Sitting of 3 August 1860

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1°Fortifications (Provisions for Expenses); Defence of the Realm.
2° Stamp Duties (No. 2); Industrial Schools Act (1857) Amendment.
3° Savings Banks and Friendly Societies Investments; East India Stock Transfer, &c; Landlord and Tenant (Ireland).

SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
House in Committee; Mr. MASSBY in the Chair.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That a sum, not exceeding £39,597, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for Works and Expenses at the New Houses of Parliament, to the 31st day of March 1861."
SIR JOHN SHELLEYasked whether the coating now being put on the stonework of the Houses was done by contract, or how; and whether there was more than one kind of wash applied?
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he wished to

629
refer to the erection of the statues of British Sovereigns, and to ask whether it was intended to erect a statue to Cromwell, who had done more to introduce just laws into this country, and to lay the foundation of its liberties, than any ruler that had preceded him?
MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, he thought it was in the very worst possible taste to paint the interior of the House. There was a charge for removing the mud of the river. Now the bed of the Thames belonged to the Crown and the conservators, and ho thought that they ought to remove the mud. He wished to know where the new stables for the Speaker were? He trusted an answer would be given to the question respecting the series of royal statues. Where would the series begin? At £800 per statue, the series from the Conqueror would cost no less than £28,000.
MR. SPOONERsaid, he wished to have an explanation as to the item of £4,300 for warming and ventilation. He found that the largeness of the item was a good deal owing to the imperfect state of the chimneys. Many of the rooms were uninhabitable on account of smoke, and it was found necessary to burn coke.
MR. COWPERsaid, the system of ventilating and warming the House as arranged by Dr. Reed required the consumption of a great deal of fuel, and it could not be denied that it led to a great deal of smoke. The works were under the direction of Mr. Gurney, and ho did all in his power to economise the expenditure, but the expense was, nevertheless, very considerable. He did not, however, see how it could be obviated without very extensive alterations. The rule was never to let the temperature of the House fall below 56 degrees; and there was, therefore, a necessity for artificial heat during a great portion of the year.
As to the coating of the stone, a Vote of £10,000 was last year taken for that purpose, and the paper then laid on the table showed that great pains had been taken to ascertain the best process for the preservation of the stone. Under the advice of Professor Faraday and others he had entered into a contract for the coating of certain portions of the building, under the direction of M. Sczerelmy, at 1s. a yard and some extras.
With regard to the statues, it was unnecessary for him to follow the hon. Member for Lambeth into any historical discus-
630
sion. The statues were to be erected in accordance with a Report of the Pine Arts Commission in 1845, and each of the Sovereigns of this country was to have one; but he was not prepared to say whether a statue to Cromwell would be included. However, a good many years would elapse before they came in chronological order to Cromwell. The charge for removing mud from the Thames was a very small one—£175.
LORD FERMOYcomplained of the want of a few rooms in which Members might receive their constituents. It was not at all clear that Sczerelmy's process was the best. It appeared to be only a sort of whitewash, whereas Mr. Dean's process acted chemically upon the stone, and appeared to harden it considerably. He would suggest that a court be done by each process, and then hon. Members might next year judge for themselves which seemed the most likely to answer.
House resumed. Committee report Progress: to sit again this day.

DELHI AND LUCKNOW PRIZE MONEY.

  QUESTION.
  SIR MINTO FARQUHARsaid, be would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India what progress has been made towards the settlement and distribution of the Delhi and Lucknow Prize Money, and of Indian Prize Money generally.
  SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, that with regard to the Delhi, and also the Lucknow Prize Money, he stated some time since that the necessary application had been made to the Treasury on the subject. Then came the question as to the scale of distribution which was to be adopted; and the Treasury, upon whom the responsibility rested, thought the same scale as that, adopted in the Crimean war should be applied to the Indian Prize Money. The Treasury asked the opinion of the Indian Council, and the Council thought that the new scale, which was far more favourable to the soldier than the old Indian scale, should he adopted. But a number of objections seemed to have arisen on the part of Officers, and accordingly a Commission of Official men from Chelsea Hospital, the Treasury, the Horse Guards, the Indian Office, the Admiralty, and the War Office, had been appointed to consider and report upon the proper scale to be adopted, he believed that a Report from this Commission had been sent either to the Trea-

  631
  sury or the War Office. But if so, it had only been a day or two since, and no official step had been taken in the matter. The next step would be for the Treasury to consider whether it would adopt their Report, or if not, what scale should be decided upon.

SEA TIME FOR REVENUE OFFICERS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. DUNNsaid, he rose to ask the Secretery to the Admiralty whether, in the contemplated scheme of Naval Retirement, time served in a Revenue Cruiser for the suppression of Smuggling, and therefore in Her Majesty's Service, is to be counted as sea time.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, that sea time would be allowed for time served in a Revenue Cruiser for the suppression of smuggling, and at the same time he would beg to call the attention of Officers to Her Majesty's Order in Council on the subject in the Gazette of that day.

  THE NEUTRALIZED PROVINCES OF SAVOY.—QUESTION,
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he begged to be allowed to put a question to the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs respecting the proposed conference with reference to the neutralized Provinces of Savoy. On the 25th of June last he believed the House was informed that the English Government had acceded to the proposals which had been made by the French Government for the appointment of a Conference to 6ettle how the arrangements connected with the annexation of the northern provinces of Savoy should be carried out. He begged, then, to ask the noble Lord as to the time when, the place where, and the mode in which, such Conference will be held?
  LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, that the noble Lord had stated quite correctly that Her Majesty's Government had accepted a proposal for a Conference. That proposal, together with two other modes of settlement, were submitted to the great Powers by the French Government; and Her Majesty's Government immediately accepted the proposal for a Conference. But the Governments of Austria and Prussia stated that for various reasons they thought there would be no advantage in assembling a Conference. There had been no meeting of the great Powers since, nor had any time been submitted as to when
  632
  the Conference should be held. Therefore so the matter must remain until those two great Powers withdrew their opposition, or until some other proposal should be made.

DISTURBANCES IN SYRIA.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. RICHrose, pursuant to notice, to call attention to the Papers respecting the disturbances in Syria, and more especially to the Telegraphic Despatch (No. 20) of the Consul at Smyrna, of the 11th July; and also to the Despatch from the Admiralty (No. 21), covering the Reports of Captain Paynter, of Her Majesty's ship Exmouth, off Beyrout; and to ask a question thereon of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. The country had a right to expect that some expression of opinion should take place with respect to the deplorable and flagrant outrages on humanity which had recently occurred in Syria, and especially before Parliament separated, there should be some more explicit declaration from the Government as to the course which they might be prepared to adopt. Indeed he felt convinced that unless strong measures were at once taken with a high hand, the tranquillity of Turkey would be seriously shaken, and serious consequences would follow to Europe in general. In a despatch addressed to the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary on the 27th of June, Sir Henry Bulwer stated, that with deep regret he had to observe the Ottoman Government were the more to blame for what had occurred in Syria, since a week had not passed during the last year in which he had not brought the state of that province under the notice of the Turkish Ministers. It appeared from the first despatch of Mr. Consul Moore, dated the 18th of May, that even at that early period he considered an outbreak imminent. He had to report, he said, a marked increase within the last fortnight of agitation and insecurity in the Druse district of the Lebanon. Assassinations and reprisals were of almost daily occurrence between the Christians and the Druses. The last took place two days before. A party of Christians on their way to Deir-el-Kammar were attacked by the Druses, and four of them were killed, including a Maronite priest. This, he added, would probably provoke retaliation on the part of the Christians, if it did not lead to a general rising of both sects, of which there were many symptoms. About the same period the Christians,

  633
  seeing the imminence of the danger which threatened them, addressed Kurschid Pasha in a memorial setting forth the assassinations perpetrated upon them by the Druses, and the absolute impunity with which the assassins escaped. The reply was one of those stereotyped answers promising protection and doing nothing. On the same day the Consular body at Beyrout, at the request of the merchants residing there, waited on Kurschid Pasha, and requested him to take steps for averting the impending horrors. They too were assured that proper measures would be taken for the protection of all parties and the suppression of all violence; but, while this answer was being given, the outbreak which the Pasha told the Consular body should be prevented was actually taking place. Mr. Moore wrote to Sir Henry Bulwer that the Druses had attacked some villages in the Lebanon, and had killed several of the inhabitants; that it was reported the Turkish irregular troops fired upon the Christians; that after the flight of the Christians their houses were pillaged and burnt; and that the Bashi-Bazouks had cut the throat of the ex-Governor of Mount Lebanon, a man eighty-five years of ago, and quite blind. This outrage was followed by an attack upon Deir-el-Kammar, the Christian capital of the Lebanon, of which a report was made to Mr. Moore by Mr. Burn, an American missionary. The greatest atrocities were perpetrated upon the inhabitants, and Mr. Burn distinctly stated that the Druses were the aggressors, and that the Christians there had received letters from the Pasha praising their forbearance. Mr. Burn asked for succour both in men and provisions. These were as usual promised by Kurschid Pasha, upon an application from Mr. Moore, but its fulfilment is illustrated by a despatch of Mr. Moore, written a few days later, reporting that Deir-el-Kammar had been surrendered unconditionally to the Druses; and that the Turkish garrison had joined in the attack upon the inhabitants; that after the surrender the Druses plundered and burned down 150 of the houses, and then withdrew. It was thus that the pledge given by the Pasha to relieve the Christians had not been redeemed. Three days later he wrote to say that the Mahomedans were rising against the Christians at Beyrout; hut the unexpected arrival of a Russian frigate had checked the outbreak. The Consul then spoke of Damascus as early as the 4th of June, where a spirit was described as arising which was of a
  634
  menacing character to the lives and property of the Christians. During the whole of this time Sir Henry Bulwer was representing at the Porte, week by week, the imminence of the danger which overwhelmed the Christian population of Syria. The Co I ml and European inhabitants petitioned the Pasha to protect their lives and property, and received promises of support which were treacherously falsified. Warning had been given, and protection asked and promised; but none was sent till the town had been sacked and destroyed. Mr. Moore stated that the Turkish troops,' reported as having been sent by the Pasha to save one town, left it to its fate, although they were encamped at a place only two miles distant. He cited six or seven more instances in which this Pasha promised protection, but withheld it, leaving the Christians to be murdered by the Druses. Then came the assault on the Christian capital of Lebanon. Mr. Moore reported the inhabitants were induced by the Turkish authorities to give up their arms, and were then basely slaughtered. Their dead bodies showed numerous sword wounds about the arms and wrists, evidently arising from the vain attempts of these defenceless men to parry the blows aimed at their heads. There were 2,000 thus treated. Mr. Paynter, of Her Majesty's ship Exmouth, described the horrid scene. He states that all the male inhabitants were murdered. On Wednesday, the 10th of June, the Druses began to plunder, assisted by the Turkish troops; after this the town was fired in several places, and the massacre of the men took place, while all the women who did not fly were violated. In the midst of the massacre Kurschid Pasha, the Governor General and promiser of protection arrived, but calmly passed on to a station which overlooked the town, whence he issued an order to stay the slaughter, which he took no steps to arrest. When Mr. Paynter's letter was written, 1,500 males were lying unburied in the ruins; and the women who had fled from the scene of slaughter were making their escape to the European ships on the coast, hunted like wild beasts. The treachery of Osman Bey the perpetrator, and of Kurschid Pasha, the secret abettor of the atrocities, appeared in the present age without a parallel. He first induced the Christians to surrender their arms. They then crowded the poor creatures into the Court of the Serail, with only sufficient food to keep them alive; and, when their strength had vanished, flung open the gates

  635
  for the Druses to rush in and consummate the cowardly massacre. Other papers had since confirmed these atrocious details. On the 9th of June, the storm which had been gathering over Damascus drew to a head. It was shown that the Governor of Damascus had 5,000 troops under his command. But in the face of these troops, or rather in concert with them, a rabble of half that number destroyed the whole of the Christian quarter, and put to death from 2,000 to 4,000 persons, including the Dutch Consul. The slaughter would have been still worse but for the conduct of one noble man, and he an exile—Abd-el-Kader,—who, with a truly humane spirit, irrespective of creed, had afforded an asylum in his own house to the proscribed Christians. With these details before them, the House had a right to demand what was to be done to those treacherous wrongdoers and to prevent the recurrence of like outrages. It appeared that Turkey, making a virtue of necessity, had consented to join in a convention for inquiry and redress. For diplomacy's sake he supposed that this wicked and effete empire, which had wallowed in blood, treachery, and corruption for the last fifty years, would be allowed thus to conceal its connivance. He trusted, however, that the petty jealousies of European States would for once be buried in the graves of the poor Christians who had suffered within the last few months in Syria, and that the Great Powers would join with one heart in hanging up on gallows high as Haman's the Turkish pashas and rulers who had permitted and, indeed, connived at these atrocities. He recollected the massacres of Chios and the atrocities in the Morea, which had in like manner led to a European intervention to rescue the Greeks from the abominable rule of Turkey, and he should rejoice to see a similar result in Syria. The hon. Gentleman concluded by asking the Foreign Secretary what course he was prepared to take in the present emergency.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid, before the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary rose to reply, he wished to make a few remarks, as he took a great interest in the subject. He believed Her Majesty's Government were addressing themselves to the task of putting an end to the unhappy state of affairs in Syria. He thought misapprehension might occur if the deductions which had been drawn by the hon. Member were supposed to give a correct account of all that had taken place in Syria. He
  636
  (Sir James Fergusson) had received from an intelligent English gentleman, living in the part of the Lebanon in which these disturbances had been most prevalent, carefully written journals, dating from the end of May down to the end of the first week in July. He had also had a conversation with a Beyrout merchant of great respectability, who left the country a little before the outbreak took place. With regard to the blue-book from which the hon. Member had quoted, a more unprofitable one was never issued, for, while it gave painful details of the occurrences in the Lebanon, it furnished no information either as to the circumstances which had led to the outbreak or the state of politics in that part of the world. From information on which he could rely he believed that the Christians were in the first place entirely in the wrong, that the Druses were most reluctant to fight at all; and that for some time previous to the disturbances, which began about the 27th of May, great excitement prevailed among them from an impression not wholly without foundation, that the Christians of the Mountain—the Maronites—would attempt to sweep them from that part of the country. He was told by the gentleman with whom he had conversed that several Druses in his service, who lived some miles from Beyrout, and who had to pass through Christian villages on their way home at night, found it necessary to make a circuit in order to avoid these Christians and to escape from insult, their lives, in point of fact, being in danger. About the end of May these disturbances began by the assembling of a large Christian force, consisting of from 1,000 to 3,000 men at a village situate a few miles from Beyrout. The Pasha of the city sent out troops, who dispersed the Christians, and had he followed the same course with regard to the Druses these calamities might have been avoided. When, however, the Druses came down to avenge the insult which had been offered them the Pasha took no steps to disperse them, but, on the contrary, his troops stood by while the Christian villages were acked and burnt. Prior to this, the Druse chiefs had urged upon the Maronites the expediency of not beginning the war until the silk harvest was over. There had been bad harvests, and the Druses represented that if the crops were again spoiled by the destruction of the mulberry trees great misery would ensue. The Maronites, urged on by their priests, paid no attention to this re-

  637
  monstrance, and the outbreak began. From that time the Druses behaved in a way deserving the greatest condemnation; but it should be remembered that when Asiatics went to war they did not observe the niceties of European warfare—that when these tribes, which had an hereditary hatred of each other, engaged in war, their doctrine was to destroy their enemies root and branch wherever they could find them. It should also be recollected that Syria virtually had no Government, or one that was worse than none at all, and that this war brought together a great number of the Bedouins and wild tribes from the surrounding country, who assembled like vultures, eager for the prey, and committed many outrages for which the Druses were in no way responsible, but which were attributed to them. Putting aside these considerations, however, the question then was what was to be done, and he thought it a wise course to send out a Commission, and he hoped that the Government would in this way prevent the dangerous step which seemed imminent—the despatch of French troops into Syria. He would say nothing about the alleged great cause of the outbreaks; but it would be most unfortunate if that event for which the Ma-ronites had long been looking, and which was so much dreaded by those interested in the maintenance of English influence in the Mediterranean, should now take place, and the French troops should enter Syria. He hoped that the Commission would not interfere with the Turkish Government, or all the blood and treasure which we had expended a few years since would be wasted if we allowed any European Power to interfere with the Turkish Government. At the same time the Turkish authorities in Syria had shown themselves so unworthy of unrestricted power, and European intervention had been so long recognized in the affairs of the Lebanon, that it would be well not to allow them to act alone in future, As the hon. Member for Richmond had stated, the Turkish authorities at Beyrout had shown, if not complicity, at least culpable negligence. When our Consul (Mr. Moore) addressed himself to the chief of the Druses, with whom he had deservedly great influence, he was answered that the Pasha had taken steps to protect the Christians; but it seemed that after the Christians, relying upon that protection, were all disarmed, the Pasha, having in the meanwhile received a higher bribe from the Druses, admitted them into
  638
  the seraglio, where the Christians had taken refuge, and where they wore slaughtered. It further appeared that this same Pasha prevented Yusuf Bey, who was prepared with a strong force, from interfering on their behalf by assuring him that the Serail was taken care of. There was no doubt, however, that the Serail fell in consequence of the interference of Yusuf Bey being prevented by the Pasha, and it was also, he believed, notorious that it fell by the connivance of the Turkish troops. But notwithstanding the atrocities that had been committed, the Western Powers would commit a great error if they permitted the Druses to be given up to the tender mercies of the Turks. The Christians were, for the present, put down, but if the Druses also were put down, there would be nothing to prevent the Turkish Pashas from oppressing people generally, for the purpose of enriching themselves. Neither would it be just that those who had looked on while these atrocities were being committed should be allowed to escape without notice, and he hoped the Western Powers would insist upon a searching investigation being made into all these occurrences. They should also find out who furnished the arms. Yusuf Bey brought 1,000 rifles from Tripoli, and arms were freely distributed in the mountains, and he hoped that the Commission would draw up a plan for the future better government of that district. It had been attempted to have a Christian Kaimakan and a Druse Kaimakan, but the result had been that each screened offenders against the other, and did not at all act together. There would never be good government until the power of one able man was substituted for the present unsatisfactory form of Government. The recent events read almost like a chapter out of the Old Testament, so little had the country changed in character. When there was a weak Government disorders were prevalent, but when there was a strong Government people could travel with safety, as in the time of Mehemet Ali. He thought the plan which had been found so effectual in India should be adopted in Syria, and that no man should be allowed to have arms unless he was the personal attendant of a chief. If some such step were not taken there would be a recurrence of these outrages, which would afford an excuse to some European Power to interfere for its own selfish objects, and thus our influence in that part of the world would be seriously affected.

ITALY—NEAPOLITAN GOVERNMENT AND GENERAL GARIBALDI.

  QUESTION.
  Mr. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he wished, before the noble Lord replied to the remarks that had been made, to put a question of which he had given notice—Whether, since Her Majesty's Government have absolutely declined to join in any measures for preventing, by force of arms, any descent upon the Neapolitan Territory by the Troops under General Garibaldi, it would not be expedient to refrain from the expression of any strong opinion of their own, or from endorsing that of others in an opposite sense, which it appears, from recent circumstances, is liable to lead to great misapprehension of their intentions by Foreign Authorities? He had no wish to make any attack on the policy of the noble Lord, which perhaps was the only one which could be adopted under the circumstances, still there was an apparent discrepancy between the declarations of the British Government and their acts or, rather, their negation of action, which might give rise to much misconception abroad. Some time back the noble Lord at the head of the Government, amid the cordial cheers of the House, which was responded to by the country generally—said that what was really wanted in Southern Italy was the ejection of those governments that had misconducted themselves. Afterwards, on the 12th of July, the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary gave an opinion not altogether unfounded, and in which many shared, that under certain circumstances it might be desirable that the change should go no further, and that the kingdom of Naples should be left intact. He would admit the difficulty of stating beforehand what changes should take place. But it was very doubtful whether Sicily should be separated from Naples, and whether, seeing how closely the two countries approximated, being only divided by a strait of a couple of miles broad, they could remain separate. Some time ago he asked the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) what pressure had been brought to bear upon the Government of Sardinia in reference to the expedition to Sicily, and the noble Lord, upon the authority of the British Minister at Turin, stated that no pressure had been put upon that Government in any way, but that, the expedition to Sicily having taken place, and been successful, the King of Sardinia had written to Garibaldi to stop in his victorious career;
  640
  and the noble Lord went on to say that the text of that letter was approved by Her Majesty's Government. But Garibaldi having declined to accept the advice given in that letter, and consequently having refused to act in accordance with the views of the British Government, the question arose how far the abstract opinion which Her Majesty's Government had given when they approved of the letter ought to be followed out to its logical consequence—namely, by the intervention of military force. The Neapolitan Government had been led to believe that it was the desire of the British Government to preserve the kingdom of Naples to the present King, and had been led to look to France and England to give practical effect to the noble Lord's opinion. That was evident by the instruction given to the Neapolitan Envoy who was sent to Her Majesty's Government, and who passed through Paris on his way. The noble Lord had also made a statement as to the proposal made to him on the part of the Neapolitan Government by the Marquis de la Greca, and on the following day he read a letter from that nobleman, giving a different version of the object of his mission. It was not to be supposed that either the noble Lord or the Neapolitan Envoy had made a misstatement, and it was clear that the difference arose entirely from the noble Lord having endorsed the opinion expressed in the King of Sardinia's letter to Garibaldi, which opinion and letter it was obvious was not the spontaneous act of the King of Sardinia, but was written under pressure. The position of England in the matter, however, was somewhat undignified; for Garibaldi, having refused to act upon the letter, had refused to act upon the recommendation of the British Government, and it was for the noble Lord to consider how far that recommendation should be enforced. He thought the noble Lord at the head of the Government having explicitly stated his views, and the opinion of the country being so unmistakeably with him, the Government should take care not to encourage, even in appearance, an opposite idea, and that our actions should not be at variance with our declarations. They had recently received an assurance from an important personage that there was no aversion on his part to any arrangement suitable to the circumstauces for settling this question. He should have been glad had that statement been made earlier, and it would have more effect now if our recommendation in

  641
  reference to the boundaries of Savoy and Switzerland had been accepted. The negotiation upon this matter, as conducted by the noble Lord (Lord John Russell), reflected great credit upon him. There was but one fault, so far as he could judge from the papers before them, which the noble Lord had fallen into, and that was a want in some respects of sufficient candour, added to which the noble Lord had certainly favoured the Government of France, and allowed them to gain a great advantage in the Savoy question.
  In putting the question he had read he would add another, namely, whether the noble Lord had received any account of the noble conduct of Abd-el-Kader in protecting some thousands of Christians in his house in Damascus—his house and that of the British Consul being the only ones that were not sacked in that quarter of the city, and whether any acknowledgment of that conduct was contemplated?
  MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALD: I did not intend to address the House with reference to the question raised by the lion. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Rich) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ayrshire (Sir James Fergusson), but it is a matter of importance to know, as far as may be consistent with the interests of the public service, the exact state of affairs in regard to the signature of the convention with Syria. No one must be more sensible than the noble Lord of the importance of supporting the authority of the Turkish Government, and of not adding to their weakness by any unnecessary interference on the part of the European Powers. The House will therefore be glad to know the terms and nature of this convention, and what stipulation has been made or is to be made with reference to the contingents that the various European Powers are to supply for the expedition to Syria, whether any stipulation has been made as to the course which the European forces are to take, and whether they are to act in a manner contrary to the instructions which the Turkish commander may receive from Constantinople. I do not wish to say a word of doubt as to the policy of the French Government in Syria. Considering their claims to the protectorate of the Latin Christians of the East, it is almost impossible for the French Government to avoid taking active steps as to the terrible outrages that have occurred in Syria. But the Crimean war chiefly arose from the jealousy of the Russian and French Governments, the one claiming to
  642
  protect the Latin, the other the Greek Church in the East. It is clear that if the French Government interfere in a manner likely to raise the jealousy of the Russian Government great evils will ensue, and it will be almost impossible, if the French Government interfere in Syria in favour of the Latin Christians, for the Russian Government not to be almost compelled to interfere in favour of the Greek Christians in many other parts of the Turkish dominions. A rumour is current in Paris that the delay in the signature of this convention has arisen from a desire of the part of the Turkish Government that the intervention should be extended in favour of the Christians in other parts of Turkey. If that be the case it will show that out of these disturbances there may grow questions that may endanger the peace of Europe in future. The noble Lord has, I believe, received reports from our Consuls in the Levant, and, among others, a communication from our Consul at Salonica, with reference to the proposed convention which I hope it will be consistent with his duty to lay upon the table.
  LORD JOHN RUSSELL: My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Mr. Rich) has stated, from the papers before the House and from the accounts in the newspapers, the unfortunate transactions which have taken place in Syria. I, therefore, feel it to be quite unnecessary to go into further details of the facts that have occurred; but the House will naturally expect that I should state what has been done, both by Her Majesty's Government and the Turkish Government, in consequence of these acts, showing, as they do, so much cruelty on the part of one of these tribes, and so much negligence, to say the least of it, on the part of the Turkish authorities. The last accounts state that since the 13th of July the massacre has to a great degree ceased, and by the latest account we have received, we learn that order has been restored at Damascus. Fuad Pasha had, at the date of that account, arrived at Damascus, and the late Governor, who showed such culpable negligence, who appeared to be indifferent to the murder of the Christians, who never interfered at all when these murders were going on, and of whom it is said that if he had interfered with 80 or 100 men he might have stopped these disturbances—that Pasha has been sent to Constantinople to be tried. Sir Henry Bulwer states that

  643
  he is to be sent again to Damascus, where the witnesses are, but that there will be no disposition en the part of the Porte to show any lenity to that Governor, and that he will be treated with the severity of justice that he deserves. The Turkish Government have sent to Damascus Fuad Pasha, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, a man of great energy, with not less than 25,000 men for Syria. It appears true that on the 10th ultimo a sort of truce, for I cannot call it a peace—was signed between the Druses and Maronites, the terms of that truce being that no inquiry should be made into past transactions on the part 'if the Maronites, and that all attacks upon the Maronites shall cease. The hon. and gallant Member for Ayrshire (Sir James Fergusson) is, I think, justified in saying that with regard to these unfortunate events we are not to consider the Maronite Christians as persons totally defenceless, and as by no means intending to attack their neighbours, but that, on the contrary the Druses and Maronites were both armed, and, having sentiments of most bitter hostility to each other, the question really was who should attack the other first. Undoubtedly, however, the atrocities practised have been those practised by the Druses on the Christians. The Christians have been the sufferers, and the lives of thou-ands of the Christians have been sacrificed. Such have been the proceedings on the part of the Porte, and now with regard to those of the Christian Powers. When these accounts were first received the French Government proposed a Commission of Inquiry, and that it should not be limited to Turkish officials or Commissioners, but that European Commissioners should be joined with it, that they should endeavour to search out the authors of these massacres, and that they should determine what measures would secure peace for the future. To that proposal not only Her Majesty's Government and the other Powers but also the Porte at once willingly assented, and it was agreed that the Commission should be issued. But on the receipt of further accounts from Damascus, including the facts connected with the attacks on the house of the French Consul and the destruction of the convents that were especially protected by the French Government, that Government represented to us that they did not wish to take up any separate case, or to ask for reparation for any separate injury or insult, but that they wished the Powers of Europe to con-
  644
  sider whether the evil was not of a magnitude, and whether the crimes perpetrated were not of a nature so horrible, that the Powers of Europe ought to take up the case and endeavour to provide a remedy against the recurrence of such scenes. Her Majesty's Government readily acceded to that view. I must say that the Russian Government stated at once that what they wished with regard to Turkey was that there should be no separate action, that no Power should act alone, but that whatever was done should be done by general consent. The French Government, as I have stated, proposed that European forces should be at once sent to Syria with the view of strengthening the Turks, and enabling them to adopt measures for the pacification of that country. That was a course which was, no doubt, one of grave importance, and which no one could say was without danger, but it did seem to be dictated by the necessity of the case, and Her Majesty's Government agreed to consider, in conference with the representatives of the other Powers in Paris, what should be done. Those negotiations have occupied several days. There were questions as to the form in which the Resolutions of the Conference should be embodied, but it was finally agreed that in the shape of a protocol provision should be made for sending European troops to Syria. I have, since I came into the House, received intelligence that at three o'clock to-day a protocol was signed by the representatives of the five Powers and of the Sultan at Paris. The protocol, or it may be the two protocols, which have been signed, is to the following effect:—That, upon the representation of the Sultan that he wishes for the aid of his Allies in order to restore tranquillity in Syria, the European Powers agree that a body of troops not exceeding 12,000 men shall be sent to that country. The next article provides that half of these troops shall be furnished by France, and that immediately after the signature of the protocol they shall be at liberty to depart, with the view of resorting immediately to the coast of Syria. It is provided that when they arrive there all their movements shall be made in concert with the Commissioners of the Porte, and that the Sultan, on his part, shall furnish provisions and every other facility for their accommodation and march. By a further article of the protocol it is provided that the stay of the foreign troops in Syria shall not be prolonged beyond six months,

  645
  it being believed that the object for which they are sent there can be attained within that time.
  The hon. Gentleman who spoke last asked whether there were any representations on the part of Russia on this subject, and whether they had not caused some delay in the signature of the convention. As I have said, there is not at present any convention; but, with regard to the substance of his question, it certainly was the view of the Russian Government—a view which is no new one on their part, because in the month of April Prince Gortschak off expressed to the representatives of the other Powers the same opinion—that it was desirable the five Powers, with the Sultan, should declare that their serious attention was turned to administrative measures with the view of ameliorating the condition of the Christians in Turkey. It is stated that the Powers, together with the Porte, recollect the engagements which were entered into in 1856, and that, together with the Sultan, they engage that those measures of amelioration shall be adopted. I must upon this subject say that Sir Henry Bulwer lately sent out queries to the various Consuls in European Turkey, and that some of the answers which have been received—answers which evince the great intelligence and knowledge of the country possessed by the Consuls—without indicating that the Government of the Sultan is wilfully tyrannical and oppressive, certainly show that there exist under it a great many abuses, some of them abuses difficult to remedy, but others such as, in my opinion at least, might easily be removed, and which therefore justify the proposal which has been made by the Russian Government. The article which refers to that subject is in the most general terms, and will not justify the intervention of any foreign Power with regard to any future case. Every such case will be left to be dealt with upon its merits. Of course, what is now taking place may be alluded to as a precedent, but there is no provision for the future. According to the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, it would be most imprudent and most dangerous to make any provision for the future under which there might be interference with the Government of the Sultan. There is, besides, a protocol, declaring, nearly in the terms of that of 1840, that in interfering in the affairs of Turkey none of the Powers will seek any addition of territory or any exclusive in-
  646
  fluence or any separate commercial advantage.
  In the difficult and, I must own, perilous condition of the Turkish Empire, and considering the necessity which there seems to be that the Powers of Europe should from time to time interfere in the affairs of that empire, it seems to Her Majesty's Government, and I believe that it is the opinion of all the Powers of Europe, that the only path of safety lies in concert, in combination, and in endeavouring, without seeking separate advantages, to point out to the Porte in what manner his throne may be made secure and satisfaction be given to all his subjects, Christians as well as Turkish. The task is a most difficult one, and nothing but the most disinterested conduct on the part of the Powers, as well as the inclination of the Sultan, to adopt the reforms which are necessary, will enable us to tread safely in that direction. At the same time, while advice is given and while reforms are suggested, it is necessary that their ultimate execution should be left in the hands of officers appointed by the Porte. If we or any other Power were to attempt to interfere directly in the administration of Turkey there is this great danger; that we should not only diminish the authority of the Sultan, but might awake the fanatical passions of the Moslems, who might think that they were betrayed, and might involve the whole empire in bloodshed and sedition. The question is one of the greatest difficulty. When the protocol has been received I will lay it upon the table; but I trust that the House will not press the Government to produce papers relating to difficult negotiations which have taken place, or will be taking place, upon this subject. We must endeavour, according to our views of policy, to do what seems to us best adapted to preserve the peace of Europe, and to improve the state of Turkey; and until something definite is settled I trust that the House will not ask us to produce papers relating to the subject.
  In answer to the question of the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. D. Griffith), I do not think that I have anything to add to what I have formerly said with regard to the state of Italy. We do not propose to interfere by force in the affairs of Southern Italy, or to prevent the Italians settling their Government in their own way. They may adopt very wise Resolutions, they may adopt what we may think very impolitic ones, but the Governments both of England and France are determined to act upon that

  647
  principle of non-intervention. With respect to the conduct of Abd-el-Kader, I have today received despatches from our Consul, but I cannot state accurately what are their contents.
  MR. BRIGHT: Considering the difficult position in which the noble Lord is placed with regard to this question, I am not disposed to find fault with the explanation he has made, or with regard to the intervention which is proposed, and which is about to take place. Probably, there is no intervention within our memory which could be so well excused as this which is now about to take place in Syria, because it takes rather the aspect of a movement of a police force, than an expedition of troops with any special political object. I have seen with satisfaction what appeared to me the moderate and fair course, which, so far as we can judge from what we learn from the papers, that has been pursued by the different Governments in regard to this very difficult and perilous question. I hope that the course which has been pursued by the French Government, at least so far as we can judge from what we read, will be admitted to be another ground for lessening some of that distrust which has been excited with regard to the intentions of that Power. The hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Seymour FitzGerald), in putting his question to the noble Lord, expressed his hope and belief that the noble Lord was as strong as ever he was in the intention of maintaining the integrity of the Turkish Empire, and of supporting the Sultan's Government. I do not quote the words of the hon. Gentleman; but I understand that to be what he meant. Now, Sir, I have risen for the purpose of entering my protest against any such policy. I know something of the difficuly of the position, and I can feel for the extreme difficulty in which the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary finds himself. Now, we have been supporting the Sultan for a considerable period, and hitherto with very indifferent success. I think the hon. and gallant Member who sits below me (Sir Charles Napier) can toll us something of what took place in 1840, and I have no doubt that if he were to give his unbiassed testimony—as I am sure he would if he stood up to say anything about it—he would tell us it was not a very fortunate achievement in which he was engaged in 1840, and that probably his vessels had not left sight of the shores of Syria before the Turks returned to their tyranny, and
  648
  the Christians again passed under the yoke of their oppressors. It is notorious to everybody that whilst that part of Asia was under the government of the Egyptian Pasha there was tranquillity throughout the land, and travellers might pass wherever they liked with at least a fair security; hut when that rule was withdrawn, the country returned to the condition of its former, and of its present anarehy. I contest altogether the wisdom and right of the Government of this country in interfering to support a Power which is utterly and obviously, according to the noble Lord's own statement, doomed to extinction from a decay which it is altogether impossible, in my opinion, for any human aid to avert. Well, then, coming down from 1840, we have had that sad calamity, the Crimean war. I am one of those not responsible for that war. When war was declared, and a message came down to this House from the Crown, I expressed my disapprobation of it on the ground that that which you were undertaking to do, and upon which you were willing to sacrifice unknown millions of English treasure and many thousands of English lives, was a thing which every man in this House, who knew anything of the circumstances, at that moment must have known was an impossible task; and yet you rushed into it as if it were a matter of easy achievement, and persuaded the people of this country that you were doing a meritorious work for freedom. A noble Lord in the other House of Parliament went so far as to make a speech to show that the Mahomedans, in their practices and character, were better Christians than the Russians themselves. Why, I recollect the noble Lord at the head of the Government, who is not at all particular in that which he states when he has an object in persuading the House to take a certain course—adverse often, I believe, to the honour and to the interests of the country—the noble Lord—I recollect it as well as if it had been said only last night—stated that he believed there was no country in Europe in which improvement and improved administration had made such progress within the last twenty years as in Turkey, and in its government. I do not say the noble Lord did not believe that; but if he did believe it, he was the only man at all acquainted with Turkish affairs, who could possibly entertain so erroneous a notion. The thing was utterly inaccurate, and without foundation.
  After you had made the war, and, as

  649
  you said, chastised Russia, and re-established the power and dignity of the Porte, and secured the integrity of the Turkish Empire, by a treaty of the various Powers of Europe, you come now, nearly seven years after the commencement of that war, and four years only after its termination, and you find that country in a worse condition of anarchy than it was before you meddled with it. Your war did several things for Turkey. It destroyed what it had of a fleet; it destroyed what it had of an army. It left its finances in a more embarrassed condition than before; it left its revenues from Egypt, and, I think, from Syria, also pledged and mortgaged to the Powers which had lent it money; and it did that to which the noble Lord has referred as a thing greatly to be dreaded—it depreciated and stained altogether, in the eye of the Mahomedan population, the dignity of the Sultan, which they had been previously so much accustomed to regard. You have maintained upon the throne a man totally incapable of doing any single thing in the way of Government. We hear every three months that the Sultan has issued a severe order about something connected with the finances. That is all pretence; done with the idea of bolstering up, in the markets of Europe, Turkish Stock, and to force people to believe there is going to be some improvement. But there never is any improvement made. When you hear there is a wedding in the Sultan's family, in that of any of the Grand Pashas, the extravagance and expense is something that can hardly be credited in any Christian country. All this we hear; but we find, from time to time, that there is growing up in every part of the empire suspicion and distrust of the Government, hatred of the system under which they live—the tribes, as in Syria, massacring one another; and yet the very authorities of the Sultan, the pashas, who were receiving his wages—men whom, for aught I know, you decorated during that war—did not lift a hand to stay the shedding of the blood of your fellow-creatures, and, to some extent, your co-religionists. What is to be the end of it? I was speaking the other day to a gentleman possessing very extensive knowledge of the condition of the Turkish Empire. He believed that five years will not pass over before the Turks themselves, if nothing else occurs, will rise and pull down the Government, which has no longer dignity in their eyes, and which
  650
  has no longer the power to protect any portion of its subjects. He also says that in European Turkey such is the helplessness of the Government, and the unprotected condition of the people, that the Christians are everywhere providing themselves with arms for their own defence, and for the purpose, of course, of maintaining their own political views in the circumstances that may arise.
  What I want to impress upon the noble Lord is this, and I am sorry to tell the noble Lord that I do not think on this question of foreign matters he is of very teachable material—and perhaps he may think that I am not a very qualified adviser; but seeing that his noble Colleague at the head of the Government did no good by the expedition of 1840—he nearly quarrelled with France, not showing them the moderation which France is showing now—and seeing that both were concerned in the war of 1854, which has produced no useful result, I would seriously ask whether we are to be led again into a struggle with any European nation with the view of maintaining the integrity of a decaying and doomed empire? What has the Crimean war done for us? The only visible result presents itself in the shape of the Commissionaires in the streets of Loudon, unfortunate men who lost their arms in endeavouring to maintain the integrity of the Turkish Empire. The unseen consequences are an enormous addition to our debt and thousands of ill-fated Englishmen buried on the heights of Sebastopol, for whom all you did or could do was to send the Bishop of Gibraltar to consecrate the ground in which their bones repose. The noble Lord hopes that whatever may be done for Turkey will be done by general concert. It appears to me that there are only two modes of dealing with the question which have any argument to recommend them. One is the course of entire abstention. It is very likely that the adoption of that policy by the Powers of Europe would be followed before long by a sanguinary contest both in Asiatic and European Turkey. [Lord JOHN RUSSELL: Hear, hear!] The noble Lord, by the approbation he gives to that statement, puts his seal to all I have said with respect to the perilous condition of Turkey. I say let the European Powers agree to consult together as to what should be done, not for the purpose of sustaining the Turkish Empire, which I hold to be utterly impossible, but for the purpose of deciding

  651
  what shall take place when the Turkish Empire comes to an end. For instance, it would he a positive blessing to the Sulton if there could be a separate Government organized for Syria which should he independent of Constantinople; and probably before long the rebounds from these atrocities committed in Syria will be found in European Turkey, and you may have there risings and disturbances similar to those which have taken place in Syria. If this should occur, instead of caring very much that Russia should add a province to her bulk—-for the addition of provinces does not always give power to kingdoms and Governments—do in the name of common sense and common humanity abstain, at any rate, from attempting longer permanently to sustain a government, which everybody in Turkey believes to be unsustainable. Judging from the tone of Russia, of France, and of the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Office—and I take it Austria and Prussia would not throw obstacles in the way—if you do not adopt the policy of abstention, why should there not be some discussion with a view to establish new, separate, and better governments. The question of Constantinople, which is supposed to be the great political question, is surely not an insuperable difficulty. It cannot be said that Heaven permitted a great city to grow up in a favoured spot to form continually a bono of contention between the nations of Europe, or that the statesmen who have settled so many questions cannot suggest what can be done with this. What I am myself most anxious for is that England should hold itself aloof from that policy—should, in point of fact, repudiate it as altogether a mistake—that the integrity of the Turkish Empire is to be maintained, and that not this power, but the pretended power—the feebleness and dignity of the Sultan, is to be supported; and that all that is to be done again at the expense of the taxes drawn from the English people, and of the blood of Englishmen squandered like water in the endeavour to do that which nature says is impossible, and that all experience tells us we must fail in if we ever attempt.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, the hon. Member for Birmingham has charged me with being not very particular in the statements I make when they are to support my argument. I think I might return the compliment, but there is this difference between us, that upon certain questions of foreign policy and foreign affairs I happen,
  652
  from a variety of circumstances, to he better informed than the hon. Member appears to be. I take leave to say that I derive my knowledge more especially from a long superintendence of the Foreign Department of the Government, while the hon. Member obtains his chiefly from persons who, from their race, their prejudices, and their interests, are not the most impartial judges of the matters to which he has referred to-night. The hon. Member says that I stated on a former occasion that there was no country in Europe which, in the same space of time, had made such great progress in internal improvement as the Turkish Empire had since the death of the late Sultan. [Mr. BRIGHT: Previous to 1853.] My observation referred to the period since the accession of the present Sultan. I repeat that assertion, and I do so with the utmost deliberation and perfect knowledge of what I am stating. I am quite sure that everybody who really knows anything about Turkey will confirm the assertion I made,—that is, anybody who speaks impartially, free from prejudices, and with large and enlightened views. I give the hon. Member credit for the most perfect sincerity in what he states, but I must say that he takes a very limited view of the matter on which he speaks. It is very easy to say that the Turkish Empire will fall to pieces, and therefore you had better arrange what is to be done with the fragments; but the answer to that observation is, "only leave the Turkish Empire alone and perhaps it will not fall to pieces." If the course suggested by the hon. Member were adopted, and it were to be arranged beforehand what should be done with the fragments of the Turkish Empire, it is not very likely that that empire would last very long, for when once parties who are strong begin to divide prospectively the spoil of the weak, it is probable that the unfortunate party whose spoil is to be divided will not be very long lived. But I differ from the hon. Member in this. I admit that there is immense progress to be made in order-to bring Turkey up to the point of any European nation; yet, in looking at Turkey, we are too apt to think of what remains to be done rather than of that which has been done. Still, it is my opinion that if the Turkish Empire be left to itself, free from constant interference, except by good advice and support, it will not fall to pieces as the hon. Member fancies. It is exceedingly easy to say, "You must make

  653
  a partition of Turkey," but has the hon. Member considered what the political consequences may be, and must be, on the balance of power in Europe, and on the interests of other countries, of that system of partition which he now so earnestly recommends? I venture to say that, in this respect, the hon. Member takes a very limited view of the matter. He sees only the evils of the present day, and shuts his eyes entirely to those more large and serious consequences which would inevitably result if the principles he recommends were adopted. This is a very large question, and the subject is of too great importance to be discussed on a Motion for the adjournment of the House till Monday; but I only protest against the adoption of the maxims and policy of the hon. Member, and I can assure him that there are much graver, more serious, and more extensive results than be imagines involved in the policy he recommends. I trust that a different policy may tend to avert the evils which would inevitably ensue from the adoption of the policy of the hon. Member.

  MILITARY ORGANIZATION
  SIR FREDERIC SMITHsaid he rose to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether Her Majesty's Government contemplate taking any proceedings on the Report from the Select Committee on Military Organization? He wished to advert to some of the recommendations of the Report, which he considered a most valuable document. Among other matters the Report called attention to the fact that there were 3,000 men employed at Woolwich on Sir William Armstrong's guns, that they were under the supervision of Sir William Armstrong, who received £2,000 a year, which was to be continued to him for seven years; that the only place except Woolwich where the manufacture of Armstrong guns was carried on was a factory at Elswick, which was conducted by one of Sir William Armstrong's partners, for which, though Sir William Armstrong had no proprietary interest in it, he had advanced money, and had reserved the right to join in the concern in the event of his leaving the public service. The Report stated that Sir William Armstrong was well worthy of every confidence, but that he was placed by this arrangement in a false position, for he could not watch two great concerns so
  654
  distant from each other as Elswick and Woolwich, and ought not to be the inspector of guns made by his own partner. This was undoubtedly an improper arrangement, and he was sure that, now it was brought to the knowledge of the right hon. Secretary for War, it would not be allowed to go on any longer. The Report ended with a recommendation worthy of attention, and he hoped that during the recess it would be carried out by the right hon. Secretary for War, who had proposed a scheme for reorganizing the War Department. The scheme thus proposed would secure the infusion of new military blood into the War Department, which would give vigour to the system and confidence to the army. In his opinion the Report was a very sound one. The right hon. Secretary of State would have around him professional advisers, whose opinion he might consult, either separately or collectively, and he recommended that one or more of the heads of department whose appointment was proposed should have seats in the House of Commons. He thought the right hon. Gentleman would do well to carry out those recommendations.

SUPERANNUATION OF DOCKYARD LABOURERS.—QUESTION.
SIR FRANCIS BARINGsaid he rose to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, what course the Admiralty intend to pursue respecting the superannuation of the Dockyard Labourers on the Establishment, and to call the attention of the House to their case? Some four years ago, as the House would recollect, considerable agitation took place on the subject of superannuation, and much dissatisfaction existed and was expressed by the civil service. The ground of that dissatisfaction lay in the deductions from salaries, the scale of superannuation, and the class of persons who were to have the benefit of it. The first cause of complaint was removed by an Act of Parliament brought in by a noble Lord and carried, though opposed by the Government. The arrangement of the scale of superannuation was a matter of comparatively little difficulty. But there was some difficulty in ascertaining and fixing who were the parties who were to have the benefit of the operation of the Act. Under the old Act of Parliament there was no difficulty of that kind, because the deduction and the benefit went

655
together, and if a party did not pay the deduction he had no claim to the benefit of the Act. The line drawn, therefore, was at any rate a distinct one. His present object was to show that it was the intention of the framers of the existing Act, and of Parliament itself, that the parties whose case he advocated should receive the benefit of the Act. To make the question understood, it was necessary to remember that there were different classes of workmen in the dockyards. There were the artisans, such as shipwrights, blockmakers, &c. These were the established labourers, and there were a class of labourers who were not on the establishment, although they often were employed for a long time. The late Government at first did not intend to introduce any dockyard parties whatever, but they found that it was not possible, admitting the principle, to deny that it ought to be applied to them. An interview took place between Mr. Wilson—who had put on the table of the House some Amendments, with a view to admit those parties—himself (Sir Francis Baring), the Secretary to the Treasury, who had charge of the Bill, and the Secretary to the Admiralty, with the view of settling where the line should be drawn. He had letters from Mr. Wilson, distinctly stating that the intention and understanding then was that the established labourers, the parties whose case he advocated, should be admitted to the benefit of the Act, and he had no hesitation in confirming that opinion himself. The then Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of the Admiralty were present, and would confirm his statement. But he might be told that that was a private arrangement on the part of the Treasury, and was not known to Parliament. The hon. Member for Stamford (Sir Stafford Northcote), however, on going into Committee on the Bill, clearly explained that the Government intended to bring in these poor men. Then he might be told that the Act did not embrace their case, and that there were words in it which might be relied on for the purpose of depriving them of the right which Parliament meant to give them. But he did not think that this was a fair argument for the Government to use towards its servants. The Ministry of the day had promised a certain concession; it was made known to Parliament; and it was not quite fair now to turn round and say that, though that might have been the intention of Parliament, it was not sufficiently
656
expressed, and that therefore the arrangement could not be carried out. But, in point of fact, he did not think the words of the Act were opposed to the case of the labourers. The second clause of the Act was, he believed, sufficiently explicit, and was, indeed, framed by Mr. Wilson with a view of embracing their case. The first clause of the Act distinctly spoke of parties permanently employed, whether at weekly wages or on annual salary, and for whom provision should not otherwise have been made. Then came another clause, which at the first reading seemed rather complex. The purport of the clause to which he alluded was that no person should be regarded as belonging to the permanent Civil Service of the State, unless such person held his office directly from the Crown, or had received a certificate from the Civil Service Commissioners. Nor should any person be held to have served in the permanent Civil Service, unless he should have belonged to a class entitled to superannuation. Therefore, the alternative was, either that he should belong to a class already under superannuation, or to a class which was to receive a certificate from the Commissioners. Every human being who read the debates which took place upon the subject knew that new classes were intended to be brought in; for one of the great injustices under the old Act was, that there wore several classes of civil servants who had not the benefit of the Act. In the Post Office there were several officers sitting almost in the same rooms as other officers, who had not the benefit of the Superannuation Act, and those were brought in under the new Act. With regard to the certificate to be obtained from the Civil Service Commissioners, that was a point which gave rise to considerable discussion when the Act was passed, and they were told by the then Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Stafford Northcote) that that provision was introduced, not for the purpose of depriving persons who had the benefit of the old Act of what they possessed, but for the purpose of admitting new classes. They were also told that it was not proposed that those poor fellows should be sent up to London to be examined, but the local authorities were to report them as possessing the requisite qualifications, and upon that the Commissioners were to grant the certificate. He did not know whether the Commissioners could grant a certificate upon such conditions; but, if not, the greater was the

657
grievance. He could quote the cases of several poor men, advanced in years, who had served twenty years and upwards, and had been obliged to retire from injuries which they had sustained in the performance of their duties. Having been one of those who had misled these men into believing that the Government intended to act up to their professions, he felt that ho was entitled to ask the Government what they intended to do. There was one answer, at all events, which he hoped he should not get, which was that it would cost a great deal. The question was, had the promise been made? At the time the Act was discussed, the expense was fully stated and considered, and it would not be right, when its benefits had been carried out in respect to all other classes, that the question of cost should be set up to deprive the poorest class of the advantages of the Act.
LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, if any one was to blame for any ambiguity that there might be in the wording of the Superannuation Act, it was the late Government. The late Admiralty had addressed a letter to the Treasury, asking whether established labourers in the dockyards would be entitled to superannuation. That letter was not replied to by the late Treasury Board, but the present Board had requested the Admiralty to send a list of all such persons whom they considered to be entitled to superannuation, and to give their opinion as to the extension of superannuation allowances to ordinary labourers. The right hon. Baronet had elicited a cheer by deprecating the argument of expense being used against his views, but the question of expense was a serious one if all labourers were to be held entitled to superannuation; for it would be not merely the labourers upon the establishment, but others who formed a very numerous class. The present Admiralty had therefore hesitated to recommend this increased burden on the finances of the country. [Mr. W. WILLIAMS; Hear, hear.] The speech of the late hon. Secretary to the Treasury, when the Bill was under discussion, pointed out distinctly that the object of the Bill was to get men for the civil service at moderate salaries—the English of which was that the civil servants, upon condition that they Were in their old age to enjoy superannuation allowance, should serve at a lower rate of wages than the market rate. The dockyard artificers were, and had been, entitled to superannuation; but then they wee bound to serve
658
the Government at lower wages than they could obtain in private establishments in consideration of the prospect of a pension. In ordinary times these men received 4s. 6d. a day in the Royal dockyards, which was lower than the market value of their services. Every class of labourers received superannuation under the Act except the lowest class—viz., the ordinary labourers, who receive the full market value of their labour. The Order in Council of 1839 stated that "all artificers and workmen, excluding ordinary labourers and hired men, should be allowed superannuation," and the ordinary labourers had consequently never received superannuation allowances. Clause 17, quoted by his right hon. Friend, was certainly ambigious, but it stipulates that all classes entitled to these allowances shall undergo examination before the Civil Service Commissioners. Could they ask an unskilled labourer to go before the Civil Service Commissioners and pass an examination? At all events, it was not fair that a large body of these men should be entitled now for the first time to superannuation allowances unless the House distinctly understood the amount of expenditure it was about to incur. If ordinary labourers were superannuated, how could they exclude dockyard hospital nurses, warders, and a variety of servants of the same class? He did not say whether it was right or wrong that the ordinary labourers in dockyards should receive superannuation, but only that the language of the clause was not sufficiently clear to entitle the Admiralty of itself to recommend them to superannuation allowances. The Admiralty had, in fact, no power to grant these pensions, and it was more a Treasury than an Admiralty question, and it would be submitted for their decision. He did not know the case which had been cited by the right hon. Baronet, but he had not unfrequently submitted to the Treasury claims for pensions and gratuities when persons who were not strictly entitled to them had suffered from ill-health or accidents incurred in the public service. Some Returns on this subject were now in preparation, and, as soon as they were completed, the attention of the Treasury would be called to the subject.
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, the matter had been so fully stated by the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Francis Baring) that it would be necessary for him only to confine the statement he had made as to the interview which he, as Secretary to the

659
Treasury, had with the right hon. Gentleman and Mr. Wilson. The matter had been brought forward several times, and the late Government had been found fault with for having introduced a provision which would admit a large class of labourers before excluded. They defended the proposal as well as they could, and the House accepted the decision. He was himself responsible for the 17th clause, which was said to be ambiguous, although he could not understand where the difficulty lay. It originated in this way. The right hon. Gentleman and Mr. Wilson represented to him that the Bill did not provide for the case of labourers in the dockyards. He replied that it was not intended to include all the labourers, Mr. Wilson thereupon observed that it was necessary to distinguish what was meant by ordinary labourers, since that term included established men, hired men, and those generally known as ordinary labourers. Mr. Wilson added; that of course the Bill would not include the two latter classes; but there were established labourers who were also ordinary labourers, but who were just as much permanent civil servants of the Crown as the clerks of the Treasury, and who ought therefore to be included by the Government in the Bill. Mr. Wilson proposed that the Act should apply to men who had served the Crown in a permanent capacity. There appeared some ambiguity about such a description, and he (Sir Stafford Northcote) thought it would be a proper test that the Act should apply to persons who might be admitted by certificate from the Civil Service Commissioners, since they not only gave certificates for reading and writing, but also as to health, age, and other matters. There was another class of civil servants whose case was provided for, namely, those who did not need certificates from the Commissioners, but who held their appointments directly from the Crown. There also arose a difficulty with respect to persons who were in the service long before the Civil Service Commission was established, and a provision had to be introduced into the clause to meet their case. This was done by applying to them in substance and spirit the same rule as extended to the other classes of civil servants, and thus bringing them within the language of the 17th section. There was really no mystery about the matter, although the section was necessarily a complicated one. The case of the letter-carriers in the Post Office stood on all-fours with that of the
660
dockyard labourers. The letter-carriers were ordinary labourers, not requiring to possess any high intellectual attainments. It had been determined, however, that those who were admitted into the service in future should pass an examination as prescribed by the Civil Service Commissioners, and those who did pass such an examination should belong to the first class of letter-carriers. They would be expected to give their whole time to the service, without engaging in any other work, and they would be entitled to superannuation. But those letter-carriers who had been admitted without obtaining the certificate of examination from the Civil Service Commissioners belonging to the second class, who were not required to devote themselves exclusively to their occupation as letter-carriers and these would not be entitled to a pension. The object of such certificates was to ascertain that they were recognized by the Government as permanent and established servants of a prescribed age, health, or other qualifications. If, therefore, they were to treat these men in the same way as the letter-carriers, and to lay down a distinct rule as to those of them who received and those who did not receive certificates from the Commissioners, the matter would be perfectly clear. There would be one class of established men, regular dockyard labourers, admitted with a certificate, and entitled to superannuation; whilst there would be another class of ordinary labourers, and mere hired men, not permanently belonging to the establishment. The claim of these men was pressed upon the late Government, who acceded to it; and the House, with its eyes open, assented to the arrangement that was come to in their behalf. It would therefore be a breach of faith on the part of the Government if it now refused these persons the benefits which an Act of Parliament deliberately intended to give them.
MR. CORRYexpressed his conviction that the claims of these dockyard labourers had been completely established by the hon. Member for Stamford and the right hon. Member for Portsmouth. The second clause of the Act left no doubt as to their title to superannuation. Previous to 1833 the established labourers in the dockyards, with certain specified exceptions, received these pensions; and the same subsequent fit of economy which deprived them of that boon also took it away from the dockyard artificers. In point of fact, a labourer was only a less skilled species of artificer.

THE RED RIVER SETTLEMENT.
  QUESTION.
  MR. CAIRDsaid, he wished to put a question to the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies relative to the British Territory on the Red River and the Assiniboine. He remarked that the statements which he made on a former occasion about that territory, and which were contradicted then by the right hon. Member for Coventry (Mr. Ellice), had been entirely confirmed by the report of local investigations since received. There could be no doubt that in those regions there was an extensive territory, one of great fertility, and perfectly adapted for colonization. He would ask whether the Government had yet come to any decision with a view to the opening of that territory to settlement and colonization?

  CLAIMS ON CHINA—QUESTION.
  MR. GREGSONsaid, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, if the Two Millions of Taels on account of losses sustained by British subjects, and the further sum of Two Millions of Taels on account of the expenses of the War, as stipulated for by the Treaty of Tien-tsin, be in the course of payment: and, to call the attention of Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer to the increased ability of China to pay a pecuniary indemnity? The tael represented about 6s. 8d. and consequently the amount claimed by the merchants amounted to £670,000. A like sum of £670,000 was claimed by the Government, making together £1,340,000. He was quite aware that the treaty had not been ratified, but he wished to know if arrangements were in progress for the payment of British subjects who had suffered losses in China. It was rumoured that the French had received some portion of their claims, and that the Americans, by an arrangement, had obtained the whole of their claims; and really some specific arrangement should be made with regard to the payment of the amount claimed by the British merchants and Government. A much better arrangement was made in 1842, when it was agreed that the payments should be made within a specific time. He hoped the Government would be able to tell him that instructions were given to the Earl of Elgin to make a specific arrangement for the payment of the money. The Chinese were capable of paying the money, and if authority were given to the Earl of Elgin he would be able to
  662
  collect the whole amount. The amount now claimed was much smaller than the amount of the claim on the former occasion, and they should take care of themselves, and see that some portion of the funds was appropriated to them by the Chinese Government. The Chinese Government were in a better position now than ever to pay any claims made upon them.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid he was afraid he could not give the hon. Gentleman a satisfactory answer. The sums to which the question related were not in course of payment, and no portion of them had been obtained. The French, under their treaty, had already received at least one instalment of between £300,000 and £400,000 on account of their expenditure during the last Chinese war, but England had received nothing whatever, because, although there was a stipulation contained in the treaty for the payment of the money, yet there were no particulars of time, or place, or means by which it was to he paid, and therefore no valid claim had arisen. The suggestion that the money might be taken out of customs received by the British agents was a matter for the consideration of his noble Friend the Foreign Minister, and so likewise were the instructions which might be sent to the Earl of Elgin. All he could say was that in the ultimatum sent out to Mr. Bruce this payment was included, but, as they knew, that ultimatum had been rejected. He did not like to form any very sanguine estimate of the pecuniary or other results of the operations in China. Fie hoped for the best, and trusted that we might soon arrive at some final settlement.
  The law of chaos and confusion which regulated their debates on a Friday evening entitled him to turn to the subject of the Superannuation Act, with respect to which he might say that the case of the dockyard labourers had never been reported to the Treasury, and the Treasury therefore had taken no proceedings with respect to it. The Admiralty had been asked for a statement of the classes of persons who would be brought within the operation of the system of superannuation, in consequence of the now Act, but the official answer had not yet been received. What he had to say, therefore, was merely of the nature of cursory remark. The hon. Member for Stamford seemed to think that the Treasury should proceed in the administration of the Act, not upon the law as it stood, but upon the intentions which were

  663
  entertained by himself or others at the time of the passing of the Act, whether the law had given effect to them or not. Now, the law had laid down the condition that no person was entitled to superannuation unless he had a certificate from the Civil Service Commissioners, and the hon. Member for Stamford contended that certain labourers in the dockyards ought to receive certificates from the Civil Service Commissioners, in order that they might thereby become entitled to superannuation. But in the Superannuation Act the most incongruous subjects were mixed up together. The question of having a certificate from the Civil Service Commissioners had nothing to do with the right to superannuation. A temporary clerk might be subjected to an examination by the Commissioners, but he had no title to superannuation; while, on the other hand, certain artificers and labourers might justly be entitled to superannuation, though not bound to undergo an examination. For his own part, he could not see the propriety of making use of the Civil Service Commissioners for the purpose of ascertaining the ages and state of health of the labourers who were employed in our dockyards in the performance of mere manual labour; nor could he at all assent to the doctrine laid down by his hon. Friend to the effect that the position of those labourers and the letter-carriers ought to be regarded in the same light, inasmuch while the former were mere labourers and nothing else, the latter were very frequently called upon in the pursuit of their avocations for the display of a ready and offhand intelligence. His hon. Friend had also observed that there were in our dockyards different classes of labourers, all receiving the market price for their labour, and had contended that a distinction should be drawn between those classes, by means of which one portion of the men should continue to receive the market price of their labour, while another portion should, in addition, be entitled to a retiring pension. The House would, however, at once perceive that if the Government were to act on any such principle as that which his hon. Friend advocated without the authority of Parliament they would justly be open to the charge of having acted in the matter with undue precipitancy. The case of artisans in our dockyards stood, he might add, on quite a different footing, inasmuch as their engagement was of a permanent nature, and they were not enabled to take advantage of passing events;
  664
  for instance, as the Russian war, to sell their labour in the dearest market. He should not on the present occasion enter more into detail on the subject, but should content himself with having made those few general obserservations.

JAMAICA LUNATIC ASYLUM.

  QUESTION.
  MR. CLIFFORDsaid, he would beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, if it is the intention of the Government to take any further measures for the appointment of a Commission to inquire into the condition and management of the Public Lunatic Asylum at Kingston in the Island of Jamaica? Various abuses connected with the building, its want of accommodation, conveniences, cleanliness, ventilation, and proper separation of the sexes, had been discovered by Dr. Bowring, a physician, practising in the island, and laid before the Government; who, however, declined to appoint a tribunal for their investigation.
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid that the subject of the lunatic asylum in Jamaica deserved and had received full inquiry. The Colonial Office had done all they could to remedy the evils complained of, but he must remind the House that the institution was in Jamaica and not in England. The Government had not felt warranted in asking the assent of the House either to the sum of money or to the Act of Parliament which would be required before a Commission of inquiry could be sent out to Jamaica. They were unwilling to take any course which could be considered offensive to the colonial Government or to the Legislature; and all they had done was to endeavour, by the influence of the Secretary of State, and of a very able governor, to have inquiry made into those abuses, with a view to their being remedied. All the information which the Government had obtained had been forwarded to the Commissioners of Lunacy, who, with the Earl of Shaftesbury, had interested themselves in the matter.
  With reference to the question which had been asked in relation to the Red River territory, he was bound to express his opinion that over a great portion of their territory the jurisdiction of the Hudson's Bay Company had proved of incalculable advantage. Communications had passed between the Colonial Office and the company, which showed that the expectations of colonization on a large scale, which

  665
  by some had been entertained, were as yet premature. The district, however, was very favourably situated for the purpose, and, doubtless, in the course of time a large settlement would take place. The Session was now too far advanced for the introduction of any Bill; but he hoped that during the recess some understanding would be arrived at, which next year might be made the foundation of a satisfactory measure.

THE REVISED ARMY LISTS.
  QUESTION.
  COLONEL LINDSAYsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for war, if any decision has been arrived at with respect to the Colonels promoted to that rank for distinguished service in the Crimea, who were, upon the revision of the Lists by the Commissioners of 1858, unfortunately omitted from consideration in the Report of that Commission? On a former occasion ho had called the attention of the right lion. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War to this question, and was told that some technical difficulties surrounded it, but that if he could propose any plan by which these would be obviated it would receive favourable consideration. Accordingly some two months ago he brought certain plans under the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman. The proposal which he ventured to make might be regarded as opposed to the rules of the service, and as forming a precedent; but where justice was to be done, he thought the Government would be only acting properly in establishing a precedent which would only be followed where the circumstances were exactly parallel. Most of these officers had been very unfortunately placed. They were abroad in India at the time of the revision, and could not, therefore, defend their claims. The consequence was that while they were serving their country abroad their country was doing them an injustice at home. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he had come to any decision as to the alternatives laid before him, one of which he knew the right hon. Gentleman was very anxious to adopt.

THE ENFIELD RIFLES.—QUESTION.
COLONEL DICKSONsaid, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is proposed, and by whose advice, to
666
shorten the stocks of all the Rifles in course of manufacture at Enfield one inch? He had recently inspected the rifle manufactory at Enfield, and he could bear his decided testimony to the admirable manner in which that establishment, in all its branches, was conducted. Not less than 1,000 excellent rifles were made there weekly, at a cost of only £2 1s. 3d. each; and so extensive was the machinery employed for that purpose that it took 1,800 men to superintend its working. He was afraid, however, that the proposed shortening of the stocks of the rifles would necessitate costly alterations in the machinery.
MR. SIDNEY HERBERT: I am glad to find that the hon. and gallant Officer (Colonel Dickson) has inspected the factory at Enfield, and I wish other Members of Parliament would do the same. I do not believe there is another establishment in the country where the machinery is so complete and where the system works so admirably. The expediency of shortening the stock of the Enfield rifle was raised by the Small Arms Committee. The question was submitted to the head of the Enfield factory and to General Hay, and it was decided that in the proportion of six to four there should be issued to every regiment so many muskets with short stocks and so many with long, so that there should be rifles to suit the different stature of different men. I do not believe it will necessitate any particular change in the machinery. The main object is that every man should get a rifle to fit his shoulder well. We have consulted eighty-seven regiments, and there is a great preponderance of authority in favour of issuing rifles of different lengths.
With regard to the question of the gallant Member for Wigan (Colonel Lindsay) I have submitted the two plans to the Commander-in-Chief, and I have had some communication with him on the subject, but he has not come to any decision. I believe he thinks there will be a great difficulty as regards the rest of the army in adopting either of the proposals made. That is a subject on which he is a good judge, and I should be disposed to be guided by his opinion when it comes before me.
With regard to the question put to me by the gallant Member for Chatham (Sir Frederic Smith) in reference to the Report of the Committee on Military Organization, the Report is before the House, but the evidence is not produced at present. As

667
soon as I have that evidence before me it will be my duty to lay it before the Government, with a view to considering what changes ought to be made in the administration of the army. When I was examined before the Committee I expressed a very strong opinion that there ought to be a greater infusion of the military element in the administration of the army. I felt that the army is necessarily jealous of being exclusively managed by civilians, and that in carrying on the business of the War Office we had not a sufficient number of officers to whom we could refer with respect to the regulations of the army. When the proper time comes I shall draw the attention of the Government to the subject, but I cannot undertake to make any proposal on the matter this Session. My hands are full enough already, but next Session I hope to be able to propose some changes which will add to the efficiency of the army.
COLONEL KNOXsaid, there was a strong feeling in the army with respect to the affairs at the War Office being so largely conducted by civilians, and he was happy to hear the declaration that had been made by the right hon. Gentleman on that subject. It would give great satisfaction to the army, and a larger infusion of the military element into the War Office would be received with great gratification.

CROWN PROSECUTORS (IRELAND).

  QUESTION.
  MR. GEORGEsaid, he would beg to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether he is aware that Mr. George Keogh, who has been lately appointed Crown Prosecutor for the county of Meath, continues to act as Registration Agent for the Liberal interest in the city of Dublin, and that he also acts as Solicitor to the Wicklow Liberal Registry Association; whether any general rule exists on the subject of Crown Prosecutors interfering in politics, and whether that rule will be enforced in the case of Mr. Keogh; and, if no such rule exists, whether such interference in political matters by a party holding the responsible office of Crown Prosecutor meets with the approbation of the Attorney General?
  MR. DEASYsaid, that when be appointed the gentleman to whom the question referred, he was aware that he had acted as registration agent for the Liberal party in Dublin and the county of Wicklow,
  668
  but he did not know whether Mr. Keogh intended to continue to act in that capacity, and he had not imposed any special condition on the subject. Mr. Keogh had since communicated to him that he was ready to conform to any rule or special order which he might make. He was not aware that any general rule or practice existed. He had heard of Sessional Crown Solicitors acting as election agents in the counties in which they officiated. He did not think they ought to do so. Whether any restriction should be placed on their professional services in other counties was worthy of consideration, but he did not wish to give a specific pledge on the subject. His own experience having been short he would inquire what had been the practice of previous Attorney Generals, and take care that any rule which he might make should be applied to Mr. Keogh. He should make no exception in his favour, but he was sure the hon. Gentleman would not wish that any exception should be made against him.

FORTIFICATIONS BILL.

  REPORT. FIRST READING.
  MR. MASSEYbrought up the Report of the Resolution which was agreed to in Committee yesterday, on the subject of fortifications.
  ADMIRAL WALCOTT: I do not rise with any intention of offering opposition to the reception of the Report. My object is simply to reiterate the conviction which is universally prevalent and accepted as irresistible, that the British Navy forms the first line of defence which England professes in case any foreign Power should have the hardihood to attempt a descent upon its shores. Such a design could never be entertained by any nation whose resources did not rise far above a parity with our own. The first step—one indispensable—to secure a prospect of success must be the complete annihilation of our fleet. Should the vessels engaged on either side be crippled in an engagement, to whichever of the combatants the better issue of the battle should fall, both fleets would be com-elled to return to harbour to be refitted. Even under these conditions it would be possible for an enemy to cross the Channel with the steamers and transports on board of which his troops were embarked. It therefore appears to me to be a paramount necessity on our part, as a simple provision of precaution, to have in reserve a flotilla

  669
  of steamgun and mortarboats, as a second line of defence, supported by a strong division of steamrams. I should propose that the length of the latter vessels should be 200 feet, instead of 380 feet, the size of the Warrior—thus enabling them to he bandied with greater ease and promptitude. They should carry a broadside of 18 guns and command a speed of 10 to 14 knots an hour, in order to afford a ready protection and assistance to the smaller vessels, which should be disposed in numbers sufficient to defend every vulnerable point along our shores and every spot practicable for a hostile landing. Such is the obvious system for a complete and practical defence against an invading force. And the recommendation gathers force from the consideration that in order to maintain our vast commerce there was not a sea on which a ship could float where the British colours were not displayed; and that independently of our widely scattered Colonies and numerous dependencies, each of which demanded the presence of our navy. In the outlay of money designed for sea defences or land fortifications this protection of our country and its settlements must form a paramount object. Let me guard myself against any misconception. I by no means would be supposed to underrate the importance of keeping up or strengthening our defences by land. To neglect them would be an act as criminal as to count too curiously for the purpose of a misplaced economy, or of resisting the expenditure, the outlay which must be indispensable to secure their efficiency. Hon. Members have expressed an apprehension that the estimated cost of £12,000,000 may be doubled. Even if I grant that their opinions are well grounded, I must remind them that the premium is small indeed in comparison with the insurance for our security which it will effect. Should our naval arsenals and dockyards, the cradle of our fleets and armies, be left without a sufficient protection, in what manner and in what place—upon the presumption of a reverse at sea—could we hope, or rather be able to repair or replace a crippled navy? If an enemy can once force his way through those wooden walls which have for centuries formed the impregnable outworks and floating bulwarks of this country, and been at once the admiration and envy of every antagonist, let me ask to what source of protection we are to look? Never could I persuade myself that either an enemy will
  670
  venture upon an attempt to land upon these shores, or should he make the endeavour, that the event would be other than a summary failure or complete annihilation on his part. But even if my assurance is groundless; if I allow, but for a moment, the improbable—nay, Sir, may I not truly say, the impossible contingency, that the British Navy could lose its ancient reputation and lower its proud flag—and, with equal argument I might suppose that the British Army would suffer itself to be overpowered and surrender its time-honoured name—I foresee an event which cannot prove untrue.
  Let us be backed with God, and with the seas,
  Which lie hath given for fence impregnable,
  And with their helps only defend ourselves:
  In them and in ourselves our safety lies.
  The population of this country has armed itself calmly, deliberately, in no moment of hot panic, it has resolved that as England never did, so it never shall, lie at the proud foot of a conqueror. Our watchword, Pro aris et focis, loyalty to our Sovereign, our homes, our country, will lend a giant's strength to even the stripling's arm. Defence, not defiance, is the spirit that animates England at this moment; the foe-man may land, but not one will return to tell the tale; we shall be true to ourselves, but our trust lies in the heartstirring words, "May God defend the right!"
  MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, that if there were but the most remote danger of an invasion being successful he would be the first man to support the Vote, but he believed that our means of defence were now such, that if the whole world were in arms against us, an invasion would be hopeless. The Emperor of the French had shown in his letter that his army, deducting the men in Algeria, Rome, and China, was little more than 300,000 men. By a return dated the 1st of June, he found that we had an actual force under arms of 323,000 men. An addition of 10,000 more riflemen of the Irish constabulary, of the Militia, and of the dockyard battalions, in all 80,000, must be made, and that gave a force of not less than 400,000 men. It would be perfectly impossible for 100,000 French soldiers to land in England if the British Navy were in an efficient state, and if it were not sufficient to protect the shores of England he should be ready to increase its force. The worst of all these fortifications was, that it would end in a vast increase to the standing army to man them, and, believing that if the whole French

  671
  army were to land here the male population of the country would surely defeat it, he could not support the proposition of the Government.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he would not enter into the question of the wisdom of the Government proposals respecting fortifications, though he would gladly give them his support, as he considered them wise and proper. Before proceeding to the subject to which he wished to call the attention of the Government, he would make a few observations on the mode of conducting the business of the House. It was the clear understanding that the order of business on the paper of the House should be adhered to, and yet the Report on Fortifications, which was the third order on the paper, was made the first business. That was not the usual course of proceeding, though there might be in the present instance some good reason for it.
  He would now advert to two suggestions to which he wished to draw the attention of the Government. He was disposed to think that the arrangements necessary for carrying out the proposed fortifications must involve a very considerable addition of barrack accommodation and of available space in the arsenals, and he ventured to think that the Government could do nothing more tending to increase the efficiency of the naval service than by establishing naval barracks and naval prisons. Nothing was more important than to improve the discipline of the navy, for it was not what the country and naval officers wished it to be. He believed that for the improvement of naval organization no object was more desirable than to provide the means of giving the sailors barrack accommodation on shore, whereby the discipline of the navy might be maintained, and a gradual approach might be made to what was called a standing navy. He was supported in this opinion by naval officers and he hoped the suggestion would receive the attention of the Government.
  The other suggestion he had to make was, that there ought be naval prisons as there were army prisons. One result of the recent concessions made with respect to the punishment of sailors was that, as corporal punishment was so much done away with the imprisonment of sailors was increased. Now, there were no places in which to imprison them, except the common gaols of the country. Sailors were consequently sent to the county prisons,
  672
  and there exposed to association with, and contamination by, all the felons inhabiting those prisons, the inevitable result being that they came out worse characters than they went in. He read the other day a statement perfectly startling respecting the proportion of the crews of the present Channel Fleet who from various causes had passed through the county prisons of England. He had heard the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War state that the barrack accommodation for soldiers was far short of what the army required; but in respect to fortifications, the fortifications could not be made without casemated barracks, and thereby the barrack accommodation would be increased, and whatever might be the case under the pressure of war, in ordinary times some amount of barrack accommodation would be set free. Of course, any barracks for the accommodation of sailors must be near the sea, and he asked the Government to take into their serious consideration whether the establishment of naval barracks and naval prisons would not afford facilities for improving the character and efficiency of the navy.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, he entirely concurred with the right hon. Gentleman in regard to both the matters referred to; and it was with the view of establishing some naval prison that the Admiralty had called for returns of the number of seamen imprisoned in various county gaols for some time past. Therefore the Admiralty had not lost sight of this very important matter; but with respect to barracks, he must remind the House of some observations he made on this subject about two years ago, when the right hon. Gentleman was First Lord of the Admiralty. He then suggested, that the barrack system should be tried on a small scale. It was true that there were conflicting opinions among naval officers with respect to naval barracks; some holding that they would not suit the habits of sailors, who would rather, it was said, prefer the hulks. He did not agree in that opinion, but believed it would be advantageous to have naval barracks established at the naval ports. He had said to his right hon. Friend, "Try it on a small scale. you have plenty of barracks contiguous to dockyards, and you may give the scheme a trial there." In reply to this, the War Secretary declared that they were borrowing hulks from the navy, because they had not barrack accommodation for the troops; but he still could not

  673
  help being surprised that his right lion. Friend, while at the Admiralty, did not attempt to effect these improvements.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: The fortifications were not going to be made when I was in office.
  SIR MICHAEL SEYMOURexpressed his concurrence in the suggestion which had been made for the establishment of naval barracks and naval prisons. The imprisonment of seamen in the county gaols had been found exceedingly detrimental to naval discipline.
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, the sea defences recommended were a matter of immediate necessity; but the land works required great consideration before they were proceeded with. He thought, especially, that, in the present state of knowledge as to fortifications, the works on Portsdown-hill ought not to be at once carried on. In reference to some of the other fortifications at Portsmouth, he would mention that, in case of a siege, the water works would be beyond the lines of defence. It was said that in the event of a siege the inhabitants might obtain a supply from the wells; but all the shallow wells were brackish, and the water would be sure to engender sickness. Then, again, in the case of a bombardment, the value of the works in throwing water all over the dockyard, and in thus keeping down any fires that might break out, ought not to be overlooked. Moreover, the old fortifications, though useless, were to be kept up; although they would be, when the new fortifications were completed, much in the way. He thought that it was prudent that the railway should be carried down to the pier so as to facilitate communication with the Isle of Wight. With regard to the present system of lodging men in hulks, nothing could be more barbarous. These hulks were cold and miserable, there was no proper police on board, the men were suffering often from rheumatism and sickness, and were driven to the public houses, and it was altogether a most demoralizing system. There were barracks at Sheer-ness, and the men were better satisfied and better conducted than at other places. Sir H. Douglas's opinion was, that the land fortifications were too extensive for our force to man them; which opinion was supported not only by Sir Frederic Smith, hut, he believed, by Sir John Burgoyne. Under these circumstances, he thought that further time should be taken for consideration whether, in the event of an invasion,
  674
  it would not be possible to transport from the interior of the country to the coast a body of workmen who could, in the course of a few hours, throw up defences that it would take weeks, if not months, to over-come.
  "That it is the opinion of the Committee that, towards providing for the Construction of Work for the Defence of the Royal Dockyards and Arsenals, and of the Ports of Dovor and Portland, and for the creation of a Central Arsenal, a sum not exceeding two million pounds, be charged upon the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom, and that the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury be authorized and empowered to raise the said sum by Annuities for a term not exceeding thirty years; and that such Annuities shall he charged upon and be payable out of the said Consolidated Fund."
  Resolution agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Viscount PALMERSTON, Sir GEORGE LEWIS, and Mr. SECRETARY HERBERT.
  Bill presented, and read [1° to he read 2° on Thursday next, and to be printed [Bill 308],

SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he hoped that the House would allow them to go into Committee at once, and he should propose that they should only take the Vote which had been partly discussed in the morning. It would be impossible to do more; and hon. Gentlemen who had Motions on the Paper would perhaps at that hour (half-past eleven) think that it was too late to discuss those Motions with satisfaction to themselves.
  House in Committee.
  MR. MASSEYin the Chair.
  Question again proposed,
  "That a sum not exceeding £39,697, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for Works and Expenses at the New Houses of Parliament, to the 31st day of March, 1861."
  MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHcomplained that the Vote was not prepared in a more business-like form; and he proceeded to criticise some of the details of it. There was a large sum amounting to several thousand pounds for the purchase of land, mixed up with the ordinary expenses for gas, and coal, and other things for the two Houses of Parliament. He would next advert to the "balances in the Exchequer," a matter which had been previously referred to. The Vote under this head last

  675
  year was £58,000, but not a shilling of this had been spent, and, therefore, there was now in hand nearly £90,000 to meet an estimated expenditure of about 140,000. The right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary had told them that the Government could not spend more than the total sum voted for the year; hut it was doubtful whether the right hon. Baronet, notwithstanding the attention he had paid to the question as a member of the Committee on Public Moneys, really understood the rule in regard to the balances which remained in the Exchequer. He wished distinctly to understand whether the Government, although asking for a new Vote of £39,000, actually had at their command the whole of the £58,000 voted last year.
  MR. EDWIN JAMESsaid, he wished to direct attention to the estimate of £800 a piece for statues of the British Sovereigns, in a series, to be placed in various parts of the Palace of Westminster. He also wished to ask the First Commissioner of Works what chronological period the series was to embrace? Was it to begin with the Norman conquest, or did they intend to go back to King Arthur? It was proposed that commissions should first be given for two of these statues. What were the two statues to be commissioned, and by whom were they to be executed? At the morning sitting the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. Williams) had raised the question whether, among the series of British Sovereigns, there was to be a statue to Oliver Cromwell. The right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner did not give a distinct answer to that question, but lie was understood to say that a certain Commission of the Fine Arts had recommended that there ought not to be a statue to Cromwell. He thought that that was the proper time to discuss this question before they embarked upon a large expenditure for statues of British Sovereigns; and, therefore, he wished to know whether Oliver Cromwell was to be included in that series. That was a question not only of art, but of a sentiment in the English mind. He thought there should he a statue of Oliver Cromwell. Whether it should be placed between Charles I. and Charles II. was a matter of taste. For his own part, he (Mr. James) thought, if it stood alone in solitary grandeur, it would be regarded as superior to all the Sovereigns. Unless he obtained a distinct reply, he should move to reduce the vote by £1,600.
  SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, he would
  676
  not enter into an historical disquisition about Oliver Cromwell, who was undoubtedly a men of talent and genius, who did much to raise the power of this country, but, it must be remembered, that he was also a great tyrant. How any Gentleman, who prided himself on professing Liberal opinions, could praise Oliver Cromwell was most astonishing. What had he done? He had said "Take away that bauble." He had taken away that "bauble," shut up the House of Commons, and governed England by means of majors-general. Oliver Cromwell cut off the head of his Sovereign Charles I. because he said the King had betrayed the liberties of his country; but did Charles I. ever do anything against the liberties of the country compared with the act of Oliver Cromwell in shutting up the House of Commons? He cut oft the King's head because it was necessary to gratify his own ambition. He (Sir George Bowyer) said that Oliver Cromwell was a murderer, and if a statue of that man was placed in that building, it could only be regarded as a declaration against monarchical principle. He would be sorry to see in that House the statue of a man who murdered his Sovereign, and destroyed the Constitution.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, he rose to call attention to an item of £4,000 for decorating the Palace of Westminster, respecting which he desired explanations, fie found that Mr. Maclise was employed to execute paintings in fresco for £5,300. The amount already voted was £2,500; less than that sum had been expended, and yet now £1,000 more was asked. Then for the Peers' corridor the estimate of works to he done was £4,800. The amount already voted was £3,000, the amount expended was only £1,800, and yet now the Committee was asked for £600 more on account. For the Commons' corridor there were votes somewhat similar. He thought these and other facts showed that the Fine Arts' Commission had money enough in band, and he would give three instances of the evils resulting from allowing them to have money on account. In 1848 the Fine Arts' Commission entered into an agreement with Mr. Dyce to paint a work in fresco for the Queen's robbing-room, for which he was to be paid £800 a year for six years, making altogether £4,800. That contract expired in 1854, but an additional year's time and a further sum of £600 were granted. Mr. Dyce, according to the Estimates, had been voted

  677
  £5,400, but where was the fresco? And yet that gentleman had in the meantime executed a very important work for a church in Margaret Street. He did not wish to make any charge against Mr. Dyce, hut he did think it was Mr. Dyce's duty to execute the frescoes entrusted to him by the Government before he entered upon any other work. No private individual would dream of paying for work before it was done. What difference, then, ought there to be made in the payments by the nation? But he found upon examining the Report of the Fine Arts Commission, that they had a sort of suspicion that all was not right, for they made observations on Mr. Dyce, saying that lie had not done his work, and they hoped he would. Then, again, Mr. Herbert was to paint frescoes for the Peers' robbing-room, for £9,000 in nine years, ending in April, 1860; but, although Mr. Herbert had been voted £6,000, he (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) could find no frescoes. If anything happened to Mr. Herbert, how would the nation be placed with regard to the £6,000 already paid? Mr. Maclise was to paint the Painted Chamber in ten years, for which he. was to receive £9,000. In 1855 a Vote of £1,500 on account was taken, but Mr. Maclise became dissatisfied, and requested that the contract should be cancelled, which was done, and the £1,500 applied to painting certain "signs," called the "Tudor portraits, in the Painted Chamber, of which there were twenty-eight, and for which £70 each was paid. The House ought to be told under what authority money voted for one purpose had thus been applied to another. These "Tudor portraits" were the universal derision of every one connected with art. They were not the work of any painter, but were executed by the Kensington Museum—by the Head of the School of Design and his pupils—the head being taken from one portrait, the legs from another, and the coat from a third; a pasticcio, in fact, from different authorities, and fitted in to suit the absurd mediaeval decoration of that chamber. The Commons' corridor was to be painted by Mr. Ward, and the Peers' corridor by Mr. Cope. There were eight compartments in each corridor. By the original contract Mr. Ward was to paint eight oil pictures, at £450 each. In 1857 the Commission determined to change the pictures from oil paintings to frescoes, and that was accomplished by the payment of £600 a piece instead of £450, and by allowing Mr. Ward to retain the first oil-paint-
  678
  ing executed for his own benefit. The result was, that there were now only three; frescoes in each corridor, which was equal I to £1,800. The amount already voted to Mr. Ward was £3,600, and a further sum: of £600 was now asked. He did not, however, believe that either Mr. Ward or any j other man could paint three frescoes between this and next year. Mr. Cope had painted three frescoes for the Lords' corridor, for which £1,800 had been expended, but the Fine Arts Commission had already got £3,000 for this corridor, and they ought to be satisfied with the money they still had in hand, without asking for £600 more. With regard to the Vote for the statues of British Sovereigns, it was desirable the House should have some information as to the manner in which they were to be erected. For himself, he was fearful lest they might repeat those medieval, dreadful objects now in the House of Lords. He was not prepared to state what those black gentlemen cost, but he believed it was £4,000, and anything more detestable in art could not be conceived. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works would tell the Committee that the statues should be erected by the best British artists in the best manner.
  MR. CONINGHAMsaid, he believed that the Commission of Fine Arts was at the bottom of all this jobbing in the fine arts. The Commission had done no good, and the sooner it was abolished the better. Oliver Cromwell was a great man, and the memory of our great men was a sacred inheritance. To treat him as a tyrant and impostor was, he had thought, a symptom of a bygone period. A literary man of celebrity had recently collected his letter* and written a sketch of his life, and it was thought, had rescued his fame from those who had calumniated him. As Lord Protector, England never had a greater or more powerful ruler than the man who had extended his protecting hand to our coreligionists on the Continent. The hon. Gentleman who had contended that Oliver Cromwell ought not to have a statue, was an ardent admirer and defender of the paternal Government that prevailed in the Eternal City. [Sir GEORGE BOWTER: Hear, hear!] That hon. Gentleman was the champion of the most execrable system of Government that now prevailed on the face of the earth, except, perhaps, that of Naples. He trusted that the insurrection that had broken out in Sicily would spread

  679
  to the mainland, and that an end would be put to the system of Government now prevailing in Naples.
  MR. NEWDEGATEremarked, that Oliver Cromwell was not a Sovereign, and no such office as Lord Protector was known to the laws of England. He had been looking to the statutes of the Parliament of Oliver Cromwell, and he found that the oath of allegiance was abolished, and the oath ordered to be taken by any freeman admitted to his freedom was that he would be "faithful to the Commonwealth." An ancestor of his had been legal adviser to General Monk, and he was of opinion that Oliver Cromwell never had been legally, properly, or in any sense Sovereign of this country. He had been head of the Commonwealth, and be trusted that his statue would not be placed among those of British Sovereigns. Let his statue be placed elsewhere, among those of the very greatest men that England had ever possessed; but there were many considerations that rendered it highly improper to place his statue among the crowned heads.
  MR. COWPERsaid, he hoped that on the 3rd of August, and at that hour (midnight), the House would not enter into a discussion upon Oliver Cromwell. The Fine Arts' Commission had recommended that certain portions of the building should contain statues of the Sovereigns of this country. The Report of the Commission did not, however, give a list of them; and different opinions had been expressed as to whether Oliver Cromwell was to be reckoned to have been during his supreme rule one of the Sovereigns of this country. The question did not, however, press for a decision, because the proposition of the Fine Arts' Commission was that the artists should begin with the later Sovereigns, William IV. and George IV., and go backwards. Proceeding in that manner, at the rate of two Sovereigns a year, a considerable time would elapse before they reached the Commonwealth. The artists who were to execute these statues were Mr. Thornyeroft and Mr. Theed. The Fine Arts' Commission was composed of men whose names would carry the greatest weight on such subjects; and upon their recommendations this Vote was framed. It was usual for private individuals, who gave commissions to painters, to pay them a sum of money at the commencement of their work, and another sum at its conclusion. This enabled them to obtain their pictures for a less amount than if they
  680
  made no such advance. A similar rule had been adopted by the Fine Arts Commission; their practice being to give the artist a sum of money when the cartoon was completed, and before the painting was executed on the wall. Mr. Herbert was to receive £6,000 for four pictures which he bad in hand. He had already received £3,500; and, although he had executed very little on the wall, he had given three or four years of intense labour to the composition of these works, and had produced very noble cartoons, which were of themselves worth all the money. They could not deal with men of artistic genius, who threw their whole souls into the it work, as with a contractor for a building, who was limited in respect to the time in which he should finish his contract. Mr. Herbert bad devoted himself exclusively to these Pictures, and had refused other orders, being anxious to produce something which should be worthy of the place in which it was to be put, and hand his name down to posterity. To tie him down, therefore, as to the time, would be to deprive themselves of the benefit of his sustained thought and study. So, again, with Mr. Maclise, who, though perhaps he had not advanced quite so rapidly in his work as might have been anticipated, had yet bestowed immense labour upon it, and was executing paintings that would uphold his great reputation. Mr. Dyce might not have devoted himself to his work so exclusively as Mr. Herbert and Mr. Maclise; but ho also had finished his cartoon, which was the result of great labour and skill. With regard to the Tudor portraits, they might be obnoxious to those who were exclusively devoted to the Classic period; but they had been copied very carefully from valuable originals; and their production had been useful in forming a school of young artists, whom it was desirable to accustom to minute and faithful drawing. With regard to the state of the cash balance, to which an lion. Member (Mr. A. Smith) bad referred, there was, on the 31st of March, 1859, £96,000 in the Exchequer, and taking, also, what was in the Paymaster-general and Sub accountant's hands, that gave £107,000 standing to the credit of the new Houses of Parliament. The important thing was to know how far the balance was available. It was clearly available for the purposes to which it was devoted; and it would lead to the greatest irregularity and confusion in the accounts, if the residue of the Vote of last

  681
  year were mixed up with the present vote. The right course was to pay over any unexpended sum to the Consolidated Fund. He thought it very convenient to have placed under a single head all the various items of expenditure upon the Houses of Parliament. During the first year of his term of office, the present Speaker lived in his own house, to which his own stables were attached. It was only lately that the official residence had been occupied by that right hon. Gentleman; and that it became necessary to provide stables for him. That arrangement was desirable on the score of economy, and it was proposed to purchase a site for the purpose in the neighbourhood of the House. He did not think the House would consider the sum placed in the Estimates too high for a site in that neighbourhood, where sites were very expensive. Due economy would be observed in the erection of the stable; and be would ho prepared afterwards to give a detailed account of the expenditure.
  MR. RIDLEYsaid, that as regarded the items for portraits of British Sovereigns, he hoped that if they were to proceed, they would begin at that period of our history when the Sovereigns engaged by statutes to defend the rights of their subjects, and he believed that the fresco on which Mr. Herbert was engaged would exceed in merit any we had ever seen in Italy.
  MR. SPOONERsaid, he thought it was time they came to a vote. He should therefore move that the £4,000 fur divers works be totally omitted. They had already spent too much money about the lobbies of that House, and among the items included in the Vote he would reduce was the sum of £1,600 for statues. He could by no means give his consent to enter upon a new course of expenditure, which he considered this to be. Another item was the two sums of £600 for what was going on in the corridors.
  MR. KINNAIRDsaid, that the Vote should be taken first upon the first item of the £1,600 for the two statues of William IV. and George IV.
  MR. GREGORYsaid, he would certainly Vote for the reduction. Had it been proposed to commence with our early monarchs, some scope might have been given to the fancy and genius of the artist, but with all his loyalty to the House of Brunswick, he must protest against pigtails and pigtail statues. He trusted they would not continue encumbering the corridors of
  682
  Parliament with statues which had cost a great deal of money, which were no credit to the country, and which had already drawn down ridicule on the ornamentation of the House.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he hoped, with a view to reason, propriety, and the interests of art, that this matter would be reconsidered. So far a3 the wish to convert Oliver Cromwell into a Sovereign was concerned, he was afraid there was no possibility of giving it effect, inasmuch as no process of reasoning could alter the fact that he was not a Sovereign. He would further observe that, considering bow much more than one of our monarchs cost us in their lifetime, £800 a piece did not seem so large a sum to expend upon erecting statues of them when dead; but before a project of that nature was sanctioned by the House, the Government ought to bring to bear upon it more intelligent consideration than it was evident they had done. Hon. Members ought to know what was to be the character of the works for which the Vote was asked—whether they were to be in the mediaeval style of art; for if so ho thought it would be found that the House was sick of works of that description, as represented by the miserable images which were stuck upon the walls of the House of Lords.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the Committee were very naturally alarmed at the idea of assenting to a scheme to erect statues to the very formidable number of English Sovereigns. He would admit that much consideration was desirable before they pledged themselves to so large an expenditure as would be requisite in order to carry out that object. He begged, at the same time, to remind the Committee that the effect of passing the Vote as it stood would simply be to sanction the erection of statues to two of our latest Sovereigns, and that they would not in any way be bound by taking that course to proceed with the whole series, if hereafter it should be deemed expedient to stop at a certain point. He might add, that he was assured by his right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works that the architectural arrangements to be made in connection with those statues would not require that more than four of them should be erected. In reply to the appeal which had been made to him to resist any further expenditure in the direction which was proposed by votes he would merely observe that, while he did

  683
  not hesitate to admit that the ornamentation of the Houses of Parliament had been in many instances enormously and ludicrously overdone, yet a distinction might very properly be drawn between works of art and those which were purely of an ornamental character. As Mr. Herbert had been alluded to in the course of the discussion, he might state that he was of his own knowledge aware that that Gentleman had devoted the great bulk of his time for some years past to the collection of materials and the institution of inquiries with the view of rendering the work on which he was engaged as accurate as possible; and that he had, moreover—and no doubt something of the same kind must have occurred in the case of Mr. Dyce—left several private commissions unexecuted for the last twelve years, in consequence of the earnestness with which his attention was directed to the one great task which he had undertaken in connection with the Houses of Parliament.
  MR. DANBY SEYMOURreminded the right hon. Gentleman that the words contained in the Vote were "for the purpose of erecting statues to the British Sovereigns in series;" so that, if the present Vote were agreed to, and two statues as the result erected, the Committee would find it extremely difficult to halt in the course on which they would have entered, or to refuse their consent to Votes for the completion of the series in future years. With regard to the fresco paintings on the execution of which Mr. Herbert was employed, there could be no doubt that a good deal of time and labour had been expended upon them by that Gentleman, while Mr. Dyce had not, he thought, done so well in these respects as the House had a right to anticipate. But, be that as it might, our great painters of the present day were not, he should contend, able to complete works in fresco fit to adorn the walls of the Houses of Parliament; the fact being that those which had already been placed there had better be erased. The only fresco, indeed, executed in this country which he believed likely to last as a great work of art was that of Mr. Watts.
  MR. COWPERsaid, that the original intention was to have statues of the whole series of English Sovereigns, beginning with Egbert and Canute. Since that proposal was made in the year 1845 the opinion of the House and the Government had changed, and it was now intended to have only four statues, one at each corner of the
  684
  Royal Gallery. Under these circumstances he should be willing to withdraw this item with the view of considering whether some selection of Sovereigns could not be made which would be generally acceptable to the House.
  Motion made, and Question,
  "That the item of £1,600, for Statues of British Sovereigns in series, to be placed in various parts of the interior of the Palace of Westminster, be omitted from the proposed Vote."
  Put, and agreed to.
  MR. SPOONERmoved the omission from the Vote of the sum of £1,200 for the Lords' and Commons' corridors.
  MR. EDWIN JAMESsaid, he thought that, after the candid manner in which the right hon. Gentleman had treated the House, it would hardly be fair to reject this item. If it was agreed to, they might have a picture of Oliver Cromwell before they had a statue of George IV.
  Motion made, and Question put,
  "That the item of £1,200, for Fresco Paintings in the Peers' and Commons' Corridors, be omitted from the proposed Vote."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 44; Noes 67: Majority 23.
  Original Question, as amended, again proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £37,997, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for Works and Expenses at the New Houses of Parliament, to the 31st day of March, 1861."
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, that on the 31st of March, 1859, there was in the Exchequer a balance of £25,000 upon this Vote. There was now, in addition, the whole of last year's Vote. He wished to know whether the Government had surrendered any part of that balance?
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYasked whether the accounts for the building of the Houses of Parliament were now closed and settled. He wished to know whether all the debts were paid, and, if not, the amount of those which were outstanding, distinguishing between the money which was still in the Exchequer and that which had been drawn out and issued to the Pay-office.
  MR. LAINGsaid it was an entire mistake to suppose that because a balance remained over from one year to the other it could be applied to any purpose other than that for which it had been voted. These unexpended balances were either spent for the purpose for which they had been voted, or, according to the usual course, if it were

  685
  found at the end of three years that the amount was not required, it was considered as forfeited, and was surrendered back into the Exchequer. Without inquiring into the particular items, he could not undertake to state the exact sum which remained in the Exchequer, or had been issued to the Pay-office; but ho was able to say generally that the whole expenditure on the Houses of Parliament had been as nearly as possible completed. The Committee appointed during the Session to investigate the accounts had recommended a very material improvement, which consisted in printing along with the Estimates the amount of the unexpended balances, and he would take care that the suggestion should be faithfully acted upon.
  MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, the explanation of the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury, as far as it went, was satisfactory; but he had not answered the exact question addressed to him. He found in the Estimates sums taken for particular objects last year, and other sums for similar purposes were included in this year's accounts, though not a single penny had been drawn on account of these items in the meantime. He wished to know out of what funds these amounts had been paid. £7,600 was voted last year for casual and internal repairs; only £5,000 was asked for this year, but not a single sixpence of the former amount had been drawn. In the same way £4,900 was taken last year for warming and ventilating, and £4,300 was asked for this year, though the amount voted last year remained untouched. For the supply of gas £5,000 was now required, though £5,800 granted last year was still unexpended. These sums must all have been paid out of the unexpended balances of a former year, and what he objected to was, that the Government should ask for money for the same purpose for which they already had funds in their hands.
  MR. COWPERsaid, the Estimates were often not voted till August, though the financial year began in April, and in the interval it was requisite that the amount should be paid out of the unexpended balances of the previous year. The accounts were then got into order again by voting in the Estimate sums which had already been so paid out of those balances.
  SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, he thought the question might safely be left in the hands of the Government, after the precaution which the Committee had adopted and
  686
  the assurance given by the Secretary to the Treasury.
  MR. SPOONERsaid, he had been very much astonished to find that the cost of fuel, gas, and lighting for the House of Parliament was nearly £10,000 a year. Having applied to Mr. Goldsworthy Gurney for an explanation, he found that this outlay was not consequent on the new scheme of ventilation, but was mainly due to the quantity of fuel burnt to counteract the bad system of chimneys, by which every one of the residences connected with the House was completely spoiled. He wished to know whether it was not possible to devise some plan by which the annual consumption of £2,000 worth of fuel, merely to make a draught, might be rendered unnecessary.
  MR. COWPERsaid, he had given much consideration to the subject, and he had asked Mr. Goldsworthy Gurney to make a Report on the best means of getting rid of the smoke. He entertained great hopes of a successful result.
  MR. CHILDERSasked, out of what fund the salary of the superintendent of warming and lighting, which did not fall due till October or January, and which ought to be taken out of the Vote for the year, had been defrayed.
  SIR GEORGE BOWYERasked, what was to be done with the great bell? It had been a perfect nuisance to the whole Metropolis, and he hoped would never be used again for striking the hours.
  MR. MALINSsaid, he trusted that the bell would be kept quiet, at all events during the sitting of Parliament.
  MR. COWPERsaid, the Bill was irretrievably cracked, and he had no proposition to make with respect to another. The quarter bells would be used in future.
  Motion made, and Question put,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £37,997, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for Works and Expenses at the New Houses of Parliament, to the 31st day of March, 1861."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 32; Noes 60: Majority 28.
  Resolved,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £37,997, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge for Works and Expenses at the New Houses of Parliament to the 31st day of March, 1861."
  House resumed.
  Resolution to be reported on Monday next; Committee to sit again on Monday next.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Three o'clock till Monday next.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Savings Banks and Friendly Societies Investments; East India Stock Transfer, &c.; Landlord and Tenant (Ireland); Ecclesiastical Commission, &c.
2a Superannuation Act (1859) Amendment.
3a Conjugal Rights (Scotland); Coast of Africa, &c, Act Amendment; Crown Debts and Judgments; Debtors and Creditors Act Amendment; Railways Act (Ireland) (1851) Amendment; County Coroners.

SLAVE TRADE.—PETITIONS.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, he had two petitions to present on a very important subject and from very important parties—the one from the Council of the Anti-Slavery Society, complaining—and most justly complaining—of the conduct of the Spanish Government, who, having entered into a solemn engagement by treaty that they would effect the abolition of the Slave Trade, and having received compensation for pretended loss to arise from that abolition, had, in breach of that treaty and in forgetfulness of the compensation they had accepted, allowed the trade to go on, not only flourishing as before, but greatly increasing, to so enormous an extent that from 30,000 to 40,000 slaves were imported into Cuba each year. It was known to their Lordships that Spain was now, to her great disgrace, the only country which carried on the Slave Trade: and whatever pretexts might be put forward, whether the conduct of the colonial

589
Governors, or the slackness of their own cruisers, or the inefficiency of the cruisers of England and the United States on the African coast, or on the coast of Cuba—the fact was undeniable that Spain had not performed her obligations under the treaty concluded between her and the British Government, and that the Slave Trade had increased enormously instead of being put down. The other petition was from the ex-King of Bonny, on the African coast, of which for many generations his ancestors had been the Sovereigns. Until the year 1834, the King of Benny, like all African princes, had profited by that execrable traffic; he receiving £30,000 a year from the Slave Trade carried on in his dominions, and his chiefs £60,000—no less than £90,000 a year was their gain—while the traffic continued. As alleged in his petition, he was partly induced and partly threatened into making a treaty by which he was to receive 2,000 dollars a year in compensation of the loss to him and to his chiefs from the abolition of the traffic in his dominions; whereas the payment had been discontinued after the first year.
THE LORD CHANCELLORthought the noble and learned Lord was not in order in going at large, at that time, into the statements of the petition.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, he was quite aware of the rules of their Lordships' House. His experience on the woolsack had extended to almost as many years as that of his noble and learned Friend counted months; and he apprehended that was sufficiently long to have learned that he was in order while stating the general substance of a petition; he might properly state any grievance contained in a petition introductory to the prayer for their Lordships' interposition to remedy it—they need not grant the prayer unless they pleased.
THE LORD CHANCELLORapprehended it would be more regular to read the prayer of the petition.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that the space between the meeting of the House and a quarter past five was assigned to the presentation of petitions, when the noble and learned Lord might have presented his petitions and made any statement he thought proper. That space had now elapsed, and the noble and learned Lord was occupying time which belonged to the Orders of the Day.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, he should
590
have presented his petitions before a quarter past five if his noble Friend the Lord President had been in his place. [Earl GRANVILLE: I was present.] Where his noble Friend was—whether he was under the table or under the Ministerial benches or where I cannot say; but I looked in vain for a Member of the Government at the time allotted to the presenting petitions, being one quarter of an hour only. The petition stated that before the year 1834 he received £30,000 yearly, and his chiefs £60,000 yearly, as the price of their sanction of the slave trade within his dominions, and that 20,000 human beings were consequently sold into slavery every year from his ports; that on the promise of 2,000 dollars being paid to him annually he had consented to put an end to the traffic, and that he had actually exerted himself to the utmost of his power in suppressing it, and with success; but that, notwithstanding his exertions, the stipulated payment had, after the first year, been withheld from him; and the prayer of the petition was that their Lordships would he pleased to interfere in his behalf by directing an inquiry as to the wrongs he had sustained and the burdens he had endured, and affording him the means of proving his case and justifying his conduct in all respects. It was only justice to this unfortunate ex-Sovereign to state that, unlike the Spanish Government, he had most rigorously, accurately and honestly performed the obligations of the treaty, and that the slave trade by this means had been abolished on this part of the African coast, and the innocent comrneree greatly extended in the articles produced. The King of Bonny had certainly set an example to Spain of fidelity to engagements; although Spain had received £400,000 of consideration money, and this unlucky black Sovereign only £500. He (Lord Brougham) had only now to add, that in consequence of the statement made in the other House of Parliament on this subject, he would abstain from bringing forward any Motion relative to the conduct of the Spanish Government, and the injustice to our own West India colonies, which had suffered grievously from the wrongs inflicted by the breach of Treaty committed by Spain.
LORD WODEHOUSEsaid, he was not aware that his noble and learned Friend intended to present a petition from the ex-King of Bonny on this subject, or he would have come down prepared to explain the

591
position of the matter on the part of the Foreign Office. He could not admit that, when the whole matter was inquired into the facts would he found entirely as represented in the petition presented by his noble and learned Friend.
LORD BROUGHAMwould only say that whatever foundation there might be for his complaints and grievances, the conduct of the ex-King of Bonny was an example to the Spanish Government; for he had performed his treaty engagements, whereas Spain had entirely broken through hers.

TRANSACTION OF PARLIAMENTARY

  BUSINESS.
  LORD BROUGHAMrose to move, pursuant to notice, "That the Report of the Select Committee of the House of Commons on Public Business, of the 14th of August. 1848, be reprinted." His noble Friend now sitting on the cross benches of their Lordships' House (Lord Eversley) was then Speaker of the House of Commons. He gave most important evidence before the Committee, and stated the various obstacles which impeded the progress of public business, and offered most valuable suggestions as to the remedy; and the Committee made several recommendations with a view to facilitating the business of Parliament. It appeared also that then, as at present, Members complained of the increasing tendency to the accumulation of business towards the end of the Session, though no one proposed a remedy for that evil. His noble Friend near him (Lord Derby) had made a full statement upon the subject; but with him he (Lord Brougham) admitted that it was, under existing circumstances, necessary that the recess should intervene before they could attempt any mature deliberation on the remedies required. He also desired, before the end of the present Session, to bring before their Lordships the Resolutions which he (Lord Brougham) had himself proposed in 1845, for the better conduct of private business in their own House. He quite agreed with what his noble Friend (Lord Eversley) stated before the Committee, that a large part of the evil complained of in the hindrance of public business arose from the great and increasing mass of private business. The Members of the other House having been occupied all the morning in Committees on private Bills, necessarily came to the House at four or five o'clock quite exhausted; and the natural conse-
  592
  quence was that they frequently left the House at seven o'clock in the evening, and did not return until perhaps ten o'clock. This often led to an unnecessary prolongation of the debates, for subjects in which they were interested having been brought on during their absence, they had lost their opportunity, and it was necessary either to find or make an opportunity of delivering their sentiments, the result was that constant Motions for Adjournment were made, and on other questions debate was forced on to the great prejudice of the progress of public business. That was the description of the state of things in 1848, and the Committee, in order to remedy the evil, recommended—a proposal which had been sanctioned—that certain restrictions on the making Motions of Adjournment should be imposed. At the present day, however, those restrictions were, so far as he could learn, ineffectual to prevent the abuse of the privilege, especially in the case of the Motion for Adjournment from Friday until Monday, when the opportunity was seized upon by Members of the other House to enter into the most desultory discussion of every variety of subject. Indeed the whole process was a series of debates, not upon the questions before the House but on everything, and the speeches were without number and almost without end. The Committee, he might add, had received the evidence of various witnesses from foreign countries as to the peculiar rules and modes of procedure adopted by their Legislative bodies. It appeared that in the United States Legislature the Motion for Adjournment was not allowed to raise any debate, and there was a form of procedure known as "the Previous Question," which amounted rather to what the French termed la cláture than that to which would come under the designation of the Previous Question in this country, its effect being instantly to put an end to the debate; and it is determined by a vote without any debate. It was asserted that the French system to which he had just alluded did not interfere unduly with freedom of discussion, and that all men believed business could not be carried on without the clôlure, while it was also contended that the one hour remedy—that was to say, the limiting of the time allotted to each speaker to one hour—worked well in the United States, and was universally popular both in the House of Representatives and out of doors. He was, however, afraid that such a remedy applied here would not so work, unless

  593
  hedged round by such safeguards as would render its operation perfectly inefficient to promote the object which those who would adopt it must have in view. The Committee having made some further recommendations for facilitating the progress of public business, wound up their Report by stating that they could not recommend the adoption of any new restrictive rule, and that the real remedy for the obstacles which had existed to that progress was to be found in the good feeling of the House itself, the forbearance of Members, their desire to conduct the proceedings with regularity and order, and their willing acquiescence in the decisions of the Speaker as well as in the enforcement by the Speaker of the established rule that everybody addressing the House should strictly confine his remarks to matters pertinent to the subject under discussion. The Committee, however, in relying upon the forbearance of the House, and the enforcement of the rule in question, placed their trust, he feared, in a broken reed; while there was, he thought, much weight in their statement that the satisfactory conduct of public business must in no small degree also depend upon the control which was exercised over it by the Government, and on the due preparation by the Government of the measures which they submitted to Parliament as well the proper distribution of those measures between the two Houses. In the expectation of the Committee that the independent Members of the House of Commons would do all in their power to assist the Government in disposing of the public business, he was not, he might add, inclined to place much faith, while he cordially concurred in the opinion that the great mass of private business lay at the root of the evil of which he complained. Therefore, he would call their Lordships' attention to the proposals he had more than once brought forward as to the mode of dealing with private business. But especially he had brought forward the matter in 1837, with the support of his illustrious Friend the late Duke of Wellington. The origin of the plan then proposed was this: In 1834, when he (Lord Brougham) presided in this House, a Bill was brought up from the Commons for dealing with boroughs accused of corrupt practices. On looking at its provisions he found them such as could never be agreed to, for the entire disfranchisement of any borough might be finally carried by a single vote obtained through surprise or inattention; and when such a vote had once passed
  594
  the Commons for disfranchising Birmingham, Manchester, Sheffield, in the state of their Lordship' House, and with the prevailing prejudices on the subject, no doubt the Bill was sure to pass through all its stages very easily. He spoke to the Duke on this oversight, as he considered it, of the other House, feeling quite certain that his noble Friend was greatly above availing himself and the party which he led of what must prove such an advantage; and he found, as he expected, that be had rightly judged his noble Friend. He then spoke to another noble Friend whom the Duke held in high respect (Lord Ellenborough), having with all men the greatest admiration of his talents, and the truest esteem for his manly straightforward nature, so congenial to his own. In that noble Lord he found the same fair and candid disposition, not to take advantage of what had been done in the Commons. It was, therefore, agreed that the Bill must be materially altered; and the Duke mentioned a plan that had occurred to him, on which he would write a few observations, and give them to him (Lord Brougham), asking his assistance to work it out, and to give the needful details. They considered it repeatedly, in every point of view, and the result was the proposal of a Joint Committee of the two Houses to examine the evidence in each case. When he suggested that the Commons might require a majority of the number, the Duke had no objection, and it was settled that there should be seven Commoners and five Peers. The Duke also proposed that the Committee should, if it chose, act with the assistance of a Common Law Judge, in considering questions of law and matters of evidence, to which he (Lord Brougham) did not object, though he warned his noble Friend that this part of their plan would occasion great objections in the Commons. It was proposed that this Joint Committee should examine the whole case, and report to both Houses, that the Report should only be conclusive on the facts, and that the subsequent stages of the Bill in each case should be entirely within the jurisdiction of each House. This plan was fully discussed in the Select Committee to which the House of Commons Bill was referred, and it was adopted first by the Committee, and afterwards by the House, and the Bill, as so amended, was returned to the Commons, where it met with a general approval, all being of opinion that, to whatever objections it might in some parts be

  595
  exposed, it was a very great improvement of the measure as sent up to this House; but aw it was rather a new Bill than an amended Bill, it was deemed impossible to adopt it upon the single vote of agreeing to the Lords' Amendments, and the measure therefore went no further, the Session being near its close. Next year the Government was in the hands of the noble Duke and his friends, and when he (Lord Brougham) proposed to renew this Bill, the Duke concluded that the Ministry was not in such a state as gave it a reasonable prospect of being able to carry so important a measure. In fact, they remained only a few weeks in office. Two years later he (Lord Brougham) brought forward his orders for the better conducting of private business, and he naturally consulted the noble Duke not only because he had expressed the strongest opinion upon the absolute necessity of some measure to facilitate that business, but because lie knew no one so entirely worthy of being consulted upon all subjects. He spoke from long experience of that illustrious man, and from long observation before his experience commenced; and he could assert that his wisdom in civil affairs, his sagacity, his firmness, and all the qualities which combined to make a great statesman were only less than his military superiority. With a mind that at once fixed on the object to be accomplished, his eye surveyed all the surrounding obstacles and difficulties, and descried the path by which that object was to be attained; and his firm will proceeded resolutely in the shortest path, by a straight line, to the end in view. To this great man he commended the Resolutions which he proposed for conducting private Bills. He approved of them entirely, but said, "Why not try our plan of 1834?" His answer was they could not hope to carry it. Then, said the Duke, "let us try, and if we are beaten we can retreat upon your Resolutions upon the lesser plan." Accordingly they did try it, and the Duke stoutly supported it in the Select Committee to which the Resolutions were referred. They were unable to carry it, and the lesser plan being adopted, was reported to the House, and forms the Standing Orders now in force. This was communicated to the Commons and for two or three years rejected, but afterwards adopted, and he (Lord Brougham) was bound to admit to his noble Friend (Lord Eversley) adopted with one important addition, which was a great improvement, that of the Select com-
  596
  mittee of Chairmen in the House of Commons. The Resolutions which he now proposed were founded upon the plan which the illustrious Duke and himself had endeavoured to carry in 1837, and to these Resolutions proposed then and in 1845 he had added two not confined to private Bills but applicable to all measures. To the whole he respectfully invited the attention of their Lordships, as well as to the important evidence and suggestions in the House of Commons' Report. He placed the whole subject before their Lordships, he might almost say testamentarily. He grieved to say that he was about to quit a scene in which he had long aided their Lordships, according to the humble measure of his powers, in their judicial as well as legislative capacity. Hereafter, should his health permit, and his faculties servo to make him worthy of again partaking in their labours, he might hope to revisit the same scene. Meanwhile he might say in the words of Bishop Lowth:—
  "Cara, vale, veniet felicius ævum,
  "Quando iterum tecum, sim modo dignus ero."
  He moved that the Select Committee's Report on Public Business, 14th August, 1848, be printed.
  Ordered to be printed.

RETIREMENT OF BISHOPS.—CASE OF DR. HINDS.—QUESTION.
VISCOUNT DUNGANNONrose to call Attention to the Case of Dr. Hinds, late Bishop of Norwich; and ask the Lord President of the Council, Whether it is intended in the next Session of Parliament to introduce a Bill for making Provision for Bishops who in consequence of advanced Age or Ill-health may be desirous of resigning their Sees? He believed the case of Dr. Hinds to be one of peculiar hardship. It would be remembered that on the retirement of Bishops Blomfield and Maltby from the sees of London and Durham, a special Act was passed, settling on them retiring allowances for the remainder of their lives; but Bishop Hinds who resigned his bishopric of Norwich subsequently, did so quite unconditionally, and with no promise of receiving any such consideration. He (Viscount Dungannon) had no personal acquaintance with Dr. Hinds, and had only taken his case up as a matter of justice. He believed that Dr. Hinds, in the earlier part of his life, was principal of the Codrington College at Barbadoes, he

597
then became examining chaplain to the present Archbishop of Dublin, by whom he was preferred to a living near Dublin, was afterwards raised to the Deanery of Carlisle, whence lie was removed to the See of Norwich. In consequence of ill-health, which made him quite unable to discharge the duties of his See, he unconditionally resigned it. He could not believe that either Her Majesty's Government or the Ecclesiastical Commission would suffer such a case of injustice as that of Dr. Hinds' to be overlooked. Had Dr. Hinds retired at the same time as Bishops Mai thy and Blomfield no doubt some compensation would have been afforded to him to pass the remainder of his days in ease and comfort. The retiring pensions of those two Bishops, amounting together to £11,000 a year, reverted on their death to the Ecclesiastical Commission, and it was not too much to expect that out of that sum a small allowance would be made to Dr. Hinds, Dr. Hinds had now reached the age of threescore and ten, and he had reason to believe that a very small pension would be sufficient to meet all his requirements during the remainder of his life. It had often been complained that Bishops held their Sees to an advanced period of life, when they were no longer equal to the duties they had to discharge; and lie could not but consider that it would be very desirable to introduce a measure to make provision for Bishops who wished to retire from old age or failing health. Bishops could not be expected to resign their Sees without such a provision, and bring themselves from a position—he would not say of affluence—but of competency to one of comparative indigence. The private patrimony of Bishops was in general small, for they were in most instances selected for their high office in consequence of their individual merits and their services in the cause of religion. He could state too that, as far his knowledge went, they were as a body remarkable for their liberality and their readiness to contribute to the promotion of every charitable undertaking; and it was, therefore, the more becoming and the more necessary that some provision should be made for them in the event of their finding themselves compelled by old age or ill-health to resign their high offices. Dr. Hinds, who was a conscientious and high-minded man, had unconditionally resigned his distinguished position when he found he was no longer equal to its duties; but it was quite possible for him to have made some bargain before doing
598
so; and because he had not, it was unjust to disregard his claim.
EARL GRANVILLEconcurred entirely in all that had fallen from the noble Lord with reference to the high character of Dr. Hinds. He believed he was held in the highest, estimation by all who were acquainted with him. No doubt his case was a very hard cue; but, both with regard to bin) and with regard to the general question of providing retiring allowances for Bishops, there were the greatest difficulties in the way of arriving at a satisfactory settlement. The late Earl of Harrowby had endeavoured to effect some satisfactory arrangement of the question; but notwithstanding the good-will with which he embarked in the undertaking, he unfortunately failed. The present Government had taken great pains to come to some conclusion, but unfortunately they had not been able to arrive at a satisfactory one. The great difficulty was to say out of what fund a retiring pension of this sort should come. In the case of Dr. Hinds it was impossible that tin; pension could be taken from the revenues of the See. With regard to Bishop Blomfield and Bishop Maltby, there was a large property belonging to their Sees which was available for the purpose, and which reverted to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners at their deaths; but in the case of Dr. Hinds there was no such property belonging to the Sec of Norwich from which a similar provision could be made. Her Majesty's Government had not been able to frame any general scheme by which the object the noble Lord had in view could be obtained.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDEKLEYthought that every one must sympathize with Dr. Hinds, who had acted so disinterestedly. No doubt there were difficulties in the way of applying a remedy to the case of Dr. Hinds, but he did not see why the Ecclesiastical Commissioners should not come forward to meet the case. It was the more incumbent on them to do so, as he understood that they had recently added £1,000 a year to the stipend of the Dean of York, out of their Common Fund, and he should like to hear what objection there was to drawing on the same fund for pensioning Dr. Hinds. Deans bad fewer duties to perform than any of the functionaries of the Church, and if the Commissioners could afford to increase their stipends at this rate, they might justly apply an equal sum to providing a pension for any Bishop who might wish to take the same course

599
as Dr. Hinds. He should be glad to hear from any member of the Ecclesiastical Commission who might be present, whether there was any truth in the statement that this increase to the stipend of the Dean of York was objected to by all the lay members of the Commission, and that it was carried entirely by the ecclesiastical members. He should also be glad to know on what ground the Commissioners justified themselves in making this increase, which was the most inexcusable he had ever heard of. When they considered that £1,000 would have increased 50 livings from £50 to £100 a year, and that every one agreed £100 a year was the minimum which a clergyman of the Church of England ought to receive, it did seem that this £1,000 a year increase to the Deanery of York was an appropriation of money which would have been more properly applied to the increase of small livings.
THE BISHOP OF LONDONregretted that the noble Earl, who was a prominent member of the Ecclesiastical Commission (the Earl of Chichester), was not present to give an answer to the question as to the Deanery of York. It was an inaccurate statement to say that the ecclesiastical members of the Commission voted on one side and the lay members on the other side, upon this question of the income of the Dean of York. According to his recollection, there had not been any division in the Ecclesiastical Commission on the subject. The case of the Deanery of York was peculiar. It was not true that the income had been raised from £1,000 to £2,000 a year. The question referred to the Commission was this,—what was tie proper salary which ought to be given to the Dean of York under the Act of Parliament? and the Commissioners had come to the conclusion that it should be £2,000 a year. The Deanery was worth nearly £3,000 a year at the time it became vacant, on the appointment of the gentleman who now so worthily held it. It was impossible to conceive anything more inaccurate or untrue than the impression that all deaneries were reduced to £1,000 a year. It was required that all above £2,000 a year should be reduced to £2,000 a year, and all below £1,000 a year should be raised to £1,000 a year, but there was no law which stated that no deanery should be above a £1,000 a year. The question referred to the Commissioners was simply what was the proper income to give to the Dean of York, and they were acting as to the law of the case
600
in accordance with the opinion of two sets of law officers of the Crown—the law officers of the late and of the present Government—when without a division, as he believed, the lay and ecclesiastical members recommended to Her Majesty in Council to give the Dean of York the income to which he was entitled under the Act of Parliament. He had great pleasure in being able to say that the statement which the noble Lord had heard was erroneous.
THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, he had heard with some surprise the statement of the right rev. Prelate. Although he had not expected the question to be raised, he had a perfect recollection of what took place when he was in office with regard to the Deanery of York. When the right rev. Prelate spoke of the question submitted to the Commissioners, he did not know by whom it was submitted; but this he knew, that a relative of the Dean assured him that the Dean had made no application or request for an augmentation of salary, and was not aware of the intention until he was informed that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners had come to the conclusion to raise his stipend. He was free to admit that, looking at the circumstances of the Deanery of York and some other deaneries, and considering the amount of buildings to be kept up and the general expenses those dignitaries were expected to incur, a person without a private fortune would find it difficult to hold the office and do justice to it with £1,000 a year. But, as to there having been no difference of opinion between the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, the contrary was represented to him when he was in office. He did not say that the difference of opinion was between lay and ecclesiastical members, but there was a considerable difference of opinion, and his right hon. Friend who informed him of the facts of the case also told him that he feared the Commissioners would come to the Resolution to raise the stipend to £2,000 a year, in opposition to the intentions of Parliament. He (the Earl of Derby) requested his right hon. Friend to state to the Commissioners that he hoped no such question would be raised, and that, if such a decision were come to, he should exercise his authority as First Lord of the Treasury to refuse the sanction of the Treasury to the arrangement until it had received the authority of Parliament. He had heard with surprise the statement that there had been no difference of opinion among the Commissioners. He said no-

601
thing as to the merits, but he thought that, after the general impression which prevailed, it was a most unfortunate circumstance that the Eclesiastical Commissioners, without the sanction of Parliament, should have taken on themselves to increase the income of the Dean of York from £1,000 to £2,000 a year.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYasked whether any record was kept of the votes of the Commissioners? He understood that there had been in the Ecclesiastical Commission some proceedings of such a nature that one of the members, for some reason or another, moved that henceforth divisions should be recorded so that they might be presented, if called for, to Parliament. It was clear, from the language of one of the Commissioners "in another place," that he must have opposed the proposal.
THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, his statement was this—that, whatever difference of opinion there might have been individually among the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, who were a large body, many of whom did not often give the Commission the benefit of their presence, yet, with regard to the Dean of York, the decision of the Commissioners was adopted without any indication that their opinions were divided.
LORD OVERSTONEwished to repeat the question which had been put to the right rev. Prelate by the noble Lord near him (Lord Stanley of Alderley). Was there any record kept of the divisions of the Commissioners? He would ask, further, whether it was not true that it was in consequence of the difference of opinion which had prevailed upon this very subject that one of the Commissioners had proposed that their votes should in future be recorded?
THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, such a Motion had been made, and had been unanimously adopted; but he could not say what were the motives that had induced its author to propose it. It certainly, however, had nothing to do with any division in reference to the stipend of the Dean of York, because no such division had taken place.
LORD OVERSTONEasked, whether there was any record of any proceeding upon this subject.
THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, that there was, and that the papers were ready to be laid before Parliament.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR,as an ex-
602
officio Commissioner, regretted that he was unable to give their Lordships any information on the matter, and disclaimed all responsibility in connection with it.
THE EARL OF DERBYwished to know whether the noble Earl the President of the Council had received any communicaltion on the subject from the Ecclesiastica Commission, and whether his sanction was given to the Order in Council by which the increase of salary was authorized?
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he had received the Order in Council unaccompanied by any other document.

NAVAL DISCIPLINE BILL.

  COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  LORD COLCHESTERexpressed his approval of the alterations which had been made in the Bill by the Select Committee. He thought the measure would be highly beneficial to the service. He was glad to see that the constitution of courts martial had been improved, that the scale of punishments had been more accurately defined, and that the provisions of the measure generally had been brought more in accordance with the spirit of the times.
  Amendments made. The Report thereof to be received on Monday next.

THE CURRAGH OF KILDARE.

  QUESTION.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEasked, Whether any Lease has been executed or is in contemplation whereby the Curragh of Kildare will be transferred from the Department of Woods and Forests to that of War; and whether it is intended to erect thereupon permanent Stone or Brick Barracks?
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONsaid, that some time ago there were some communications between the War Department and that of the Woods and Forests in regard to the transference of the Crown property at the Curragh from the latter to the former. Those communications, however, did not come to a satisfactory conclusion, and it was not now in contemplation either to make any such transfer, or to erect barracks of stone or brick on the Curragh. He could not say that it was intended to discontinue the occupation of the Curragh as a camp, because valuable instruction was there imparted to the troops.

DISTURBANCES IN STRIA—QUESTION.
LORD STRATFORD DE REDCLIFFE:—My Lords, I rise for the purpose of drawing your Lordships' attention to the question of the disturbances in Syria, which has occupied so large a portion of the public attention for some time. It will be in the recollection of the House that a few weeks ago, when I asked a question of the Government respecting their information on this subject, a noble and learned Friend of mine (Lord Brougham), in saying a few words in support of my request, expressed a hope that at some future time I would enter at large on the question. I should have acted on the suggestion of my noble and learned Friend at an earlier period, but I was in hopes that some one more able to deal with a question of such importance would take it up, and bring it under the attention of the House. There were likewise other reasons which rendered it difficult for me to fix a day on which I could bring the question before the House. Your Lordships will remember that a few-days ago I expressed the deep regret I experienced at not being able to bring it forward at an hour which, however early it might appear to some, was too late to admit of the proper consideration of an important subject of this sort. The question is indeed one the importance of which cannot be exaggerated, and I cannot express with what diffidence I now enter upon it; I trust, however, that your Lordships, with your characteristic generosity, will accord to me the indulgence of which I have witnessed so many notable examples since I have had the honour of a seat in your House. I trust that your Lordships will believe that I bring forward this question under a sense of the importance of its being considered by both Houses before Parliament breaks up—of the desirableness of its receiving your Lordships' attention as well as that of the other House, where it seems likely that it will undergo discussion; it is also to be wished that the public should have an opportunity of becoming better acquainted with the nature of a subject which is attended with so many painful circumstances and involves so many serious considerations. It shall be my endeavour, if your Lordships' indulgence is granted me, to address myself to the question with as much brevity as my inexperience of Parliamentary discussions may enable me to employ.
My Lords, I do not think it necessary to
604
enter into any details of the atrocious incidents which have taken place in Syria. They are but too vividly impressed upon every page of the papers which have been laid on our table; they have been so commented upon in every form by the public press, and they are of themselves of so I distressing a nature, that I should with difficulty persuade myself to dwell upon them now. From a similar feeling I am unwilling to enter into any inquiry as to the origin of these disturbances, and the sanguinary tumults and massacres by which they have been accompanied. I know there are many painful reports in circulation, that there are some reasons for perhaps, attaching a political importance of no ordinary kind to these occurrences; but I confess that I conceive them to be more fit for a judicial inquiry and the sober deliberation of the Government than to be brought at the present moment under the consideration of this House. It is impossible, however, entirely to overlook some of the circumstances that have taken place, and there are some leading points which the House ought to take into consideration as bearing upon the question. Nor can I refrain from remarking upon the necessity which it appears to me, and I believe to every one who has reflected upon it, exists for taking prompt and efficient measures to put an end to a state of things in Syria which is attended with so much loss of life, and which gives so great a shock to all the best feelings of humanity. Measures of that kind should be adopted with the least possible delay. I am, my Lords, by no means disinclined to give every credit to Her Majesty's Government for having taken up this subject and done what depends upon them to produce that desirable result. The circumstance of a Commissioner having—as I understand from the public newspapers—been appointed to proceed to Syria, is a proof that they hare exercised an active discretion on this question; and I can only trust that that appointment may prove of advantage. But, my Lords, it is not merely the despatch of a Commissioner, it is not merely communications with other Powers that will have the effect of putting a stop to the atrocities which have been enacted in Syria. I believe, as far as the present state of the ease is concerned, that there is much reason to hope that, as a probable consequence of the exhaustion of the two contending parties, some kind of arrangement has been made so as to arrest

605
the immediate effusion of blood. But it is impossible to lose sight of what has already taken place—of the enormous sacrifice of human life and the dreadful incidents connected with it. And after all, even it be true that there is a cessation of actual hostilities, I fear it is more attributable to the triumph of one party over the other than to any other cause.
My Lords, I really feel myself embarrassed in attempting first to state the most prominent circumstances which give importance to the affairs of that part of the world. It may become necessary—and I understand that some arrangements for that object are in progress—to exercise interference on the part of the European Powers, or some of those Powers; and it appears that the landing of a considerable force in Syria may be expected, if it has not already occurred. If there be a necessity of that kind—if the Turkish Government is of itself too weak to suppress these disturbances and to give that security to Europe which Europe has a right to look for against their renewal, I, for one, should not object to see, under proper safeguards, and when the necessity for it is well and clearly established, measures of an active nature adopted on the part of Europe, or even on the part of any particular Power, under the sanction of treaty. But there is no doubt that considerable danger would arise on that point. We never can forget of what importance Syria is. That, above all, it is the key to Egypt, and is a country in regard to which, if any mistake were to take place, if any extension of the interference beyond what was strictly required were to occur, it might be difficult for the maritime powers of Europe to interfere without involving themselves in hostilities and all the consequences of a long and hazardous war. There are other points of the greatest interest and importance appertaining to this subject. There is no question but that the Turkish Government have always lamented that that part of their empire which is well known to us under the name of the Lebanon has never yet been brought fully under subjection. There have been many indications at a period anterior to these recent occurrences, of a constant desire on the part of the Turkish Government to obtain a more complete authority over this portion of their territory. It is well known that from the earliest times the principal tribes of the Lebanon have enjoyed an independent administration; that the Ottoman
606
armies, in their attempts to reduce them, were always foiled; that it was not until the Egyptians entered the country that these races tasted the effects of dependence upon a distant authority; and that on that occasion they were rescued from this dependence mainly by the assistance of British arms, employed at sea in concurrence with the Turkish forces on land. And, if I am rightly informed—and, indeed, I believe there is no doubt upon the subject-promises were given to these tribes that their independence should be secured, and that a Turkish military force should not lie established within the confines of their territories. These circumstances have of course rendered it difficult to deal with the affairs of the Lebanon. On the one hand you have to provide for the fulfilment of the promises so made, and also to display a just distrust with regard to the entrance of foreign troops into the country; but at the same time there is a paramount consideration, and one which it is difficult to set aside, namely, that such atrocities as have lately been perpetrated there should not be liable to repetition. I wish, my Lords, that it were in my power, from the experience I have had of that country, to say that we can entirely rely upon the Turkish Government and authorities for giving us that security. It is impossible to read the Correspondence now on your Lordships' table without perceiving that there are strong reasons to suspect at least the officers called upon to execute the commands of the Porte of an unpardonable remissness, and sometimes of even more than that—and in some cases even of an appearance of connivance at these atrocities. And on more than one occasion—if we are to believe the reports of the Consuls, which there is no reason to doubt—even when those officers had the force necessary to check the contending parties, they exhibited the most marked partiality towards one of them, persuading those who were exposed to danger to give up their arms, and, when those arms had been given up, opening the gates of their town and delivering up those unfortunate persons to indiscriminate massacre. I do hope, my Lords, that among the measures which will be taken there will be one of a judicial character, one that will carry with it that spirit of punishment which, more than anything else, is calculated to repress the tendency to forget what is due to humanity, and due to the engagements of the Porte with foreign Powers. I see that

607
one officer in particular is mentioned—Osman Bey—who seems to have not merely connived at what took place, but to have himself led the way to the massacre, not only of persons who had a short time before been in arms, but also of their wives and children. For Europe to stand still and witness such atrocities without endeavouring to put them down, without seeking to obtain some guarantee against their recurrence, without calling upon the Turkish Government to control its officers, and give to Europe that security which we have a right to expect is, my Lords, a state of things which cannot he contemplated. It is impossible to imagine for one moment that such a state of things can be permitted to continue, or that this country will be slow to take its part in suppressing proceedings so contrary to every sentiment of justice, good faith, and common humanity.
My Lords, among the other difficulties incident to this question, not the least, perhaps, is that of ascertaining the exact cause of these calamities. It may be said that one of those causes—if we are to give credit in any degree to the Sultan for not willingly conniving at the perpetration of crimes of this kind—is the weakness of his power. But I take the liberty, my Lords, of asking whence does that weakness arise? Is it a mere excuse or a state of things that might have been prevented? It appears that the number of troops in the disturbed parts of Syria was very small; and we likewise find that the Turkish Government were not prepared with the means of sending a large force to that country at the time when they first heard of these disturbances. It would, moreover, seem that their attention had been called to a distant portion of their empire on the other side of the water—to that part of their territory in the more immediate vicinity of which there exist Russian interests. Every one knows that the Turkish Government is always exposed to dangers of that kind, if not on one side on another—that the state of the country is such, in consequence of the inefficient administration of the Porte, as to be exposed at every moment to insurrection; and that, though the Porte has generally the good fortune and sufficient authority to put it down, yet every exercise of its authority is accompanied by an increased degree of weakness and danger of bringing about that catastrophe which it has been the object of statesmen for so many years to avoid. But true it is, from
608
my own knowledge, that this weakness is by no means necessary. It arises from particular circumstances; and among others from the state of the finances of Turkey being so reduced that the Court finds difficulty in keeping up the army to its usual strength; and the troops, I understand, are so much in arrear with their pay that their spirit may have been affected by the hard position in which they have thus been placed. But my own belief is that this state of things at the Porte is by no means a necessary one. The Porte has for many years been warned of the consequences of allowing the old system of financial administration to go on to its natural result; it has been so warned by many friendly Powers, and more particularly by Her Majesty's Government; but I am sorry to say, from my own experience, that no attention—no fixed or followed-up attention—has been paid to hat advice; and the consequence is that the Turkish Governments have gone on step by step into a state of still greater difficulty; and thus it is their own fault that they have been unable to keep up the force that may be necessary to prevent the occurrence of such atrocities as humanity itself must deplore. When such is the case how can we look back with any degree of satisfaction to the exertions we made in favour of the Porte some few years ago, when menaced by Russia. Great sacrifices were made by this country in its behalf, and made also, I am bound to add, by our powerful neighbour—and with a degree of success which ought to have left a permanent feeling of gratitude on the Turkish Government. It is true the Sultan has accepted, and has even proclaimed to his people, a system of reform which, if it had been properly carried out, might have prevented these disasters, and probably would have done so, and placed the Empire on a totally different footing from what it is now on. Indeed, I may say with confidence that, had this been so, the empire would have been in a much better condition than at the present moment, and have placed at a proportionate distance those dangers, massacres, and insurrections, of which the events which have occurred in Syria exhibit so prominent and striking an example.
My Lords, it must occur to your Lordships as well as to myself that a heavy responsibility rests upon Parliament in consequence of this state of things. If we look into the question of Syria it is impossible not to observe in immediate connec-

609
tion with it that the great Eastern Question—the great Question of the Russian and the Ottoman Empires—is involved, and I do not hesitate to say that that question is at this moment absolutely brought home to our doors by what has occurred in Syria, You will in vain put down what has taken place there; in vain you will staunch the blood which has flowed; in vain you will take measures to prevent the renewal of those atrocities, unless you find the means of engaging the Turkish Government to redeem their pledges, and give effectual execution to those reforms which have been so often urged upon them. Unless that is done, it is my firm conviction that you will only patch up the difficulty for the moment, and you will leave the seeds of fresh disturbances and fresh difficulties of a still more disastrous and dangerous character. If the question wore now for the first time to be considered what should be done in order to give a greater degree of strength and stability to the Turkish Government, so as to enable it to cope with the difficulties presented by parts of the Empire circumstanced like Syria, we might consider the subject on a much narrower ground, and accept the assurances of the Turkish Government that measures will be taken, with or without the concurrence of Europe, in order to prevent the recurrence of such atrocities. But there are many circumstances that must occur to your minds to show that this is only part and parcel of the weakness of the Turkish Empire, and, unless more be done—unless the Turkish Government be made to redeem the pledges it has given—we shall be every moment liable to be involved in a new European complexity which it has been so much the object of European policy to avoid, or at least to place at a distance.
I should be sorry to take up your Lordships' time at any unnecessary length, but, after having made these general observations with regard to the Turkish Empire at large, I cannot leave the subject without offering some further explanations of the reasons which I have for the Motion of which I gave notice. I must confess the impression which is on my mind is, that the papers presented by Her Majesty's Government to Parliament on this subject are not of a very comprehensive nature. I have read them with the impression that more might have been produced for the satisfaction of Parliament and the very natural interest which the public at large have taken in this subject. There are
610
some points on which I would offer a few words of comment. In the first place, the Correspondence laid on the table is nothing more than a statement from the different Consuls since these disasters arose. It appears from a memorial presented by the merchants to the Consuls on the 20th of May, that apprehensions had been entertained for a long time previously, and that there were antecedents to the disturbances that have taken place that called for a close attention to them. This warning one might have supposed would have arrested attention. I see no trace however of such attention having been paid to the subject. I observe that the Consul General at Beyrout describes himself as having been called upon to make a representation to Kurschid Pasha on the subject, in conjunction with the Consuls of France, Austria, and Prussia—that he accepted the request and arranged the meeting, notwithstanding that the Pasha had already proceeded to the mountain with an armed force, I observe, also, that Consul General Moore intimates that in assenting to the proposition of the other Consuls he rather sought to limit the declaration they were inclined to make to the local Turkish Government. I therefore feel a very natural curiosity to know under what instructions the Consul General was then acting. Were they of a general character, which restrained the action of the Consuls? Was he in that respect carrying out the views of his Government and of the Embassy at Constantinople? I think it right that Parliament should have some information on that subject. Among the circumstances that are mentioned is one of a transaction, the first that had taken place, no less than a year before on a part of the mountain not far from Beyrout—an affray of very considerable consequence, one of the first effects of the long-established animosity between the hostile parties, broke out, and there was a considerable loss of life. Surely here was time, as it would certainly be she duty of the Consul General, to report such a fact both at home and at Constantinople. It was only natural that those having interest in the maintenance of tranquillity should have sought some instructions or directions on the subject. It is to be presumed that they did so. I want to know whether that was so, and in what terms these instructions were conveyed. This is a matter that Parliament ought to know. There are other points in these papers well worthy of attention, but on

611
which I should he unwilling to press, from respect to your Lordships' time, not wishing to enter more deeply into the subject than necessity requires. The Foreign Office is totally silent on the subject. We have no information in the papers communicated that any notice has been taken of these transactions. It is possible there may be diplomatic delicacies which prevent such a communication being made; but I must say I think it desirable that Parliament should be informed of the motives which caused that silence—whether it is a real silence towards the objects of official correspondence, or whether it is silence of another character. I think upon these points we are entitled to information.
My Lords, these subjects to my mind assume even a still greater importance than as they affect the Turkish Empire. I think it impossible to have followed the course of events for some years past without perceiving that there has been a strong-tendency towards the exhaustion of those palliatives that have been employed on all sides to avoid an open rupture on matters of principle which might bring on a serious conflict between one Government and another. We have not entirely escaped these conflicts; but hitherto a great war of principle, so much apprehended for many causes, has upon the whole been kept at a distance. I must say, however, that the present seems bordering on a different state of things, which it will require all the judgment and all the vigour of those w-ho are officially responsible properly to deal with. In proof of what I say, let your Lordships look at various parts of Europe and judge whether the indications of what I have asserted are not sufficiently strong? If we look to France we see there principles advanced, on which the Government of that country is based, which from their very nature are totally opposed to that which has hitherto been regarded as constituting the foundation of European institutions. If we look to Austria we find that she also is exposed to the action of principles which tend to shake her empire to its very foundations. If we cast our regard still further we may, I think, find evidence of the same thing in our own Indian possessions, as well as in that country against which the combined forces of England and France have been lately directed. I am not, indeed, sure that we have not some indications of a similar nature at home. I therefore come hack to my first assertion, that the period for pal-
612
liatives is passing away, and that, in spite of all that we may have done, we are being brought rapidly in presence of that tremendous war which to many has seemed to be for so long a time impending. Now, for my part, I see, I must confess, in such a state of affairs, additional reasons for paying due attention to those measures which may be required for the purpose of keeping too-other the remains of the Turkish Empire, and, above all—to narrow the point—of putting a stop to these disputes in Syria in a manner that may furnish us with a guarantee against their recurrence in future. It is not, of course, for me to take upon myself to dictate to Her Majesty's Government the course of policy which, in order to secure these objects, they ought to pursue. My own personal inclination leads me to trust, that they will adopt adequate and judicious measures with that end; but I nevertheless deem it to be of the utmost consequence that under all the circumstances of the case the attention of Parliament should be directed to this important subject. It is in my opinion extremely desirable that we should not confine our whole attention to the consideration of homo affairs, or to the adoption of merely temporary expedients, but that we should be awake to the position of public affairs in their most comprehensive aspect, and that we should prepare—as I am happy to perceive we are already to some extent doing—for that which may prove a great European crisis. Entertaining these views, it was, I must confess, with great satisfaction that I became aware of the result of the debate which took place last night in the other House of Parliament on the subject of our fortifications, and of the fact that, notwithstanding the honest common sense of the nation may for a time have been misled by circumstances, and notwithstanding the eloquent delusions presented to its view to increase the effect of those circumstances, the measure under discussion was passed through one of its principle stages by so large a majority. But the same circumstances which explain, justify and render necessary the decision at which the other branch of the Legislature arrived on this important question—a decision which, I trust, will receive the support of your Lordships' House—likewise recommended that a policy in close connection with it should not be lost sight of, and that, if it should appear in the midst of many apprehensions and many objections that we do recognize the exist-

613
ence of a state of things with which our interests arc intimately bound up, and which is of a character at once most serious and comprehensive, we should prepare ourselves for the adoption of a course by means of which we might be able to use our influence in a way which would be as little as possible dangerous to Europe, while, at the same time, it would lead to adequate and satisfactory results.
In making these observations I bear in mind, my Lords, what took place in the case of the Treaty of Paris, when arrangements were made to bring under the cognizance of the great Powers questions by which at the time the public mind of Europe was agitated, and I should, I confess, be glad to see something of the same kind carried out at the present day on a more extensive scale, and with the view more especially, if possible, to procuring a considerable diminution of the forces of the great Powers of Europe, so that we may be enabled to follow in the same path, and thus render unnecessary those heavy expenses which the policy of the great continental nations and the general state of the world—partly in connection with the principles to which I have adverted—oblige us to incur.
My Lords, I have already said I could in no better way show my sense of your Lordships' indulgence than by confining my remarks on this occasion within as narrow a compass as my sense of public duty would permit. I have referred in the course of these observations to points of detail as well as to matters of a more extensive nature. My object in doing so was not to endeavour to impose my own impressions on the House, or to ask you to ascribe to them an importance which I do not attach to them myself. But I have felt that it was desirable this subject should, before the close of the Session, be brought under your notice, and that, whether you should be pleased to take the narrower or the more comprehensive view of it, your Lordships authority, and that of the other House of Parliament, should accompany the action of the Government—supposing their measures to be judicious, as I trust they may, and that by that means we might be enabled to produce a salutary effect on other countries, showing our readiness to concur with them, and to co-operate whenever we can do so with consistency and honour; while we give them to understand that we are at the same time prepared to maintain in every way in our
614
power our own principles and our own great position in the midst of these conflicting: elements of which I have been speaking. I can, my Lords, conceive no greater calamity which could happen to the world than that England, which has I hitherto held the foremost place in the I career of civilization and humanity, should find her efforts in that direction neutralized or diminished by the want of the power necessary to give effect to her councils and I her policy, or by a degree of weakness which must prove not only injurious to the world at large, but dishonourable to ourselves; out of which we are, I trust, now gradually emerging, and our emancipation from which I should be sorry to give expression to a single syllable to check. The noble Lord concluded by moving—
"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for, Copies or Extracts of any Despatches addressed by Her Majesty's Ambassador at the Porte to Her Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, or to Her Majesty's Consul General at Beyrout, or to the British Consuls at Damascus, Aleppo, and Jerusalem, respecting the Apprehension of Disturbances in Syria, during the Three Months which preceded the 9th of June this Year, being the Date of Sir Henry Bulwer's telegraphic Message to Lord John Russell, No. 2. in the Papers lately presented to Parliament by Her Majesty's Command; together with those of any Reports addressed during the same Period by the above-mentioned Consuls to their respective superior Authorities on the same subject; and also Copies or Extracts of any Instructions relative to the same Matters addressed by the Foreign Department to His Excellency Sir Henry Bulwer, or to Mr. Consul-General Moore, or to the other above-named Consuls between the 6th of June last and the present Time."
LORD WODEHOUSE: My Lords, there certainly is no reason why the noble Lord should apologize to the House for addressing it upon this subject, for whether we regard the experience which he has had of those affairs to which his Motion more immediately relates—an experience probably greater than that which any other Member of your Lordships' House possesses—or the extreme importance of the subject itself, we must feel glad that my noble Friend has thought proper to bring it under our notice. My noble Friend has moved for certain papers; but, before I go into the various topics to which he has alluded in doing so, I must state the reasons why Her Majesty's Government find it impossible to assent to the production of those documents. The papers which have already been laid upon the table with respect to the disturbances in Syria, consist of mere despatches setting forth the actual

615
events which have recently there taken place, the object of the Government in producing them having been to afford Parliament and the public the most accurate narration of the facts of the case of which they happened to be in possession. Papers have also been moved for in the other House, embracing the Correspondence with our Consul in Syria during the years 1857-8-9; that Correspondence is in the course of preparation; it will be laid before both Houses, and will, I believe, show very fully what has been the progress of events in Syria for the last few years. The Correspondence, however, for which my noble Friend now moves is one of a very recent date, which relates to matters of the utmost consequence and delicacy, at the present moment being treated of between the various powers of Europe and the Porte, and the effect of producing which would be so to embarrass the Government as to render it in some degree impossible that they could conduct negotiations with that advantage which would otherwise be the case. I am therefore confident that my noble Friend with his experience will at once perceive that the Government, in declining to accede to his Motion, are actuated only by a desire to pay due regard to the requirements of the public service, which I have the authority of my noble Friend at the head of the Foreign Department for saying would be injuriously affected by the publication of these despatches at the present moment. Despatches on the subject there are, however, not few in number, whether written to or by Sir Henry Bulwer, with whom it was but natural that the Government should correspond in relation to events by which the present were preceded, and which attracted our attention to Syria. With respect to Sir Henry Bulwer himself I will simply say that he has shown in connection with these transactions—as he has done on all former occasions—the utmost energy and activity, and has not failed to impress upon the Porte the expediency of providing a remedy for the existing state of things. My noble Friend who made the present Motion alluded in the course of his observations to the peculiar position of the population of the Lebanon; and he, who has taken so leading a part in the affairs of that part of the world for the last ten years, may detect some inaccuracy of detail in the remarks which I am about to offer on the subject to the House; but I cannot help saying that the peculiar posi-
616
tion of the population in Lebanon appears to me to be, to a great extent, independent of Turkish authority. And after the events of 1840 which led to the retirement or expulsion of the Egyptian troops it became necessary for the European nations to consider with the Porte the most desirable mode of effecting a settlement of the inhabitants of that country. My noble Friend from the part which he took in them must well remember these negotiations, which resulted in 1845 in an agreement between the Druses and the Maronites, under which the two populations were to be governed by separate Kaimakans, who were in no way Turkish officers, except in so far as they represented the Turkish Government with those populations.
LORD STRATFORD DE REDCLIFFE: The agreement was not between the Druses and the Maronites, but between the representatives of the European Governments and the Porte.
LORD WODEHOUSE: My noble Friend is quite right. The arrangement was accepted by the Druses and Maronites, but it was conducted under the mediation of the European Powers with the Porte. That agreement, more or less strictly acted upon, has endured to the present time. It is not easy to say what has led to the present disturbances; but the more one reads of the atrocities to which my noble Friend alluded the more one's mind is struck with horror. We have this very day received recent despatches giving an account of what took place at Damascus. At the time the Consul wrote the massacres were going on, and nothing can be more calamitous than the description of the state of the town. A fact having a very serious bearing on these transactions has come under the notice of the Government in these despatches, as well as from other evidence, and it appears more especially from the events which have taken place at Damascus, namely, that the bad feeling is unfortunately not confined to the quarrel between the Druses and the Maronites. The origin of the outbreak at Damascus is distinctly stated by Mr. Brant to have been the insults offered to the Christian population by the Mahomedans in the streets. The authors of these insults were punished by being ordered to sweep the streets in chains—a measure which was certainly imprudent, though well meant on the part of the authorities. When this took place the Mahomedan population became furious, and the occurrence resulted in the dread-

617
ful scene of which we have received information by telegraph and otherwise. Thus it is perfectly clear that, although these events commenced in a strife such as has before been carried on between the Druses and he Maronites, they have unfortunately been accompanied by a display of feeling between the Christian and Mahomedan population which cannot be too much regretted, and which is unquestionably fraught with danger to the Turkish Empire greater and more serious than any arising solely from feuds between the Druses and Maronites. My noble Friend has said we ought, for a time, to turn our eyes from these atrocities, and look at the superior political considerations which this question involves. But my noble Friend, when he came to speak of that part of the subject, admitted that it was impossible for the Christian Powers to stand by and sec these atrocities committed without making any attempt to redress such a state of things. I entirely agree with him that these superior and very serious considerations are very necessary to be looked to, because, whilst on the one band no one who sees these events passing, or who is called on to take any active part in reference to them, can fail to he influenced, almost in spite of himself, by a feeling of! sympathy with the population which has suffered such dreadful horrors, and which we must desire to rescue from the repetition of them on the other hand, as my noble Friend has justly said the position of the Turkish empire requires the utmost caution and the utmost delicacy in dealing with all questions that relate to it. That has been felt by the different Powers of Europe on the present occasion, and they have acted, not separately, but in conjunction, in the determination at which they have arrived with respect to the measures to be taken to pacify Syria. The result of the consultations which have taken place at Paris has been, as I am informed, that a protocol has been actually signed, defining the conditions under which the intervention of an European force ought to take place. I We have not received the protocol in its final state; and therefore it is possible that I may not be exactly correct in the account which I am about to give your Lordships of its contents; but in all its leading features I am certain that it will be found to be accurate. This instrument has taken the form of a protocol, and not of a convention, because had a convention been resorted to it would have been necessary for full powers
618
to be sent to the different Ambassadors, which would have caused a considerable delay. There were precedents for the signature of a protocol—one very recent one in 1840, and also at the time of the Conference on the Belgian Question—which were sufficient to authorize the adoption of such a form of instrument on this occasion. The protocol is signed by the Ambassadors of the five Great Powers and by the representative of the Porte, and it states that the Great Powers of Europe having offered the Sultan their assistance to put an end to these disturbances in Syria, and the Sultan having accepted their assistance, an agreement was made to this effect—namely, that a force of European troops shall be sent to Syria not exceeding in number ultimately 12,000; that of this force the Emperor of the French agrees to furnish immediately 6,000 men, who are to proceed to the scene of the disturbances without delay; that the other 6,000 men, in case they arc required, shall be furnished by such one of the Powers as on further consultation shall appear to be expedient. It also provides that the continuance of the European troops in Syria shall be limited to a period of six months. There are other provisions as to matters of detail; and an additional protocol has been signed in which the Great Powers, after expressing their anxious desire that the assurances given by the Sultan in 1856 as to the improvement of the condition of all his subjects shall be carried out, declare, as they did in 1840, their entire disinterestedness in concluding the arrangement for intervention in Syria, and they pledge their determination nut to seek for any exclusive advantages, exclusive influence, or territorial additions for themselves, or for any stipulations peculiarly favourable in reference to commerce. My Lords, that is the instrument which, as I state, has been actually signed. The measures which the Porte has taken are as follows:—Troops were immediately sent in considerable numbers to Syria, and a special Commissioner of the Porte has been despatched with very full powers. The assurances which the Sultan himself and all the Ministers of the Porte at Constantinople have given of their determination to inflict immediate and condign punishment on the guilty parties are all that can be wished; and if these assurances are fully carried out the result cannot fail to be most salutary. The different Powers have determined to send a Commission to Syria, and my noble

619
Friend (Lord Dufferin) has been selected by the Government to represent this country. It will be the duty of the Commission to inquire into the occurrences which have taken place, and to see, as I cannot doubt will be the case, that the offenders are brought to justice. At the head of these must unquestionably be placed the Pasha of Damascus; and I am glad to inform your Lordships that this officer is already in custody, and the Turkish authorities are determined that he shall be put upon his trial without delay. If it be conducted, as there is no doubt it will, with impartiality, it cannot fail to produce a good effect. We have received intelligence by telegraph that tranquillity has been restored in Damascus, that the new governor has arrived, and that the manner in which he has entered on his new duties is calculated to inspire confidence, and to fill us with the hope that we have heard the end of the massacres in that quarter. The state of things in Syria, however, is such as requires the strong hand; and it cannot be denied that the Porte, with good intentions, is feeble and unable to carry out to the full extent the intentions and wishes of the Sultan and his Ministers. My noble Friend has alluded to the reasons why there were not more troops in Syria at the time when these disturbances broke out. These reasons show at once the difficulties the Porte has to contend with, and the delicacy with which it is necessary to treat all matters concerning the Turkish Empire. It was known that a great ferment existed among the inhabitants of a considerable portion of Northern Turkey, and the Porte was requested by the European Powers to lose no time in sending troops to maintain order in that portion of the Sultan's dominions. A great force was despatched, and the Grand Vizier also set off to inquire into the state of things existing in that part of the country. The reasons are therefore obvious for having to so great an extent denuded the other portions of the Empire of troops. My noble Friend has stated that former events in Syria necessitated on the part of Her Majesty's Government the greatest caution in dealing with this question. Her Majesty's Government felt that the greatest caution was required; but at the same time they could not conceal from themselves that immediate, effective, and vigorous measures on the part of the great Powers of Europe should be taken. We cannot tell, if such disturbances continued, how far they might ex-
620
tend; and my noble Friend most justly said that, when once the grave questions which agitate the Turkish Empire have reached such a point as to bring about a forcible solution of what is called the great Eastern Question, a state of things must arise which will task the energies and skill of the wisest heads. My noble Friend said the time had passed for half measures. But at the same time he justly added that it was necessary to take every means to prevent the Turkish empire from falling to pieces; and that can only be accomplished by palliatives such as have constantly been applied by the policy of this country for many years. I have omitted to refer to an allusion of my noble Friend to the want of intimation of any steps having been taken by Sir Henry Bulwer when the outbreak took place, or to his having given any intimation to the Consuls. If I were not unwilling to occupy more of your Lordships' time I could point out to him the despatch which will be found in these papers, showing that the moment Sir Henry Bulwer received intelligence by telegraph that the conflict had broken out, he forwarded a despatch to the Consul General at Beyrout, enjoining him to take the most active measures for the restoration of tranquillity and confidence. I do not think it necessary that I should enter into the general question to which my noble Friend at the conclusion of his speech alluded. It is sufficient that I should, on the present occasion, deal with this particular question, in itself one of the most difficult kind. Her Majesty's Government have had their attention most earnestly directed to it. There has been among the different Powers of Europe a general concurrence of opinion as to the steps which ought to be taken. The Porte has admitted the necessity of this intervention; and I cannot but hope that the disinterestedness shown by the great Powers, the prudence with which they have treated this difficulty without evincing the slightest desire to neglect it or to avoid looking it fairly in the face, will enable us to bring to a satisfactory conclusion a question which all who are acquainted with Eastern affairs must admit is one of the most dangerous which have lately arisen with regard to the Turkish Empire; and dangerous as it may be to the stability of that Empire, still more dangerous as my noble Friend has said, in its possible effects to the peace of Europe and the good understanding of the different Powers; for so close is the con-

621
nection between what is called the Eastern Question and the general policy of Europe, that it is impossible that any great catastrophe could occur in the Turkish Empire without involving us in calamities of which no man can see the end.
THE EARL OF DERBY: I do not wish to say one word with reference to the question so ably introduced by the noble Lord opposite, because I feel that it is one of such enormous difficulty and such immense delicacy that I am quite certain it is the duty of all persons in this country who feel an interest in Eastern affairs to abstain as far as possible from any discussions which may have the tendency of embarrassing Her Majesty's Government. In the great uncertainty which surrounds the matter, it is quite impossible that we can be of any use in assisting them to arrive at a decision, and we shall best perform our duty by leaving to them the discretion and responsibility of dealing with it. I merely rise now for the purpose of asking the Government whether there is any truth in the statement which I have seen in the newspapers, and which, if true, reflects the greatest credit on the gentleman concerned—that, on the port of Tyre being threatened by a body of armed men, the inhabitants of the town implored the assistance of an English gentleman—named Harvey, I think—who happened to be accidentally present in his yacht (which was taken on shore for a man-of-war), and he, without the smallest hesitation, landed his men and some small pieces, which he had on board merely to fire salutes:—the effect of which vigour and energy was that the town was rescued from the threatened danger. I am quite sure your Lordships will concur with me that, if that statement be true, it reflects the greatest credit on that gentleman; and I should like to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have transmitted to him the expression of their approval of his conduct?
LORD WODEHOUSE: The facts are as the noble Earl has stated, and they will be found stated in these papers. Nothing could be more creditable to Mr. Harvey than his conduct on this occasion; nothing could be more timely for the inhabitants of the threatened town; nothing could show more decisively what respect is felt for the English name in that quarter of the world. I believe he did not land his men and guns, as the noble Earl has stated; but he placed his vessel and her guns in such a position that she was
622
supposed ashore to be a British man-of-war; and the bare supposition was sufficient for the purpose. I cannot state to the noble Earl that we have sent to Mr. Harvey any intimation of our approval of his conduct; but I am sure that if my noble Friend at the head of the Foreign Office has an opportunity of expressing to him his high admiration of his conduct he will not fail to do so. I cannot forbear mentioning that in the midst of these horrible events there has been a bright example of humanity on the part of a Mahomedan lady which deserves the highest praise. We are informed that this lady, whose name I do not now remember, the sister of a Mahomedan of great influence near Hasbeya, took into her house some 300 Christian women at the time of the massacre there; and when the armed crowd tried to force its way into the harem she told them she had taken the women under her protection, and threatened them with the consequences of violating the sanctity of a Mussulman's house.
THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEsaid, there was another Mahomedan whose conduct in this affair—as reported in the newspapers—deserved to be mentioned with praise—Abd-el-Kader, who had no particular reason to be fond of Christians or of the European Powers. He fully acknowledged the delicacy of this question, but he did not think that delicacy ought to be carried to such an extent as to become insincerity. If anything was really to be done in the matter, some stronger remedy must be applied than the mere palliatives which had been resorted to hitherto. He found no fault with the action which the Government had taken so far. The noble Lord the Under Secretary had not told them much, however. He could not believe that the protocol spoke the truth when it recited that this intervention was to take place with the consent and "at the desire" of the Porte, for the Turkish Agents in all the different Courts of Europe were going about stating that the Turkish Government had force enough to put down the disturbances, and that the massacre was at an end. If it was at an end, it was because there was no one left to murder. It was not to be tolerated that this feeble, effete Government was to have a right to hold in a state of barbarism some of the finest districts in the world. All diplomatic conventionalities were broken through in the case of Greece; the Governments of that day interfered on the ground of the

623
broad rights of humanity; and in this case we must do a good deal more than merely sign protocols and send Commissioners and a body of troops to remain there six months. What security had we that after those troops were withdrawn the same scenes would not occur again? The question must be met by an union among the Great Powers, to take upon themselves to Bee that the country was better governed in future. Whether that would be best done by giving certain powers to resident European Agents, or by still stronger measures, it was not his duty now to determine. The crisis, however, could only be avoided by dealing with the danger boldly. He rejoiced that we were acting in this matter in sincere concord with the French Government, who, he believed, had acted with the utmost sincerity in this matter. He believed the French Government was anxious to keep close the alliance with England, and also to keep the peace of Europe and of the world. He thought that Parliament should know what the Commissioners were to do. His noble Friend said that he hoped the interference of Europe would lead to salutary results, and there was no doubt that it would prevent a great loss of life. Many persons were to lose their lives judicially; but was that sufficient to ensure safety? The French Government had lost not a moment in acting with that vigour which every Christian man must think so necessary. He believed also that our Foreign Office lost no time in seconding the efforts of the French Government. He should be glad if there was an expression of the feeling on the part of this country that the time had come when the Christian Powers would not allow the recurrence of these scenes. The great danger which had been alluded to would not be lessened by postponement. They had much better make up their minds to discuss and deal with the case, because palliatives would not suffice, and it did not become this country to withdraw her hand from the work until some security for the future had been obtained.
EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I rather regret that the discussion was not left where it was when the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby) finished his speech, because it certainly is a very difficult and a very delicate question. On the one hand, horror is inspired by the accounts of the atrocities which have been perpetrated, and indignation at the weakness which the Turkish Government has shown. On the
624
other hand, I think we should not allow those feelings to carry us away to declare a total change of policy with regard to the desirability of maintaining the integrity of the Ottoman Empire. Up to the present moment that has been the policy of England and the policy of Europe. If it were not a worthy object of policy those who supported the war with Russia would have very little excuse to give for the money and blood which were expended. It was not from mere love of the Turks or of the Mussulman religion that the Turkish Government was supported at that crisis; but on the broad principle that it was difficult otherwise to maintain the Turkish Empire as it at present exists. When noble Lords talk of palliatives being no longer of any use, is it meant to proceed at once to break up the territories of the Turkish Empire? If so, then there comes the grave consideration in whose hands those territories shall be placed. No doubt, with regard to the expedition now being planned on the part of France in conjunction with the other Powers of Europe it is an exceptional measure; but if it will put an end to these occurrences and resettle Syria in a more satisfactory manner I shall greatly rejoice; for I cannot concur with the noble Marquess that all danger of further massacre is at an end, because all the Christians that could be massacred have been killed. I feel that an awful responsibility rests with the Powers who were parties to the Treaty of Paris to prevent the spread of that fanatical spirit in Turkey which may be excited still further against the Christians. The whole House must agree with what fell from the noble Earl opposite, that there are two sides to this question. It is one of the greatest importance, and of the most delicate and difficult nature, and we should not, because our feelings are roused by what has occurred, rashly and entirely change the policy which has hitherto been considered to contribute to the peace of Europe and to the balance of power in the world.
LORD STRATFORD DE REDCLIFFEsaid, that he wished before the debate closed to offer a few words in explanation. His noble Friend who had just sat down seemed very naturally apprehensive that if they took a strong view of the question it would lead to a departure from the policy which had hitherto been pursued. What he meant to say was this—that we had pursued a course of palliatives for the last twenty-five or thirty years, that the

625
Turks had not shown any practical attention to the advice of their best friends, that the Sultan had not taken—or at least had not seen that his servants had taken—the measures which were necessary to carry into execution the Proclamation which comprised all the Reforms necessary for the salvation of the empire; and that the Turkish Government had shown remissness and apathy, which had tended to continue its weakness, and had led in a great measure to the fatal occurrences which had taken place. What he maintained was, that what had occurred in Syria should be a warning to Her Majesty's Government to exert the right and to perform the paramount duty which belonged to them, after the positive compromising guarantee of the integrity of the Turkish Empire which was, for the first time, given by the Treaty of 1856—to insist that the Turkish Government should carry into execution the scheme of Reform which had been proclaimed, without creating any disturbance from one end of the Turkish Empire to the other. It might have been supposed that the Proclamation would have caused serious opposition; but it did not, and one reason was that care was taken to provide a better administration of the law in favour of the Mussulman as well as in favour of the Christian population. What he maintained was this,—that Her Majesty's Government ought to take advantage of the present occasion in order to prevent future complications, to press upon the Porte, and not only to press upon the Porte, but to secure its acquiescence in carrying into immediate though gradual effect, the reforms to which it was pledged. He had with his own ears heard the Grand Vizier, who was one of the most effective of the Turkish officers and honoured with the confidence of the Sovereign, state that he considered the reforms which were subsequently introduced into the Imperial proclamation absolutely indispensable to the existence of the Turkish Empire. With the pledges of the Sovereign, the opinion of the Minister, the Proclamation recorded in the treaty of peace and accompanied by a solemn guarantee which might one day involve this country in most serious sacrifices, he thought it was not only the true policy but the indispensable duty of the European Powers, and particularly of Her Majesty's Government, to make the Turkish Government understand that to carry out those reforms was the only chance—for, so help him God, he believed it was—of keeping
626
the empire together and staving off the great catastrophe which all wished to avoid. The case of Greece had been referred to. He knew that the effort to give independence to Greece was considered by some to he a fatal blow to the Turkish Empire; but no view was more utterly unfounded. Greece would have been a continual sore to Turkey, and the cause of constant interference on the part of Russia. There was another consideration likewise—that it was impossible to establish the independence of Greece without forcing upon Turkey a better civil administration for those Greeks who remained under the Sultan's sceptre, and it was impossible to introduce a more humane system for the Greeks without benefiting the Mussulman subjects of Turkey. Nothing was further from his intention than to encourage a violation of the law of nations. He never recommended that they should go with an armed force and insist upon the Sultan giving up the administration of his country to Foreign Powers. But he did say that, while a system of comprehensive amendment was accepted by the Turkish Government and recorded in a great public treaty, and since many times confirmed, they should look to the Turkish Government to take the measures which were necessary to give it effect; and among those measures, in his humble opinion, however inconvenient, should be a conference established at Stamboul to see that the proclamation was carried into effect. He was glad to receive the assurance of his noble Friend that the Foreign Office and their agents were paying so much attention to this subject. At the same time he did not quite understand why there should be any objection to produce the evidence of the activity of their Minister at Constantinople in regard to those events which happened more than a year ago, and of the attention which was paid to the warnings of what was coming on in Syria. The noble Under Secretary for War had urged reasons for not acceding to the Motion; but he (Lord Stratford) thought a distinction might be made between one part of a Correspondence proceeding from the Foreign Office and another. He presumed there might be correspondence referring to this particular question and not to anything else; and he hoped his noble Friend would consent to modify the refusal he had given to his request, and in that case would be happy to alter the Motion so as to meet his views.
LORD WODEHOUSEwas sorry he could not make any other answer to the noble Lord than that he had already given. Their Lordships might rest assured that they would receive full information on the subject as soon as possible; but it would be highly inconvenient to produce the papers asked for at the present moment.
LORD STRATFORD DE REDCLIFFEwas unwilling to press his Motion to the embarrassment of the Government, and would therefore withdraw it.
Motion, by leave of the House, withdrawn.

SENIOR MEMBER OF COUNCIL (INDIA) BILL.

  RESOLUTION OF URGENCY.—SECOND READING.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLmoved,
  "That as regards the Senior Member of Council (India) Bill, inasmuch as doubts as to the authority of the Senior Member of the Council of the Governor General of India in the absence of the President appointed by the Governor General have recently arisen, and unless at once set at rest might embarrass the Proceedings of the Council and produce serious public inconvenience; the circumstances which require Legislation on this subject appear to this House to be of such real Urgency as to render the immediate Consideration of the same necessary."
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEremarked that although the principle had been frequently proclaimed and applauded in Parliament, that India ought to be governed in India, the only steps which had been taken had been in a contrary direction. He hoped that the Council at home would not be allowed to encroach upon the powers and influence of the Government in India.
  Resolution agreed to.
  Bill read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION (INDIA) BILL.

  RESOLUTION OF URGENCY.—SECOND READING.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLmoved,
  "That as regards the Admiralty Jurisdiction (India) Bill, inasmuch as certain piratical Acts recently committed on the Coast of Tenasscrim having been found not to be punishable owing to there being no Tribunal competent to try the Culprits, it is to be feared that similar Acts may occur in consequence of such Impunity; the Circumstances which require Legisiation on this Subject appear to this House to be of such real Urgency as to render the immediate Consideration of the same necessary."
  Resolution agreed to.
  Bill read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

SUPERANNUATION ACT (1859) AMENDMENT BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLmoved to resolve,
  "That as regards the Superannuation Act (1859) Amendment Bill, inasmuch as in the Organization of certain Departments connected with the Establishment of the Secretary of State for India it may be necessary for the public Service to transfer to those Departments Persons holding Situations in the Civil Service of the United Kingdom, and as such Transfers cannot be made without Injustice to the Rights of the Parties thus transferred under the existing Superannuation Act, the Circumstances which require Legislation on the Subject Matter of the said Bill are of such real Urgency as to render the immediate Consideration of the same necessary."
  Resolution agreed to.
  Bill read 2a (according to Order) and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.
  House adjourned at half past Eight o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.