Such a proceeding could only be justified in the most turbulent times, and he supposed that was the excuse which would be urged, supposing the statement to be true. He was very glad that his noble Friend had called attention to this subject, and he hoped the Government would institute a real bonâ fide inquiry, and that the results of that inquiry would be laid before Parliament, for it was essential that our officials in the Colonies should feel that no distance could secure their acts from the most minute and searching investigation.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYwas understood to say, in explanation, that ten individuals had been detained in custody at Hong Kong, under special orders, as dangerous persons.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHobserved that after the statements which had been made with reference to the conduct of the Attorney General of Hong Kong, the Government would probably think it right to institute an inquiry into the proceedings of that officer.
  Motion agreed to.
  House adjourned at Six o'clock till Tomorrow Two o'clock,