Sitting of 24 August 1860

SPRING BUFFERS—THE INDIAN TELEGRAPH.—QUESTIONS.
MR. CONINGHAMsaid, he would beg-to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether the Lords of the Admiralty have any intention of adopting a plan, as sent in by C. W. Forbes, Esq., for checking the recoil of Gnus by Spring Buffers, and which is about to be adopted by the I French Government? He also wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, who is the engineering adviser of the Government in the matter of the Indian Telegraph; and whether he is the gentleman who acted as Engineer of the Surveying Expedition to the Isthmus of Darien which terminated disastrously?
LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, with regard to the question put to him by the hon. Member, he had to state that the Admiralty had received a letter from Mr. Forbes on the subject of spring buffers for guns, but it was unaccompanied by any plan.
MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, that Mr. Lionel Gisborne was appointed by the Earl of Derby's Government as Engineer to the Gibraltar Telegraph, and occupied that position when the present Government came into office. Since then the wire had been transferred to Rangoon and Singapore, and the services of Mr. Gisborne had been continued. With respect to the survey in connection with the scheme for a ship canal across the Isthmus of Darien he had no

1779
official knowledge, as the survey was undertaken by a private company.

INEQUALITIES OF THE INCOME TAX.

  QUESTION.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill in the next Session to remedy the inequality of the Property and Income Tax?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he thought he would be a sanguine man who would expect to devise a tax which entailed no inequalities. As to the Income Tax, when that tax was renewed from time to time, various modifications were introduced as experience pointed out, and in any future renewal that same course would be adopted. If the hon. Gentleman intended to ask whether the Government would next year introduce a Bill to alter the incidence of the different Schedules, he had no hesitation in replying in the negative.

  THE POST OFFICE—MONEY ORDER OFFICE.—QUESTION.
  SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, he rose to ask, Whether it is the intention of the Post Office Authorities to farm out the Paying and Issuing Window of the Chief Money Order Office; that is to say, whether they intend to confide it to a private individual, who for certain advantages will contract to supply the labour, in order that the regular appointments may be abolished; and, if so, what is proposed to be done with the officers who are to be thus superseded in their duties by contract labour, the whole of those officers having been more than five years on the establishment?
  MR. LAINGreplied, that no decision had been come to as to farming out the Issuing Window referred to by the hon. and learned Gentleman. In answer to the latter question, he could only say that he knew of no way in which any officer could be superseded, but any question of compensation would be regulated by the Superannuation Act.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he would take that opportunity of informing the hon. and learned Baronet who took an interest in the subject, that the Report of the Committee appointed to inquire into the working of the Post Office had been presented, but it was
  1780
  not the intention of the Government to lay it before Parliament at that time. The investigation had been carried on at a period when there had been a double change—the office of Postmaster General, and when Sir Rowland Hill had been necessarily absent from illness. The Report raised many questions of great importance, and proposed many changes; and the Government did not think it would be right to lay it before Parliament until they had come to a decision upon those recommendations.

LUNATIC ASYLUMS IN IRELAND.

  QUESTION.
  MR. HENNESSYsaid, that referring to the Order in Council of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, dated 28th of March, 1860, appointing Commissioners for the Control, &c, of Irish District Asylums, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether the Commission in question is intended to be of a permanent kind, or whether it is for a temporary purpose; whether it is in contemplation to appoint a secretary and a staff of clerks for the office of the Commissioners, or to amalgamate it with the office of the Inspectors of Lunatic Asylums, who are themselves members of the Commission; and whether the Irish Government intend to bring in a Bill next Session of Parliament to alter and amend the laws relating to Public and Private Lunatic Asylums in Ireland, in conformity to the recommendations of the Royal Commissioners of Inquiry in 1858?
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, that the arrangement alluded to by the hon. Gentleman was merely to give the authorities a greater control over the selection of an architect. As the money advanced was public money, it was right that its expenditure should be controlled by a public officer. The gentlemen who were appointed architect and secretary were already in the receipt of superannuation allowances, and would not be entitled to further compensation when their present functions ceased.

RATES ON PUBLIC BUILDINGS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. ANGERSTEIN, said, he would beg to ask, Whether any, or what, arrangement the Government has made for the payment of Local Rates on the different Government Buildings?
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, that a Vote had been taken in the course of the Session for the payment of Rates on certain public establishments, according to previous arrangement. He was unable then to say from what precise time the payments would commence, but it could not be before the commencement of the official year, for which the Vote had been taken.

HONG KONG.—CASE OF MR. TARRANT.
  REPLY.
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEin answer to a Question put yesterday by the hon. and learned Member for Marylebone (Mr. E. James), "Whether Mr. Tarrant, the Editor of The Friend of China, is still detained in prison in Hong Kong, at the suit of the Crown," said, that Mr. Tarrant had been convicted of a libel upon the late Lieutenant-Governor of Hong Kong, and sentenced to six months' imprisonment. Soon after the sentence the Governor, after consulting with the Chief Justice, determined to reduce the imprisonment by one-half, which he did before receiving an order to that effect from the Government at home. When the day for Mr. Tarrant's liberation arrived, that gentleman was arrested upon civil process. The Governor did not state the nature of the debt, but he (Mr. C. Fortescue) believed it was the costs of the proceedings for libel; but, at all events, it was a matter with which the Government had nothing to do.
AUSTRALIAN POSTAL SERVICE.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. HENNESSYsaid, in referring to the answer of the Secretary to the Treasury on the 22nd, that he was not aware there had been any intention on the part of the Colonial Office to advertise for Tenders for an Australian Postal Service viáPanama, he wished to direct his attention to the following notification, conspicuously appended to the Colonial Office Advertisement for Tender for the Overland Australian route, namely—
  "N.B. It is to be observed that so soon as arrangements are completed, it is the intention of the Government to call for Tenders for a Monthly Steam Communication with Australia via Panama, in addition to the Service via Suez."
  He also wished to ask whether any and what steps have been or will be taken to redeem the pledge thus held out, on the
  1782
  part of the Imperial Government, to the Australian Colonies, and to the various commercial interests at home connected with this subject.
  MR. LAINGsaid, he had, on a former occasion, misunderstood the question of the hon. Member. He thought it referred to the present intentions of the Government, and the answer he gave was that there was no intention of doing anything in the way of contracting for a Postal Service by way of Panama. He found, however, on adverting to the question the hon. Gentleman had now put, that he referred to a. circumstance which occurred more than a year ago, when the late Government was in office. It was true that there was an intention on the part of the late Government to call for tenders for a monthly communication with Australia by way of Panama; but the present Government thought that the system of subsidies for mail communication to the Colonies had been carried quite far enough at the expense of the mother country. It could not be held that the mere intentions of the late Government should bind either the present Government or the House to a proposition of this kind.

AUSTRIA AND NORTHERN ITALY.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. BUTTsaid, with reference to statements that have appeared in the continental journals—1. That the Austrian Government has intimated to that of Turin that they would treat the landing of Garibaldi in the Neapolitan dominions as a casus belli between Austria and Northern Italy. 2. That Austria has engaged or tendered support to the King of Naples, by armed intervention, against any attempt at revolution—he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether Her Majesty's Government have received any information of such a menace being addressed to the Court of Turin, or such an engagement or offer being made to that of Naples?
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON; Sir, I am glad to say that the Report to which the hon. and learned Member refers is totally devoid of foundation. The Austrian Government has invariably stated that they do not intend to interfere by force of arms in any matter beyond their own frontier, that they intend to defend their frontier if attacked, but to do nothing beyond that. Therefore there is no ground for supposing

  1783
  that any such communication as the hon. and learned Member refers to has been made by the Austrian Government either to the King of Naples or the King of Sardinia.

  PUBLIC BUSINESS—FRIDAY EVENING DEBATES.—RESOLUTION.
  MR. T. S. DUNCOMBEsaid, he rose to move a Resolution of which he had given notice on the subject of the Friday evening debates. He had given notice of two Resolutions, but it was his intention only to move the first. The two Resolutions were:—"1. That, on the question of Adjournment from Friday to Monday, all discussion shall be confined to Questions relating to the intended business of the following week, or to matters of public urgency demanding immediate attention. 2. Whenever it is moved and seconded by Members who have not spoken during the Debate, that the Debate be now closed, Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put such Question, and, if agreed to, shall immediately proceed to put the original Question." The House, be need not remind them, had that very day sat seven months; and he was much afraid that if they were to ask the public what had been done during these seven months, the answer would be, little or no good. He did not say the Session had been destitute of all good, for they had confirmed a very valuable treaty, so far as it went, with France, and they had much improved the tariff; but they had let slip through their hands certain Bills which the public expected would have become law—one in particular with regard to the Amendment of the representation, and another for the improvement of the bankruptcy and insolvency laws. Great disappointment prevailed among the commercial classes that the latter measure had not been passed. What, then, was the cause of so little being done? It appeared to him that Mr. Speaker was helpless, that the Government was helpless, and that the. House was helpless under the present regulations; and the House would not be blameless if it did not attempt to correct the evil. He believed the only true course was to go back to the old system that prevailed in the House. It was only within these few years that the present system with regard to questions on the Motion for Adjournment till Monday had come into practice. During the time of the Speakership of Mr.
  1784
  Manners Sutton and Mr. Abercromby no such system prevailed. It originated with the late Speaker, who gave permission to hon. Members to raise all kinds of questions on the Motion for Adjournment. The only object he could see in bringing forward these questions was that they made hon. Members appear before their constituents exceedingly active with regard to matters that had a bearing on the incidents of the day. Taking a common-sense view of the matter, what was the object in allowing any question to be raised on the Motion for Adjournment? This practice was formerly permitted in order that any question might be asked relative to the business of the ensuing week, and also upon any matter of great public urgency that would not keep. If, for example, there bad been a great disturbance in the country, or if the Government had been guilty of an unconstitutional act, or if some important matter relative to foreign policy arose, then an hon. Member was permitted to ask a question about it on the Motion for the Adjournment to Monday. But now, there was no sort of question, either upon colonial, foreign, or borne affairs—ranging, in fact, from our Indian Empire to the ride in Kensington Gardens—that was not put on the paper on the Motion for adjournment. What was the consequence? The House was sometimes occupied until half-past 11 o'clock at night in discussing questions whether at its rising it should adjourn to Monday. What then became of the right to ballot upon notices-of Motion? Why, the notice day was done away with, the usual notices of Motion being superseded and set aside by these questions. Speeches were made upon topics which were so far from being of pressing urgency that notice was given of them three weeks before. The evil ought to he obviated by restoring the old rule. He remembered being himself called to order by Mr. Manners Sutton for putting on Friday some question upon tithe commutation. Mr. Manners Sutton ruled that he was going beyond his right, because the question was not one of public urgency. The Motions generally made were of the most ad captandum nature, and a few hon. Members, wishing to show their activity to their constituents, seemed to be always putting questions. But he wanted Jo know where the practice would stop, for if twenty Members had a right to put questions, so had 200; and then how would the public business go on Look at the hours wasted and the Bills

  1785
  that might be passed while Members were talking on this very adjournment question. Five or six hours every night during the whole Session had been occupied in this way. Recently a change had been made by which Thursday became a Government day, and Friday was devoted to notices of Motion. But that, instead of rectifying the abuse, only made it worse, for hon. Members now thought they had a right to encroach on the lime that ought to be devoted to notices of Motion. His right hon. Friend (Mr. Bouverie) brought forward, early in the Session, a Motion that the House at its rising should adjourn as a matter of course until Monday, unless it should otherwise order. The Government said that was a reasonable proposition, but that it would be better to rely upon the good sense and good taste of the House. It was, however, clear that in relying on the good sense and good taste of hon. Members the House was relying upon a broken reed. The time of the House was the time of the public, and it ought not to be wasted by all the foolish balderdash and nonsense that was inflicted upon the House on Friday nights. He trusted that the Government would accede to his Resolution.
  MR. BERNALOSBORNEseconded the Motion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That, on the Question of Adjournment from Friday to Monday, all discussions shall be confined to Questions relating to the intended business of the following week, or to matters of public urgency demanding immediate attention."
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he quite agreed with his hon. Friend that it behoved the House to consider the subject with attention, and that they ought to make up their minds definitively whether the present practice should be continued or not. The question was one not merely for the Government but for the whole House to consider, since it had an important bearing on the efficiency of the House for the despatch of business, affecting as it did nearly the whole of one out of the five days in the week devoted to public business. Something had been done however during the Session. The Motion of his right hon. Friend (Mr- Bouverie) that no Motion for adjournment should be put on Friday underwent a great deal of discussion. It was negatived by 166 to 48, so that the opinion of the House was declared in favour of maintaining the present Motion
  1786
  of adjournment. Thursday afterwards became an Order Day for Government business, and Friday was given up to Notices of Motion. After some experience the Mouse came to the conclusion that the change was a wholesome one, and conducive to the despatch of public business. It had therefore been converted into a Standing Order. A short time since his hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. W. Ewart) brought forward a series of Resolutions, with regard to the despatch of public business, which were withdrawn on the understanding that a Select Committee should be appointed next Session to which this subject should be referred. If it should be the pleasure of the House to appoint such a Committee next Session, one of the first matters that must occupy its attention would be the great amount of time taken up by the debates on the Friday adjournments. One of the inconveniences of the present system was that hon. Members who came clown at 7 o'clock for the business of the evening were detained until 9 or 10 before it came on. That was a greater inconvenience to private Members than to Members of the Government; because, whatever the business transacted, the latter were usually in the House, whereas private Members took an interest in particular questions, and it would be a great convenience to them to know within a certain margin when the business of the night would come on. A perfect farrago of questions were put on the most miscellaneous subjects, and great confusion arose from the fact that two or three questions were sometimes put to the same Minister. If he answered one, he could not speak again without the consent of the House; and if he waited till the end of the evening, that he might answer them altogether, the earlier questions were forgotten. Thus confusion became worse confounded, and either course was productive of inconvenience. An hon. Member had, in a recent debate, raised a laugh by quoting a series of questions put by the Civil Service Commissioners, If any hon. Member would read a list of the questions put upon the Motion for adjournment, he would be equally successful in creating merriment in the House, for they were put down in such a manner as to be far from conducive either to the transaction of public business or to the credit or character of the House. With regard to the Motion before the House, he could understand a proposal that no Motion should be

  1787
  made for adjournment on Friday, but when his hon. Friend proposed that the discussion on Friday should be confined either to the intended business of the ensuing week or to matters of public urgency, he could not help thinking that such a rule would lead to considerable inconvenience. He should have thought that if there was any class of questions which it was not desirable to discuss, it was the business of the ensuing week, because an hon. Member who did so might take a general view of all the Orders as well as the Notices of the Week. As to the phrase "matter of public urgency," it was so vague that he feared much time would be lost in discussing what was a matter of urgency. If the House should alter its practice, it would be better to do so by some rule not so difficult of construction or open to so much ambiguity. He trusted that the Committee to be appointed early next Session would consider this among other subjects. He was, however, satisfied that the House in its present thin state was not fitted to decide upon so important a matter, and one which had already been discussed without result. He did not see any leading-Members of the Opposition in their places, but they would naturally wish to take part in such a debate, and would have reason to complain if such a Motion were earned in their absence. He trusted, therefore, that his hon. Friend would not press his Motion.
  MR. SPOONERsaid, he fully concurred in the remarks of his right hon. Friend, but could not allow one observation of the hon. Member for Finsbury to pass unchallenged. The hon. Member described the treaty with France as beneficial. He was, unfortunately, prevented from attending at the time when the treaty was under discussion, and was therefore in no way responsible for it. So far from being a beneficial treaty, it was, he believed, the worst and most injurious that this country had ever made. The feeling which at the first prevailed in certain parts of the country in favour of it had totally vanished, and he knew that it had been the ruin of hundreds of his own constituents. The provisions of the treaty with regard to silk had destroyed the whole trade of Coventry, and had thrown that populous neighbourhood into a state of distress which he could not fully describe. The treaty was altogether onesided and unjust. We had given up everything and received nothing, and unless some alterations were made its bane-
  1788
  ful effects would be found spreading over the whole country.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, he had been unwilling to interrupt the hon. Member, but he was at a loss to see the relevancy of his remarks to the question before the House.
  MR. SPOONERsaid, he was merely replying to an observation which had fallen from the hon. Member for Finsbury.
  MR. E. P. BOUVERIEsaid, that as he had introduced, at an early period of the Session, a Motion on the subject of the debates raised on the putting of the question of the Friday Adjournment, he hoped the House would allow him to make a few observations on the subject which had just been brought under their notice by the hon. Member for Finsbury. He believed that many hon. Members who had upon that occasion voted against his proposal would at present be prepared to support it, in consequence of the experience they had since had of the working of the practice against which it was directed. That experience had shown that they had opened a door for a prolonged miscellaneous conversation which really impeded the business of the country. The Motion for the Adjournment of the House from Friday to Monday was, except at the close of the Session, a mere matter of course, and his suggestion was that no special Motion should be required for following their ordinary practice. He had taken the trouble to look into the record of discussions kept in the Members' waiting-room, and found that no fewer than 85 hours—or, reckoning a working day at 7 hours, 12 days—had been spent during the Session in discussions on the question of Adjournment, which in 99 cases out of a 100 were a mere waste of time. Had that time been devoted to the business of the country they would have been enabled to discuss fully and properly many measures of great public importance which had been postponed to the last weeks of the Session, and agreed to without sufficient consideration. He hoped that the experience of the Session would lead hon. Members to give a more favourable ear to the proposal he had formerly made, if he should bring it forward again.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, he believed that a great source of inconvenience would be removed if all the Members who desired to obtain information from a particular Minister would put their questions to him consecutively. But he did not think it

  1789
  would be wise to abolish altogether the practice of raising discussions on the Motion for the Friday Adjournments. He felt persuaded that they were able to procure in that way a vast amount of information which the country wished to obtain.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he hoped the House, in making a change would not pass from one extreme to the other. He believed that for the purpose of eliciting information on urgent questions and on the order of public business the Friday evening conversation was very useful. The abuse consisted in hon. Members unfairly availing themselves of that opportunity to introduce important questions which ought to be the subjects of substantive Motions. He trusted that some check would be placed on that abuse, but he believed it was desirable to retain the privilege, on the Motion for Adjournment, of putting questions, and at the same time of explaining them, which was not allowed on other nights.
  MR. T. S. DUNCOMBEsaid, he would withdraw his Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  FOREIGN AFFAIRS.—OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. KINNAIRDsaid, lie rose to move the Adjournment of the House, in order to have an opportunity of calling attention, before the Session closed, to the long-talked of Conference of the great Powers on the subject of Savoy. The calm dignity, forbearance, and firmness manifested by Switzerland with reference to the annexation of Chablais, Faucigny, and Geneva, neither seduced by the cajolery nor shaken by the menaces of a powerful neighbour, had been such as to call forth general admiration. The neutrality of Switzerland was guaranteed, in the interests of peace, by all the great European Powers in 1815. Piedmont, too, bound herself to Switzerland by the Treaty of March 16, 1816, never to alienate the provinces in question to any third Power. But it was a manifest absurdity to suppose that any portion of a great Empire like France could really remain neutral, and consequently the possession of these provinces by such an Empire would be a standing menace to the security and independence of Switzerland. It was to guard against such a danger that provision was made in the Treaty of 1815 for the neutrality of the three Provinces. Two things were essential to the neutrality of any
  1790
  State—the wish and the power to be so. Now every one who studied the map of Europe would see that Switzerland was weak on the side of Savoy. A frontier easy of defence was necessary to her existence, and on that side she has no frontier that she could defend. The Powers of Europe, therefore, gave her a military and strategic frontier besides her political one. It was for the maintenance of that frontier that Switzerland appealed to the public opinion of Europe, and he hoped that the Session would not close without an assurance from the noble Lord that the Conference which had been promised would speedily be held. It was not simply a matter of treaty, but a question of natural right. They all knew that these Provinces were naturally connected with Switzerland, and that all their produce and trade found an outlet at Geneva and the Canton. It was not, therefore, a question of treaty but of natural right which had thus been aggressively taken from them. He believed that Switzerland was entitled to the thanks of Europe for the manner in which she had maintained her rights. If, in addition to great foresight, she had not acted with great prudence and moderation, it was impossible to say what would have been the consequences to Europe. It would be in the recollection of the House that when his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Kinglake) first asked the Government whether there was any intention to annex Savoy and Nice, hardly any one believed it. They were indebted to Switzerland for first calling the attention of Europe to this act of aggression. At the time when the question was first put by his hon. Friend, he was one who placed implicit confidence in the speech at Milan of the Emperor of the French, and in the statement of Count Cavour, that Sardinia would neither cede, sell, or exchange that property which she was bound by special treaty with Switzerland to hold. He therefore scarcely gave credence to the rumour that such an act of aggression was actually in contemplation. He thought that Switzerland acted nobly in refusing to treat alone with the Emperor of the French. Switzerland, putting aside her individual interests, determined not to accept anything from the Emperor, but to stand by her rights. He trusted that those rights would be brought before a Conference of the great Powers, and he believed it would then be shown that might was not right, and that there was justice in the cause and in the policy which Switzerland

  1791
  had adopted. He did not wish to detain the House at that period of the Session. He would only say that the circumstances which had occurred, and the circumstances which were occurring, showed that the Government ought to be prepared for all eventualities. It was a remarkable fact that not many months ago news came from across the Channel that the Emperor of the French was already weary of Italian affairs, and that they would soon hear of great events in the East. They little thought at that time how soon the fearful massacres in Syria would follow, and how circumstances would arise which seemed to call on France to occupy that country. When they looked at affairs in Italy, they must feel how important it was that England should he prepared. He trusted that the report that Austria was about to take active measures against the rising liberties of Italy was untrue, and that it was, as they had since heard, the fixed intention of Austria to remain, unless attacked, in the Quadrilateral. He hoped that those who conducted the Italian cause would still maintain the moderation which they had hitherto exhibited, and that nothing would happen to cause them to regret the progress which Italian liberty had made, and which had given the greatest satisfaction to every Member of the House and to every one in the country. He wished to put the question of which he had given notice—"Whether definitive arrangements had been made for assembling the Conference proposed to be held at the instance of the Swiss Confederation; and, if not, whether it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to recognize the annexation of Savoy and Nice as a valid act, forming part of the public law of Europe; also, whether any other of the five great Powers were acting in this matter in conjunction with Her Majesty's Government?"
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."
  MR. KINGLAKE: There was. Sir, I believe, an understanding that before the close of the Session some opportunity should be given to us for raising a discussion on foreign affairs, and although I cannot say, looking at the empty state of the House, that the present opportunity is a very promising one, I am anxious, if the House will so far indulge me, to address to it a few observations on the subject. I think it will be admitted, by Her Majesty's Ministers and by the House in general, that
  1792
  those who are accustomed to take an interest in foreign affairs have not been wanting in forbearance towards the Government, and have not been guilty of anything like undue intrusion on the time of the House, for we must remember, that the present state of affairs in Europe is one of an unusually critical kind. I cordially agree with every word which has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Perth, with regard to the conduct of the Swiss Confederation. I am bound to say that in the earliest stage of the transaction which was the subject of my hon. Friend's speech, Switzerland perceived the danger in which she was placed. She communicated that danger at the earliest time to all those on whose friendship she was entitled to count, and from that hour to the present she has never for one moment swerved in the earnestness of her endeavour to preserve her own rights and through her own rights to protect the true interests of Europe. She has never for a moment forgotten, that vital as the question was to her, the question was one of deep importance to Europe. And, therefore, whenever pressed, whether by the menace or, as my hon. Friend termed it, by the cajolery of her powerful neighbour, she has always answered that the question, though vital to her, was also a European question, and by the great Powers of Europe her rights and interests were to be judged. It is very true that this question of the annexation of Savoy and Nice has disturbed Europe, but I must say that it is right that it should be so, for I cannot conceive anything more lamentable than that a great wrong of this description should be perpetrated to the prejudice of a weak but deserving Power such as Switzerland, and Europe should stand by acquiescing in such a transaction. My hon. Friend behind me, the gallant Member for Liskeard (Mr. B. Osborne), in the course of some discussion which took place on the question of fortifications, more than once addressed to the Government a very pregnant question. To that question he never received any answer, and I told him I did not think he would receive any answer, because the question was one which could be more conveniently answered or commented upon by an independent Member of Parliament than by a Minister of the Crown. My gallant Friend asked why it was that the Report of the Commissioners having been placed in the hands of the Government so early as the month of February, no application was

  1793
  made to the House to act on these recommendations until the month of July. My answer is that between the month of February and the month of July a momentous change took place in the state of European affairs. I ventured, as early as the month of February, to warn the House that when the Emperor of the French proposed to break through the public law of Europe he was doing that which would place us all in a new condition—he was doing that which effected a transition, if I may so express it, from right to might, and it became certain, in my opinion, that if he should carry out the purpose with which we were then menaced, we should hear le3s of treaties and less of negotiations, and a great deal more of fortifications, battalions, batteries, and all the implements of war. So it has turned out, and that I think is the answer to the question of my hon. Friend. The truth is, that the annexation of these countries, even if it had been assented to by England, would have been a very grave affair, but it took place contrary to the declared recommendation of England, and when it took place, I may say, in the teeth of the English Government, it became a transaction of momentous importance. It took place at a time when Parliament was sitting, and I do think that if at such a time we had remained silent we should have been guilty of a shameful abondonment of our duty; and I will do Her Majesty's Ministers the justice to say that I believe they shared in that opinion. It is natural for Ministers to dislike being interfered with. All men in possession of power naturally like to exercise it with as little extraneous advice as possible. At the same time Her Majesty's Ministers must do those who acted with me in these matters the justice to say, that not only did we do right in calling the attention of the House to them, but that we should have done wrong had we failed to take that course. I will not say that the urgency of those protests had any effect upon Her Majesty's Ministers, for I believe it is a truer and more generous view of the matter to say, that they who are Englishmen like ourselves were sharers, from the beginning, in the feelings which influenced us, and that the principles which we were venturing to inculcate—if not finally adopted by them—were inchoate in their minds and on the point of being adopted. Accordingly, when the 26th of March came we had the gratification of hearing that the Government
  1794
  were sharers in those opinions which we had humbly ventured to urge upon them. The purport of the famous declaration of the 26th of March was simply this,—it announced distrust of France and the determination of England not to keep aloof from other Powers. I recollect the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs pronounced these momentous words in a significant but low tone, hut all Europe listened to what he said, and it was not long before that important declaration produced the fruits which it was calculated to hear. At the time that declaration was made there was nothing like union throughout Germany, but no sooner was it known that England was distrustful of France and was turning to other Powers than the States of Germany not only determined among themselves that each would separately express an inclination to turn towards England, but their language among themselves was of the most simple and practical kind. They said, as long as we are disunited we are hardly worthy to proffer ourselves for an English alliance—let us be united among ourselves, let us be able to say that Germany against the foreigner will act as one, and then we shall be in a fair condition to proffer to England a German alliance. I rejoice to see that that principle was acted on at Baden and was carried to a completion the other day at Toplitz. If the existing state of things is satisfactory in comparison with that which existed before, we owe it in part to Germany, and in part to the determination of this House, one reacting, if I may so speak, on the other. If it is a subject of congratulation that Germany is now united, we are entitled to take a little pride that this House has found means in a worthy manner to cause its opinion to be once more heard with respect in Europe.
  Anterior to the Treaty of Turin the situation of the Emperor of the French in Europe was one of immense weight. Germany was disunited, Russia is known at that time to have approached, at all events, to something like an understanding with France, and the alliance, or, at all events, the cordial understanding which had for some time existed between France and England had placed France in such a position that she was relieved from all anxiety with regard to her sea communications. The consequence was that, being able to wield her immense military force by land and to move as she chose by sea, France had acquired so great an ascendancy in Europe

  1795
  as to cause the deepest anxiety to all those who are accustomed to attribute importance to the preservation of the balance of power. The Treaty of Turin was signed:—signed, as I have said, in defiance, so to speak, of England. The result is that the Emperor of the French has these provinces which he has now gone, it is said, to visit. No doubt the Savoyard battalions and the seaboard of Nice and the adjacent country are acquisitions of great importance—no doubt, also the frontier, menacing to Italy and menacing to Germany, is a matter of deep importance; but, on the other hand, it is to be observed that in exchange for these acquisitions the friendship of England has been converted into that avowed distrust which was expressed on the 26th of March in words, and which has since boon expressed still more significantly by our armaments. Moreover, Germany, now united and alarmed, is making her preparations on her eastern frontier, and the countries more immediately bordering on France—Switzerland and Belgium—have been so thoroughly alarmed by the proceedings of the Emperor that I think we have no reason to fear anything like languid acquiesence on their part. If I am entitled to assume, as I trust I am, that the answer of the noble Lord to the second branch of my hon. Friend's question will be such as we have a right to expect,—if we are to he told, as I trust we shall he, that although England did not think fit to resist that annexation by force, yet she will nevertheless decline to recognize it, then it is very important to observe the change which is thus effected in the position of the Emperor of the French; because, whereas he was before not merely recognized fully as an equal Sovereign, if I may so express it, but the ally of England, now the recognition of his character as Emperor of that which he considers the French empire is, in a sense, qualified, for I trust we shall hear that the British Government is not prepared to do any formal act which shall amount to a recognition of this annexation. For instance, if it should happen that our Consul at Nice were to die or to resign, then I trust we may he assured that the English Government would not ask an exequatur from the Emperor of the French for any new consul in his place.
  I am anxious, with the permission of the House, to say a few words on the subject of Syria. It was my fate many years ago to be a traveller in that country, and one finds that when one has become personally
  1796
  acquainted with a distant country one is apt to keep up one's knowledge, and, even after a great lapse of time, one's interest in it is frequently continued. In several discussions which have taken place here on this subject I have heard the noble Lord at the head of the Government taunted for the part which he took in 1840 in displacing Mehemet Ali from Syria. We have been told that Mehemet Ali was an excellent and vigorous governor who maintained order in that country, and that we did very wrong—the gallant Member for Southwark (Sir Charles Napier) made the observation, I think—when we took measures which had the effect of displacing him. It is rather singular for those who are filled with horror at the Turks and at massacres to come forward and befriend this man Mehemet Ali. I was in that country at the time when his power was in full force, and I say his reign was simply a reign of terror. He was a Turk, and a Turk of the most ferocious kind, and probably the most wicked of all the massacres which have occurred in this century was a massacre perpetrated by Mehemet Ali. He invited to a banquet at his castle all the Mamelukes of Egypt—the aristocracy of the country—the men who had been in a rude way the depositories of the governing power, and when he had them all in the courtyard of his castle he caused them all to be massacred; so that to the cruelty and bloodthirstincss of perpetrating a massacre there were added the treachery and wickedness which attach to a host who murders his own guests. Therefore we might have been spared anything like taunts for displacing such a man from the government of Syria. There has been, too, a good deal of unfairness towards the Ottoman Government in these discussions. It is impossible to overstate the poltroonery—for I believe that was, in fact, the real cause—of the wretched Turkish officers who stood by while the horrors of which we complain were being perpetrated; but if we ascend higher in the chain of causation, and ask what the causes really were, I am afraid that, instead of being able to fix the responsibility on the Turkish Government, it is to the Powers of Europe that the responsibility will, in a great degree, attach. In 1842 or 1843, and at a time when the Earl of Aberdeen held the seals of the Foreign Office, changes were pressed upon the Turkish Government in regard to the management of the Lebanon. First, the Porto was urged to appoint a

  1797
  separate Kaiinakan for the Druses and the Maronites, so that in point of fact, we called on the Turkish Government to allow, not an imperium in imperio,but two impend in imperio, those two imperia being embittered in their feeling towards each other by a traditional hostility. In the perverseness of our recommendations we did not stop there. We required Turkey to abstain from Slaving troops in the mountains, so that we provided not only that these hostile tribes should be perpetually confronting each other, but that the Ottoman Government should withdraw the very means by which the Druses and Maronites might be prevented from coming into conflict. Now, surely after the European Powers have taken upon themselves the responsibility of interfering in that way with the affairs of the Lebanon, they cannot very fairly turn round upon Turkey and accuse her of having permitted disturbances which, in a sense, may be traced to the advice pressed by them upon the Porte. With regard to the immediate cause of these massacres, I desire to abstain from expressing any opinion; but there are two or three circumstances which will serve as a clue, and will enable Lord Dufferin to ascertain what I may call the final cause of these disasters. If I am rightly informed, a vast quantity of rifles were not long ago distributed among the Maronites. Now I have never seen one of those rifles, but, if the information which reaches me be correct, it will turn out that they are not the rifles of commerce, but bear upon them a stamp which shows that they came from the Government stores of a European country. If that is the case, and if Lord Dufferin succeed in sending home one or two of these rifles marked with such a stamp, we shall have one clue to the cause of the disturbances. There is another clue to which I think I may venture to direct Lord Dufferin's attention. For a long time there has been published at Beyrout an Arabic newspaper. That newspaper contains articles, couched in very bitter and ferocious terms, having a tendency to incite the Christians against the Druses, and also to irritate them against the English, on account, I suppose, of the impression which certainly prevails in those countries, that the English are the friends of the Druses. I am told that this newspaper, although published at Beyrout, is printed in one of the capitals of Europe; and if that is so—if this journal is printed in a city where it could he hardly safe or possi-
  1798
  ble for private individuals to engage in such a manufacture without the consent of the Government—then I think we shall have another clue to the final cause of the disturbances.
  With the permission of the House I am now anxious to say a few words on the subject of Italy. Sir, the public prints inform us this day—though, as it seems, the Government have received no official communication of the fact — that General Garibaldi has effected a landing in Calabria, and for a long time there has been an impression, founded upon the collapsed state of the Government of Naples, that General Garibaldi may succeed in displacing the Government, probably going much further, and, if one may use a military phrase, "rolling up" the greater part of Italy. It is also given out that when this consummation is effected movements will also he directed against Venetia. At such a moment it was natural that Austria should be very vigilant. Everybody must admit that where you see an enemy preparing to attack you you are not always bound to wait until the attack takes place. That is a maxim which prevails all over the world, but as a matter of policy of course you need not act upon it if your opponent is vastly inferior to yourself in strength. I have heard, therefore, with the greatest satisfaction, that Austria, notwithstanding reports to the contrary, has determined not to interfere with any of General Garibaldi's operations either in Naples or in the Papal States. That is a determination which places the Emperor of Austria in a most admirable position towards Europe. Considering the antecedents of Austria, I think the fact that she has arrived at such a conclusion entitles her to great praise for the moderation and wisdom which she is thus displaying. One of my principal reasons for now venturing to address the House is my desire to express an earnest hope that, beyond the acquisition of Naples and Rome, no wild attempt will be made by General Garibaldi against Venetia. I am speaking on the assumption that Franco will not interfere; and I say that if the Italians, unassisted by France, ventured to assail the great Quadrilateral which repelled the Emperor of the French, common prudence must lend us to fear that such an attempt could not be made with any fair chance of success. If it failed what would be the position of Italy? Why, Austria, bursting forth from the Quadrilateral, and claiming

  1799
  the right to pursue those who attacked her, would, unless some miracle prevented her, overrun with great ease the vale of Lombardy, and would reach, without any serious difficulty, the gates of Turin itself. I think, therefore, that the most ardent friends of Italy must, if they have any prudence in them, join in the hope that no attempt beyond the one I have referred to will be made by General Garibaldi. It is suggested, I know, that Venetia should be transferred to the Italian people by purchase or in some such way. There are many who look upon the possession by Austria of any territory in the north-east of Italy as the greatest possible eyesore. But the experience we have had of modern transfer by one country to another—the transfer, for example, of Savoy and Nice to France—does not make me at all desirous to see conduct of that kind imitated by the Emperor of Austria. I am bound also to say that the annexation of Savoy and Nice has brought into a new light the importance of the great Quadrilateral to Austria. Every one acquainted with military operations in that part of the world knows that the occupation of Switzerland gives to any country the power, so to speak, of rolling up all the defences on the Rhine. The occupation of Switzerland is, therefore, of the deepest importance in the event of a war between France and Germany. It is vital, indeed, because it is on the flank. Since the annexation of the neutralized provinces we are bound to see how the neutrality of Switzerland can best be maintained. The question is one which affects this country deeply, because the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary has stated that Her Majesty's Government would feel bound to maintain the neutrality and independence of Switzerland, which again so vitally affect the defence of the Rhine. But quis custodiet ipsum custo-dem? Who shall be the safeguard of this safeguard? In point of fact, I believe it will be found, in any struggle between Germany and France, that the first question which will arise will be whether the neutrality of Switzerland can or cannot be maintained, and the means by which it is to be maintained are the possession of the Quadrilateral. I am glad to see the hon. and gallant Officer opposite (Sir Frederic Smith), and I think he will confirm what I believe is the opinion of most officers, that the truest support of neutrality of Switzerland is a strong Power in the direction of the great Quadrilateral. I will only fur
  1800
  ther say that, having made great sacrifices in the way of armaments, I think it would be intolerable if what we are doing by our armaments should be defeated by anything like a perverse system of alliances. I am of opinion that there is no country whose interests are more compatible with those of England than France. It is true that France is a great country, and in one sense is a rival country, but the experience of the years which elapsed between the termination of the last war and 1852, show that the interests of the two countries are perfectly compatible. During the whole of that period there was hardly any dispute which was not of what I may call a dynastic character. For instance, when first after the Congress of Verona was peace threatened? It was by the Spanish marriages, and no one will say that the true interests of Franco were concerned in that affair. I repeat that the interests of England and France are quite compatible, and that all we desire is that the Government of France should be animated by principles truly and decidedly French; but when the Government neglects the true interests of France, and proceeds to seek after merely dynastic objects, then the alliance between the two countries is endangered. As long as a truly French policy is pursued, there is nothing to bring that country into conflict with England; but when it becomes a pursuit of what I may call Boapartist ideas; and when France, forgetting her true interests, suffers her Government to remain in the hands of men who pursue a tradition of the past with a view to aggrandize a particular family, then, I say, that necessarily and inevitably the two countries must be rent asunder, as it is impossible that England should follow France in such a course. I have now only to thank the House for its attention, and to express a hope that the answer of the noble Lord will be satisfactory.

  PERSIA.—QUESTION.
  MR. DANBY SEYMOURsaid, that in rising to ask a Question relative to Persia, he would take the opportunity to observe that an answer of the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) to a question he had asked respecting the Pasha of Egypt appeared to be inconsistent with one of the Articles of the Treaty of 1840. By that Article the Pashalic of Egypt was placed upon the same footing as all other Pashalics with respect to revenue, but no other Governor of

  1801
  a Turkish province had the power of borrowing upon the Customs' revenue. The noble Lord said the Pasha of Egypt had not exceeded his powers in raising a loan; but, if that doctrine were correct, there could be no reason why one Pasha should not mortgage the revenues for twenty years to come. The interests of the Pashas would naturally induce them to raise money, because the succession was not to the eldest son, but to the eldest male of the family, and consequently each Pasha made a purse for his family. At present the power of the Pasha of Egypt was absolute, and exceeded even that of the Sultan in Constantinople. It would be very desirable that the treaty should be revised in those portions which related to the succession and the powers of the Pashas.
  With respect to Syria, he would only express a hope that the Government would take a decided course, for he anticipated that there would be a rising from Bagdad to Egypt if, from feelings of an ill-judged leniency, exemplary punishment were not dealt out to the offenders in the late events. A remarkable letter appeared in The Times a few days since, which showed that even in Egypt Christians and Europeans were exposed to the insults of the Turkish soldiers, and the same feeling pervaded all the countries in that part of the world. He was assured that the bombardment of Jeddah, so much condemned by some philanthropists at home, had prevented a rising at Damascus and other places. He wished to call the attention of the House to our relations with Persia — a subject of considerable importance at the present time. Sir Henry Rawlinson was sent out under the East India Company with a sufficient Staff, but when he arrived he found himself transferred to the rule of the Foreign Office, and his Staff was taken away. Unfortunately, there was no one attached to the Persian Embassy who was acquainted with the local affairs of that country, while persons who were well acquainted with them, and who had been educated with a view to such knowledge at the public expense, were wasting their time at home in compulsory idleness. Mr. Alison had to encounter in Persia the opposition of the Russian Minister—a man who had been twenty-two years in that country, had a thorough knowledge of its affairs, was extremely agreeable and insinuating in his manners, but at the same time very firm. He had also immense means at his disposal, and was able to give presents,
  1802
  which our Embassy was not allowed to I bestow. It would be seen, therefore, that the British Embassy at Teheran laboured under great disadvantages. At the present time there were important questions to he settled with Russia. The Russian Government had been for a long time anxious to obtain possession of the provinces to the south of the Caspian, where Persia maintained a military establishment for the purpose of chastising the turbulence of the Turcomans, who were Persian subjects. He had learnt from private information that the Russian Government purposed to withdraw their Embassy from Teheran, unless Persia consented to give up her control of these Turcomans. Every encroachment of Russia in that direction affected the interests of England in the East, and unless care was taken to check these encroachments we should rue our negligence, perhaps when it was too late. He trusted that the noble Lord would give the House the means, by the production of papers or otherwise, of obtaining authentic and official information on these subjects.
  SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, he quite agreed in what had been said as to the annexation of Savoy and Nice being an outrage on the part of France, and a blot on the hitherto unblemished escutcheon of the illustrious House of Savoy; but he wished to ask whether the annexation of Tuscany, Parma, and the other Duchies, and especially of a portion of the dominions of the Holy See, was not equally an outrage on the public law of Europe. It was the fashion to speak in terms of admiration of General Garibaldi: but he wanted to know whether the proceedings of Garibaldi were not wholly subversive of the public law of Europe? Garibaldi sailed from Genoa, with the full knowledge of the Sardinian Government, at the head of a body of filibusters, consisting of refugee Poles, and Hungarians, and Sardinians; many of them very desperate characters; and made an attack on Sicily. He had no authority from any Sovereign to do so; he was not, in any sense, a lawful belligerent; and by the law of nations, therefore, was a pirate. Indeed, a more daring act of piracy never was committed than that which he committed on the dominions of the King of Naples. He was successful in his attack on Sicily; and it was now stated that he meant to attack Naples in the same way. Would not this be also an outrage on the public law of Europe? He was convinced, from what he knew of Italy, that nothing

  1803
  could be more offensive to the Neapolitans than an attack from Sicily; as there was no friendly feeling between the Sicilians and Neapolitans. If the Neapolitans had grievances to complain of against their king—and he believed those were much exaggerated—let them be redressed by themselves. The King of Naples had granted a Constitution to his subjects. [A laugh.] Hon. Gentlemen might laugh; but there was nothing to show that the Neapolitans were dissatisfied with that Constitution. He believed, indeed, it would not work; because what we called a Constitution, was not a thing in accordance with the genius of the people, or the history and requirements of the country. Nobody loved Constitutional Government more than he did in this country; but it did not follow that, because Constitutional Government was suited to this country, it should be set up everywhere else. But something else was wonted, and Garibaldi was going, it was said, to Naples to destroy the Constitution, and dethrone the King of Naples, and annex the country to that of Sardinia. Would not that be a gross violation of the public law of Europe? But, not stopping here, they were told that Garibaldi, after succeeding at Naples, was to attack the dominions of the Holy See. Would that be in accordance with the public law of Europe? What cause could be given for so gross an outrage, so unprincipled a proceeding? I He asked whether, with the knowledge of such an intention on the part of Garibaldi, General Lamoriciere would not be justified in marching against him before he left Naples? General Lamoriciere was not bound to wait for him in these circumstances. It was said Garibaldi was going to attack Venetia also. If so, Austria would be justified in attacking him before he reached Venetia. They were told that Austria did not intend to interfere with Garibaldi till Venetia was attacked; but that was only a matter of prudence. He was not present at a recent meeting of the friends of the noble Lord at the head of the Government; but he understood that the noble Viscount applauded the success of the foreign policy of his Government, and said it was one title to the confidence of Parliament and the country. The noble Viscount gave as one proof of this, that he was informed General Garibaldi had landed on the territory of the King of Naples. Now, the King of Naples had a Minister at this Court, and was at peace with this country. Was ever such a thing done as for the head of the Govern-
  1804
  ment to express his approbation of an act of piracy committed against a Sovereign with whom we were at peace? With regard to the sympathy of Her Majesty's Government for General Garibaldi, there could be no doubt of it; and whatever moral support that it was in their power to give, had been given to that expedition. Hon. Members opposite invoked the public law of Europe when it suited them; but when it was against them they did not care a halfpenny for it, and trampled it under foot. Suppose, for example, Garibaldi had turned his eyes upon the Ionian Islands. There was an oppressed nationality that had demanded to be united to Greece. Her Majesty's Government put down the natives of the Ionian Islands by-force; and flogged, hanged, and shot them to any extent, rather than admit their claim to say what Government they would belong to. Parliament was told that every country was to decide for itself how it was to be governed. Why, then, did the Government not convene an Assembly in the Ionian Islands to determine how they were to be governed? If Garibaldi went there the Government would say the public law of Europe was violated, and that Garibaldi was a pirate; but when he went to Naples they applauded him. There was a man lately in India somewhat like Garibaldi, though he was not a pirate. He was a brave, patriotic man, called Tantia Topee. He kept the British army at bay, and gave them a vast amount of trouble. He was, however, taken prisoner, and brought to a court-martial on a charge of rebellion against British authority. The Government of India hanged that man. He thought that an atrocious act. He knew it was said he was implicated in some outrages against the Europeans. But he was not charged on his trial with anything except treason and with having resisted the English Government. He died like a patriot. He had fought for his country. He wished to drive the British out of the country, and to preserve India for the Indians. If the King of Naples took General Garibaldi he would have as good a right, nay, a far better right, to hang him than the Government of India had to hang Tantia Topee. It was pretended that the Italian duchies had declared for annexation with Sardinia because they were badly governed. But it was acknowledged that Parma was ruled by a wise and excellent Princess, who governed her subjects well and justly. Parma, however, was treated

  1805
  like the rest, and therefore the badness of these Governments was proved to be not the cause of the annexation. The Government of Tuscany was a mild Government. It was a Government under which the punishment of death did not exist. It had, however, been overturned by a conspiracy, headed by the Sardinian Minister accredited to that very Court. The Minister of Sardinia at Rome had also conspired against the Papal Government, and it was by his intrigues that the overthrow of the power of the Holy Sec was attempted in the Legations. Hon. Members ought to blush to talk of the public law of Europe under such circumstances. He believed that the result of these annexations would be the ruin of that Italian freedom of which hon. Members were so fond. He, too, wished to see Italy great, glorious, and prosperous, but he believed that would be best attained by a federal system, which would unite the whole country without injuring the rights of its Sovereigns. That object would, however, certainly not be attained by the utter destruction of the principles on which the peace of Europe rested and upon which society itself was founded. He believed that if the King of Sardinia should succeed in all his schemes of annexation his monarchy would fall to pieces in our own time like a house of cards. He had before said that the annexations going on would be the ruin of the House of Savoy, and he was confirmed in this belief. At the present moment he knew, upon good authority, that the greatest discontent prevailed in the newly-annexed provinces of Sardinia. In Tuscany the people had to be kept down by the Fiedmontese troops, and, as for liberty, there was none. The people dared not read written communications, far less speak what they thought. The overthrow of the legitimate Sovereign was brought about by means of the coercion exercised by the secret societies who now held undisputed sway in Italy. He thought it, very probable that General Garibaldi would succeed in overthrowing the King of Naples, because the Neapolitans were not a warlike people and could not cope with the band of ferocious filibusters whom Garibaldi commanded. Suppose so much accomplished, what would follow? Garibaldi was pledged to attack the Roman States, but there he would meet the French army. Possibly he would have to abandon that part of his programme; hut he could hardly avoid fulfilling his pledge
  1806
  to attack Venetia. In that enterprise Sardinia would be obliged to join him. The people had been so excited by the dream of nationality—a dream for which torrents of blood had been shed, and which had been a source of misery rather than of happiness to the mass of the people—that dream had been so much encouraged by speeches made by the noble Viscount and his colleagues, that the people were mad on the subject, and Sardinia would be compelled to go against Austria. Whether France would support Sardinia in that attack was a matter of speculation. As the Emperor of France had got what he wanted, and as if France supported Sardinia Germany would support Austria, he thought it likely France would not interfere. He very much doubted whether the Italians by themselves and with an army from which desertion was going on by batallions, would be able to resist the powerful arms of Austria; and if they were defeated, then that would happen which had been hinted at by the Constitutionnel, and Italy would be overrun by Austria from Turin to the Southern Neapolitan State But should France he tempted to back Sardinia then there would be a general European war, in which Great Britain would, in all probability, be involved. For that result, if it arrived, we should have ourselves to thank. It was the natural consequence of a policy which set at nought all principles of right and wrong, and acknowledged that the end justified the means. A universal public profligacy seemed prevalent. No regard was paid to treaties or international law. He hoped hon. Gentlemen would be warned in time, and forbear to give any further encouragement to the revolutionists in Italy. Garibaldi, it was well known, had always been a Republican, and only took up the King of Sardinia because he was a tool fit for his purposes. Garibaldi would probably be seen before long at the head of a Red Republican movement that would throw everything into confusion and necessitate the interference of the Powers. The violent anarchy which the success of the revolutionary cause would produce would be inevitably succeeded by a despotism sterner and more powerful than that against which hon. Members exclaimed.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, I am not going to follow the hon. and learned Gentleman into a discussion of past events in Italy during the year which has just elapsed; neither am I going to enter into

  1807
  any speculations as to future. The hon, and learned Gentleman asked, in the beginning of his speech, several questions as to the interpretation of international law, but as he was kind enough to give answers to them himself it is unnecessary that I should go into them. I wish, however, to set him right in regard to a misconception under which he labours as to what was said by me at a meeting which I am sorry he did not honour with his attendance. At that meeting I spoke in terms of the highest praise of the manner in which my noble Friend the Member for the City had conducted the foreign policy of the country. That expression of mine seemed to find an answer in the breasts of almost all who were present on that occasion; but I did not mention as a proof and result of that policy the landing of General Garibaldi in Italy. I stated that as a single fact, remarking that that landing would in all probability bring about events of grave importance, and that it was essential to enable the Government to deal with those events, when they might happen, that they should be known to possess the good will and confidence of those who had hitherto honoured them with support. I certainly did not state the fact as claiming any share in the expedition of General Garibaldi, but simply referred to it as an event pregnant with the most serious consequences, which it would require all the judgment and care of the Government to deal with. With regard to the course which the hon. and learned Gentleman indicated as about to be followed by General Garibaldi, I have to remind him that the King of Naples has an army of 60,000 or 70,000 men, and a fleet very large in comparison with any which General Garibaldi is able to scrape together. Therefore, if General Garibaldi should achieve the success which the hon. and learned Gentleman anticipates, it must be not by the force which he brings to bear against the Government of Naples, but by the assistance of the people of the country. It is quite impossible that the force with which General Garibaldi undertakes the expedition can obtain success unless he is joined by the inhabitants. Whether he will receive that support or not I leave it to the future to disclose.
  As to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Perth (Mr. Kinnaird) it is well known that the Conferences referred to were sought by the Swiss Confederation, and were, more or less, agreed to by
  1808
  all the other Powers. At the same time various matters have arisen to delay the meeting of the Congress, and at present no period is fixed for its assembling. The Treaty of Turin has not received formal acknowledgment by any of the Powers— certainly not by this country, and cannot, at present, be said to form part of the public law of Europe. The cession of Savoy to France was a very peculiar transaction and does not come within the ordinary category of cessions of territory made by one Sovereign to another. The territory of Savoy was held by the King of Sardinia subject to very peculiar conditions attached to it by the Treaty of Vienna, to which all the eight Powers of Europe were parties. It was not competent for the King of Sardinia to cede, nor, as I bold, for France to accept that territory, thus emancipating it from the conditions under which it stood as part of the dominions of Sardinia. The conditions had mainly for their object the preservation of the neutrality and independence of Switzerland, and it is clear that Savoy, in the hands of France, stands in a very different position in regard to the maintenance of the neutrality of Switzerland than when in the hands of Sardinia. France being a much stronger Power and differently situate in many respects there is greater danger to Switzerland from it than from Sardinia. The cession was objectionable not only on that account but on account of the manner in which it was made. All the circumstances connected with it from first to last, the denials at one time and avowals at another, the promises made, as reported, by the President of Switzerland in his message of March, the promises made in January and February by the French Government to the Minister of Switzerland, that whenever the cession should be completed Faueigny and Chablais should be transferred to Switzerland, a promise afterwards retracted, and apparently never intended to be performed—all these circumstances, I say, must produce a most painful impression in the minds of every man in regard to all the parties who were concerned in the transaction. It had certainly produced a painful impression on the minds of all the other States of Europe—an impression showing that they considered that, for the future, forethought and precaution must be the duty of every Power. I should hope that the result will be that Franco will consider she is bound, by a regard to her honour and good faith, to close these trans-

  1809
  actions in a manner consistent with the due and complete security and independence of Switzerland. It is quite true, as my hon. Friend has stated, that the neutrality and independence of Switzerland are for the interests of all Europe. The Swiss are deserving of the sympathy and goodwill of all the Powers, from the manly character and spirited independence which they have always displayed; inoffensive to their neighbours, and ready to defend them" selves against all comers. But it was not simply and solely from a regard to the Swiss, that the arrangement was made. It was from a wise and well-considered regard for the general interests of Europe, and the maintenance, as far as possible, of the peace of Europe. I cannot but hope that the French Government will, on account of the engagements to which France was a party, on account of the promises which she held out to Switzerland, and for the sake of the general and future interests of Europe, make some arrangement which will satisfy the just expectations and guarantee the security of the Swiss Confederation. It is not necessary that I should enter further into that branch of the question.
  But my hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Kinglake), went at some length, not only into that Swiss question, but also into those other questions of great importance—the transactions in Syria and Italy. It is deeply to be lamented that these unfortunate events should have taken place in Syria. My hon. and learned Friend stated facts which have come to his knowledge with regard to whence, and through whom, and from what causes, these disturbances originated. I do not feel it necessary to follow him in those investigations. The duty of Her Majesty's Government is rather to endeavour to prevent the recurrence of these evils, than to scrutinise minutely the sources out of which they arose. We are acting in concert with the Governments of France, Austria, Russia, and Prussia; and I hope that steps will be taken which will be effectual for the purpose we have in view. We believe that the Turkish Government is sincerely desirous of taking every step necessary to punish the guilty, to make an example of the offenders, and to lay the foundation for future tranquillity between those hostile races; and I cannot but believe that if those measures are properly taken, they will accomplish the purpose for which they are intended. Commissioners, of whom Lord Dufferin on our part is one,
  1810
  will go to Syria, collect information, and suggest such measures as they think best calculated for the future peace and security of the country. The hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Danby Seymour) went a little further east—to Persia. By the bye, he stopped in Egypt on the way, and referred to an answer which I gave last evening as to the power of the Pasha to raise a loan pledged on the Customs' duties of Egypt. The arrangement made in 1840 and 1841 was this—that the Pasha should pay a given amount of tribute to the Sultan, but that the remaining part of the revenue of Egypt should be at his disposal, to be employed by him as be pleased. In one sense the Pasha is limited in his power to mortgage; because the tribute to the Sultan is a prior claim to any engagement which he may make with regard to any part of the revenue. But supposing that the tribute is faithfully and fully paid, then I apprehend the remaining part is for him to spend as he pleases, or to mortgage for the interest of a loan. With regard to the tribute itself, it is well known that it was pledged by the Turkish Government as security for a loan which Turkey raised; but I believe the pledge does not go beyond that tribute.
  With regard to Persia, I can assure my hon. Friend that we greatly regretted Sir Henry Rawlinson would not continue in the mission at Teheran; but his retirement was his own act, and in no degree arose from any wish or suggestion of Her Majesty's Government. He was of all men the one who I should say was best qualified to perform successfully the duties of British Minister at that Court; and he succeeded in acquiring the goodwill of the Shah in a manner in which no other British Minister has been able to acquire it. It is, therefore, a great misfortune that he should have felt it his duty to retire; hut his retirement, as far as is alleged in his communications to the Government, is founded on the circumstance that that mission is transferred from the Indian Government to the Foreign Office. We thought that, considering our relations with Persia are so mixed up with our relations with Russia, Turkey, and the other Powers of Europe, it was exceedingly inconvenient that communications from Persia should come through the India Office and not direct to the Department which alone has cognizance of our relations with other Powers. With regard to the interference of Russia, there has always been a great

  1811
  desire to establish in Persia a superior influence to that of any other power, and I believe that some communications, such as my hon. Friend implies, have passed between the two Governments with regard to the expedition of the Shah against the Turcoman territory. But I am bound to say that in our opinion the nature and extent of the expedition which the Shah was about to take was beyond what we thought was for his real interests. It is our opinion, and that of those by whom our judgment is guided, that the expedition proposed is beyond the range at which the Shah can usefully establish a permanent occupation, and that lie will do much better to content himself with operations of a more limited character. I may say that our relations with Persia are of a most satisfactory kind. The recollection of former differences has entirely been effaced. There is nothing now but the most cordial understanding, founded on the conviction on the part of the Shah that it is our wish and our policy that Persia should be independent and prosperous.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he thought the Government had been inactive for two months on the question of Savoy in the early part of the Session, but acquitted them of any further delinquency.
  Notice taken, that Forty Members were not present; House counted; and Forty Members not being present,
  House adjourned at a quarter after Six o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1ª Highways; Statute Law Revision.
2ª Roman Catholic Charities; Consolidated Fund (Appropriation); Exchequer Bonds or Bills (£2,000,000), Militia Pay.

STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL.

  BILL PRESENTED. FIRST READING.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORrose, pursuant to notice, to call the Attention of the House to the Measures of Law Reform introduced into this House: —My Lords, I have to ask your Lordships to give a first reading to a Bill which has been framed expressly to repeal a great number of statutes. There is no idea that the Bill should be proceeded with during the present Session of Parliament; but the wish is that it may be read a first time, in order that it may be printed and circulated, and that your Lordships may be prepared to consider it when Parliament shall meet again. There is now going forward what is called an expurgated edition of the statutes—an edition, that is, leaving out all those statutes which have been repealed, or have expired, or have become obsolete. With respect to the statutes that have been expressly repealed, there is, of course, no doubt whatever: hut there are a great many statutes that have been only impliedly repealed; for a most vicious system of legislation has prevailed of declaring all statutes repealed which are inconsistent with the enactments of the particular measure which may be under consideration at the moment. Hence it is very difficult to say what particular statutes are in force and what have been repealed. We have most laboriously attempted to distinguish between them; but there is a difficulty about it, and to be certain, a Bill has been prepared expressly repealing all statutes which have not before been expressly repealed, so that they may be safely omitted from any future edition of the statutes, and then the statutes which are now so bulky will collapse into a very moderate size. I hope, therefore, your Lordships will allow this Bill to be read a first time.

  1761
  Permit me now to call your Lordships' attention to the Bills that I have introduced during the present Session of Parliament with a view to legal reform. Deep disappointment has been expressed, and loud complaints have been made and re-echoed that the present Session has been a complete failure with respect to law reform. I admit that a good deal more might have been expected than has been accomplished; hut at the same time I think the expectations were exaggerated, and the description of the failure is very much overcharged. I impute no blame to any party or any individual that the full expectations which were entertained have not been realized. I shall ascribe it to adverse and inevitable circumstances. But I can take no blame to myself, and I am sure your Lordships are free from all blame, for you have in the most exemplary manner received all proposals for legal reform which have been made during the Session, and have done all in your power to carry them into effect. With your Lordships' permission I shall briefly mention the Bills that I myself have had the honour to introduce. They are no fewer in number than sixteen. Some of them have passed, others only await the Royal Assent; but others, I am sorry to say, have not succeeded elsewhere, and must await some more favourable opportunity for becoming the law of the land. The first Bill I had the honour to introduce was called the Court of Chancery Bill, and had for its object to enable me to discharge the remaining Masters in Chancery and to do away altogether with the system of having such officers. It is wonderful that the institution of Masters in Chancery should have continued so long. At last, however, a Bill was brought in for its abolition; but, still, the abolition was to be gradual, and the Masters were to be released from time to time. Several of them still remain, and it was found necessary to make provision for the performance of the duties discharged by them, and, likewise, the staff of clerks allotted to the Master of the Rolls and the Vice-Chancellors was found to be insufficient. It had been arranged that those clerks should do, under the auspices and by the direction of the Master of the Rolls and Vice-Chancellors, what ought properly to have been done by the Masters in Chancery; and the Bill I had the honour to introduce "as to enable that new system to be carried into effect. I am happy to say that the Bill has received the concurrence of the other
  1762
  House, with a few unobjectionable Amendments, to which I shall ask your Lordships to agree, and it only awaits the Royal Assent to become the law of the land, when I have no doubt it will be productive of very beneficial results. The next Bill which I had the honour to introduce was called the Companies Bill. It was a Bill consolidating all the Acts of Parliament respecting joint-stock companies, and regulating everything connected with those companies from their original formation until they are finally wound up. That subject has been under the care of several successive Governments. The Bill was, I believe, most elaborately prepared. I did what I could to improve and perfect it, and I entertained the hope that it would now without difficulty have passed through both Houses of Parliament. Your Lordships entirely approved it; both sides of the House concurred in passing it; we sent it down to the Commons on the 5th of March: out although it was very frequently on the Orders of the Day it was not reached until almost the end of the Session. As it had been so elaborately prepared I was in hopes that it might be taken almost in confidence, and that the object which successive Governments have had in view would at last be accomplished. However, when the day arrived on which it was to be read a second time, objections were made, and it was thought necessary to withdraw it. A more serious disappointment still was experienced in connection with the Bills which I next introduced. They were seven in number, and their object was the consolidation of the criminal law. That undertaking had been going on for many years under successive Chancellors, but finally under the auspices of my noble and learned Friend Lord Cranworth, when he presided over the Statute Law Commission, and subsequently under my own superintendence. The great object was that the criminal law of Ireland and the criminal law of England should be assimilated. It at first seemed a very difficult undertaking; hut eventually, I believe, the difficulties were completely overcome. Your Lordships appointed a Select Committee to consider the Bills, seven in number, which I introduced. That Select Committee consisted of all the law Lords and of a considerable number of lay Peers, Chairmen of Quarter Sessions, and others who had paid great attention to the administration of justice, and who were in every way competent to give material assistance in perfecting these Bills. After sitting a

  1763
  good many days we got through the whole of them; we reported them to the House; your Lordships passed them, unanimously, and I was in hopes that they would succeed in the other House of Parliament, It is vain to think of codifying or consolidating if an immense volume of positive law is to be considered in detail by a large deliberative assembly. No code ever was or can be so considered. Confidence must be reposed in a certain number of persons who are competent to the task; and if a great number of Bills, with an immense multitude of clauses in each, are to be debated in a Committee of the Whole House of Commons, I despair of consolidation or codification. I had most flattering promises from many Members of the other House. Trusting to those promises, I supposed that we had at last accomplished our object; but when the time arrived for the trial there were certain Members of the House of Commons who thought that all these Bills ought to be canvassed clause by clause in a Committee of the Whole House; the necessary result of which was that they were withdrawn. I was deeply mortified at that result, because I am not able to foresee the time when, if such a course be adopted, any consolidation of the statute law can be adopted. The next Bill which I introduced was on a much smaller scale, and had a happier success. Its object was the administration of the law in regard to the administration of poison. As the law stood, unless death resulted from the administration of poison, or poison was administered with the intention of causing death, its administration was no crime; and the object of my Bill was to enact that the administration of poison with the intent of endangering life, or doing bodily harm, should be a felony; if with the intention of annoying or injuring it should be a misdemeanour. That Bill was rapidly passed, and in a few weeks it received the Royal Assent. The next Bill that I introduced to your Lordships was the Law and Equity Bill, and its objects were to enlarge the equitable jurisdiction of the Courts of Common Law so as to enable them to decide any question of equity which might incidentally arise, and to improve what I may call their pure procedure. The first part of that Bill, although recommended by the Common Law Commissioners, was disapproved by a majority of equity Judges and by Members of your Lordships 'House for whom I have a sincere respect. After a most able and permanently valuable memorial in its
  1764
  favour from the Lord Chief Justice of England, Sir Alexander Cock burn, and two of his colleagues, recommending all its provisions, it was referred to a Select Committee, when a number of clauses, upon which I set great value, were rejected, and it was, in my opinion, materially mutilated. At the same time, by the clauses which were retained, the equitable jurisdiction of the common law courts was so extended as to enable them to release from forfeiture for non-payment of rent, or non-insuring, and also with respect to the proceeding of interpleader—an alteration which has been found most beneficial. All the clauses of the Bill respecting common law procedure were agreed to, and in this partially damaged state the Bill was sent to the other House. It has been approved by that House, and now waits for the Royal Assent; and I will venture to say that by that Bill alone, damaged as it is, more is done to improve the administration of justice in the courts in Westminster Hall than was done by all the Acts which were passed in the sixty years' reign of George III., the longest in the history of this country. In those days legal reform was not thought of, and the object of all the Bills which were passed was to create new felonies and render our penal code more rigorous. The object of the next Bill was to put an end to the most scandalous abuse which had arisen, of English bankrupts going to Scotland for the purpose of there getting rid of their liabilities. My attention was first drawn to this subject when I happened to be at Tobermory in the Hebrides. In that place I found a number of Englishmen, and to my astonishment I was told that they were bankrupts who had come there to be "whitewashed." They amused themselvs for forty days in grouse shooting and deer stalking, and then petitioned the Sheriff or the Court of Session to he discharged from all their engagements. It was found that the Courts of Scotland were bound to take cognizance of these cases; and my Bill provided that in all cases in which the majority of the creditors did not reside in Scotland the Courts might stop these proceedings by dismissing the petition. I am happy to say that that Bill passed both Houses, and has received the Royal Assent. The next Bill had for its object to facilitate the despatch of business in the Divorce Court, and to provide for the more effectual prevention of collusive divorces. It enabled the Judge Ordinary himself

  1765
  to dispose of cases of divorce in which he required no assistance, and to call in assistance whenever he thought it advisable. It also empowered the Queen's Proctor to employ the Attorney General or the Queen's Advocate to investigate cases in which suspicion of collusion was entertained. That Bill was sent down to the other House at an early period of the Session, but, owing to the state of business, for some time remained untouched. At last, when it had undergone a thorough examination by the microscopic eyes of some Members of the House of Commons, it was discovered that it infringed the privileges of that House. And here I must take leave to say that upon this occasion the House of Commons has behaved in the handsomest and most liberal manner. The Speaker delivered a most admirable and lucid judgment, in which he declared that there had been an infringement of the privileges of the House; and such an infringement I must admit that there had been, because one clause of the Bill provided that the Queen's Proctor should be paid his fees as the fees of his office, which, as it turned out, are paid out of the Consolidated Fund. I must admit that that was a breach of the privileges of the other House. It was done incautiously, and I cannot take much blame to myself for it, as it escaped the vigilant eyes of those who assist us in detecting what are called "privilege clauses." The House of Commons, instead of, as they would have been fully justified in doing, rejecting the Bill, have, in the handsomest manner, seeing that there was no intention on the part of this House, or of any Member of it, to infringe their privileges, allowed the Bill to pass, making an entry on their Journals that this is not to be drawn into a precedent. The Bill has passed, and now awaits the Royal Assent. The next measure to which I will allude is the Endowed Charities Bill, in the bringing in and carrying through of which I was exceedingly indebted to my noble and learned Friend who sits opposite (Lord Cranworth), who formerly introduced a Bill of very much the same nature. That measure enlarges the jurisdiction of the Charity Commissioners, and enables them to carry on the administration of small charities without any application whatever to the Court of Chancery. The peculiarity of this tribunal of the Charity Commissioners is that its proceedings are unattended with any fees or any expense whatever. With
  1766
  all my respect for the Court of Chancery, I cannot pay the same compliment to that illustrious tribunal. By reason, then, of the enactments to which I refer, these Charity Commissioners, who are men of great learning, ability, assiduity, and zeal, are now empowered to appoint trustees, make orders as to leases, and do all that is necessary for the administration of these charities without going to the Court of Chancery—a formality which used to produce great delay and much waste of the charity estates. The only other Bill with the history of which I have to trouble your Lordships is a Bill to authorize the fiord Chancellor, with the assistance of the other Equity Judges, to carry into effect the recommendations of the Commissioners who were appointed to consider the mode of taking evidence in equity suits. The appointment of that Commission was recommended to my noble and learned Friend Lord Lyndhurst, and it has made valuable reports. It was thought that the Lord Chancellor, by the authority of former Acts of Parliament, or by the inherent authority of the Court, might have carried those recommendations into effect; but my noble and learned Friend Lord St. Leonard's entertained a different opinion, and accordingly, I introduced a measure which was not only approved by your Lordships, but which was passed by the other House of Parliament; and I have the satisfaction of saying that we have made great progress in carrying out the recommendations of the Commissioners. I have no doubt that at the end of the long vacation orders will be framed and published, under the authority of the Lord Chancellor and the Equity Judges, by which those recommendations will become binding on the practice of the Court, and will be attended with very considerable advantage to the public. My Lords, there is another Bill, which is, however, still before the House of Commons, and of which, as its fate yet remains in the balance, it therefore does not become me to say much. I mean the measure which proposes to enact that when a divorce a vinculo matrimonii has been duly pronounced by the Scottish Courts, it shall be held equally valid all over the island, instead of being valid only in one part of it. The Bill, as sanctioned by your Lordships, also provided, in order to give due solemnity and weight to the proceedings of the Scottish Courts in pronouncing divorces, that they should only take cognizance of those cases in which the parties are domiciled in

  1767
  Scotland; thereby putting an end to that most discreditable practice of pronouncing sentence of divorce where the parties come into Scotland for the purpose of procuring the divorce and of committing the very act upon which the application for it is founded. My Lords, if the other House of Parliament shall he pleased upon reconsideration to admit the two clauses which they at first expunged from this measure I shall rejoice, as a very great improvement will thus he effected in the law both of England and Scotland; but should the House of Commons, unfortunately, do otherwise, still, my Lords, I think I have shown that there have been various measures passed through this and the other House of Parliament, and which will become law on the Royal Assent being given, by means of which great benefits will be conferred on the country.
  I must likewise observe that other noble and learned Lords, Members of this House, have introduced important measures of a similar character. The noble and learned Lord behind me (Lord St. Leonards) brought in a very valuable Bill, which has become law, for the amendment of the law of property. My noble and learned Friend opposite (Lord Cranworth) also introduced a measure which has received the approval of the other House, called the Trustees and Mortgagees Bill. My noble and learned Friend Lord Brougham has likewise proposed further improvements in our legal system. These facts, I think, prove that it is a monstrous exaggeration to say that this Session has been a total failure in respect to law reform.
  I will now draw attention for a moment to what your Lordships have done, not in your legislative but in your judicial capacity; and I am happy to state that by the assiduous and devoted co-operation of the law Lords the legal business of this House is now in a more satisfactory state than it ever has been hitherto. I remember the time when there were such arrears that an appeal stood for years and years on your Lordships' list before it could be disposed of. Recently there has been a very great improvement. The usual course has been to dispose, if possible, of all the appeals set down for hearing before the Session began by the time Parliament was prorogued; and I believe, although great efforts have been made, that has hardly ever been accomplished. But I am happy to say that during the present year we have been able to dispose, not only of all appeals
  1768
  set down for hearing before the commencement of the Session, but also of several appeals which were set down while Parliament was sitting. During the present Session the House has disposed of fifty-two appeals, some of them of very great interest; and there are now only twenty-four waiting to be heard, which will have to be tried at the beginning of next Session. It used to be said that Chancery suits never came to an end. As a specimen of the despatch with which business is now done, let me mention a single case, one in which the Westminster Palace Hotel Company was concerned. That joint-stock company have constructed for an hotel a large building, part of which they let to Sir Charles Wood, the Secretary of State for India, for the purpose of conversion into a Government office for a time. That arrangement was objected to by certain of the shareholders; and on the 17th of May in the present year a Bill was filed by which this Chancery suit was begun. The cause was heard before Vice-Chancellor Page Wood on the 31st of the same month, and a decision given in favour of the defendants. There was an appeal from that judgment to the Lords Justices, which was heard on the 11th of June. The Lords Justices were divided, and therefore the decision of the Vice-Chancellor remained undisturbed. There was then an appeal to the House of Lords, which came on to be heard on Monday, the 6th of August. It was heard on that day, and on the 7th—or the very next day—it was finally disposed of. Thus the entire litigation was begun and ended between the 17th of May and the 7th of August of the same year. That state of facts, I think, scarcely justifies complaint of the tardiness of judicial proceedings. I will not, my Lords, attempt to chalk out what may be done in a future Session of Parliament, but I will say this, that if I have then the honour to hold the office which I now fill, and if it please God to give me health and strength, I shall endeavour to do my best to follow up the path of law reform, and to expedite the judicial business of your Lordships' House. On the other hand, if, as may very well happen, another should succeed me, I will most cordially co-operate with him in the performance of his judicial duties and the promotion of his law reforms.
  The noble and learned Lord then presented a Bill for repealing divers Acts and Parts of Acts which have ceased to be in force; and moved that it be read 1ª.
  LORD ST. LEONARDSsaid, lie hardly knew whether to congratulate his noble and learned Friend on the woolsack upon what he had accomplished, or to condole with him upon what he had failed to achieve. As regarded the Court of Chancery, certainly not much had been done this year. The Bill to which his noble and learned Friend had first called attention was one of a very slight character, because the Masters in Chancery had already been dismissed under previous legislation, and there was only one of those officers now left. As to the Bill which had been founded on the Report of the common law Judges, who were appointed to consider the procedure of the law Courts, and who proposed to transfer to themselves every part of the jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery—he took the liberty of pointing out that there were several requisites they could not fulfil; they had not the time, they had not the knowledge, they had not the practical experience, they had not the machinery for the performance of those duties. After considerable examination up-stairs, those clauses which, in his opinion, would have done much mischief, were omitted; and the remaining clauses, which related to common law procedure, including two or three clauses, which were very innocent, were passed into a law. Another Bill, which had been referred to by his noble and learned Friend, was introduced and passed to give effect to the Report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the mode of taking evidence in the Court of Chancery. That Bill made a very great change indeed in the Court of Chancery. In his opinion, however—but he differed from his noble and learned colleagues on the subject—if carried into effect, it would disorganize that Court, and form a great obstacle to the despatch of business. It enabled, for the first time, any suitor to require the Court of Chancery to hear oral examinations of witnesses; and, there being two Examiners whose income had been very much increased in consequence of the greater duties at present imposed on them, the result of carrying this last Act into execution would be to make their office a sinecure; for if parties went before the Examiners, their statement would have only the effect of an affidavit, and no one would go before them to make an affidavit. So far as regards the Court of Chancery, therefore, not much had been done in the way of beneficial reform. Indeed, it did not require much to be done. He believed it was working ad-
  1770
  mirably, the excellent Judges who were presiding there giving their time and attention to their duties in a way which well entitled them to receive the approbation of the country. With respect to the consolidation of the criminal law, undoubtedly a vast deal of time and attention had been bestowed on it. His noble and learned Friend had alluded to his own exertions on that subject; but he should remember that they had all had their share in the labour. When he (Lord St. Leonards) was on the woolsack in 1852, he undertook the consolidation of the criminal law, and had bestowed much time and research on the subject. He had papers on the subject which would require a strong man to lift. He would stake his existence that the Criminal Law Bills now before the House of Commons had cost the country not less than £100,000. They had been the subject of Commissions and Reports, Bills drawn, Bills put on one side, contemplated improvements, for the last thirty years; and really, unless they were taken by either House with something like confidence in the powers that be, they would never be passed. He was to some extent responsible for these Bills, having, when sitting on the other side of the House, served on a Select Committee to whom they were referred with Lords Lyndhurst, Brougham, Truro, Cranworth, and the Lord Chief Justice (now Lord Chancellor). They proceeded very laboriously and successfully with their investigations till they came to a definition of "murder." Sir Edward Coke's definition was thought so imperfect that no one would adopt it. Every Member of the Committee tried his hand at a definition of his own, but without meeting the general acquiescence; and at last his noble Friend, then Lord Chancellor (Lord Cranworth), committed something like a murder on the Committee itself by issuing a Commission to consider the subject, thereby virtually bringing the Committee to an end. As to the other measures to which his noble and learned Friend had referred, he entirely disapproved of the Bill with reference to the Divorce Court, and he believed if such a measure had been proposed when the Bill for the establishment of that Court was before their Lordships, not one of them would have voted for it. When the original Bill was in Committee, he told them that he was perfectly satisfied that the great names and offices of the associated Judges rendered it a mere delusion to suppose that the Divorce Com t would

  1771
  ever have their services; and the sequel proved he was right: they did not attend: and now this Bill was introduced to transfer the power of the full Court to the Judge Ordinary. If it had been originally proposed to give the power of granting divorces to a single Judge, he was satisfied that Parliament would never have listened to it. He did not wish to detract from the credit to which his noble and learned Friend on the woolsack was entitled for law reform; but he must say that much in that way had not been accomplished. He thought if there was anything to he deprecated it was an excess of legislation, particularly on law reform. Sound law reform was, indeed, of the utmost importance; hut it was very seldom they could get men to agree as to what was law reform. Alterations of the Courts were easy enough, especially when accompanied with expensive compensations and other such arrangements— they went down very easily; but real law reform—beneficial alterations of the law—were the most difficult things possible to accomplish. These observations would show how little had really been accomplished. His noble and learned Friend had also in the course of his speech referred to the position of the judicial business, both in the Court of Chancery and in that House, as being highly satisfactory; but it was hardly fair, he thought, to institute a comparison on the point between the present and former times, inasmuch as ever since the Lords Justices of Appeal had been appointed, and since the Court of the Master of the Rolls had been made a Court always sitting, the business of the Courts of equity had taken a different course from that on which it formerly proceeded. The consequence of that change was that the Lord Chancellor was able to afford a degree of attention to the business brought before their Lordships which he had not previously been able to bestow. His noble and learned Friend, in illustration of the despatch with which cases in the Court of Chancery were adjudicated, had instanced the case of the Westminster Palace Hotel Company; but it must be borne in mind that that was a case in which no evidence was required to be adduced, the question at issue turning upon the construction of a single word, and that many such cases were constantly decided with trifling delay. It remained for him simply to thank his noble and learned Friend on the woolsack for what, during his period of office, he had accomplished in the direction of law reform.
  LORD CRANWORTHsaid, his noble and learned Friend who had just spoken had twitted the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack with not having done more to effect a reformation in the procedure of the Court of Chancery; but the fact was that very little was in that respect required to be done, and nothing could, he thought, be more mischevious than that the Lord Chancellor should introduce measures to the notice of Parliament with the view of effecting alterations which were not called for. He did not agree that nothing had been done for the improvement of the Court of Chancery. By means of the new system of taking oral evidence in the Court of Chancery, a very useful Reform had, in his opinion, been imported into its proceedings; fur there could, he thought, be no better mode of ascertaining the truth before any tribunal than that of summoning the parties interested in a suit before the Court, and hearing what they had to say in the matter. With respect to the proposal to give the common law Courts a co-ordinate jurisdiction with equity Courts in disposing of the great bulk of equitable business, he was strongly of opinion that although the common law Judges might in a short time fit themselves for the satisfactory discharge of the duties which the carrying of such a measure into effect would cast upon them, yet they did not, as at present constituted, possess the requisite machinery to deal with such business in a manner so adequate to its proper discharge as the Court of Chancery, which was supplied with a staff of officers to keep accounts, make the necessary inquiries with reference to heirs at law, next of kin, and other matters. If it were proposed to furnish the common law Courts with such machinery, the question of giving them a co-ordinate jurisdiction in equitable matters assumed, of course, another shape; otherwise the proposal to confer upon them such jurisdiction was one to which, notwithstanding it might have very high authority in its favour, he could not give his assent. Having said thus much with regard to the Court of Chancery, he might be allowed briefly to observe that what had occurred in the case of the Criminal Law Consolidation Bills ought not to be lost sight of; much good had already been done, and the lesson should not be thrown away. In his opinion the best course to take in those instances, in which extensive consolidation with Amendments was contemplated, being, in his opinion, to introduce all the Amend-

  1773
  ments in the first place, and then to proceed with the work of consolidation. In conclusion, he would simply remark, while congratulating his noble and learned Friend on the mode in which arrears of judicial business had been got rid of, as contrasted with the state of things in previous Sessions, that the fact of such arrears existing was not to be attributed to any fault on the part of his immediate predecessor (Lord Chelmsford), or of his own (Lord cranworth's), so much as to the circumstance that a great portion of the best time of the year for the despatch of such business had been consumed in general elections. Bill read 1ª

SAVINGS BANKS AND FRIENDLY SOCIETIES INVESTMENTS BILL.

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into a Committee read.
  Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into a Committee on the said Bill.
  THE MARQUESS OF NORMANBYsaid a few words in justification of his vote on a previous occasion against the proposition for suspending the Standing Order, in order to allow the Bill to be proceeded with. Considering that two months were allowed to elapse since the Bill went into Committee in the House of Commons, he did not think that the measure had been treated as if it were one of urgency.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, that the measure enacted that Savings Banks money might be invested in any Parliamentary funds, and this had led to an impression in some quarters that this might include railway and other similar securities. He apprehended that this was not what was intended.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, there was not the slightest ground for supposing that the Bill authorized investment in any such securities. The intent of the Bill plainly being that the investment should be only in securities which were guaranteed by Parliament.
  LORD ST. LEONARDSthought that this Bill required great consideration, however urgent it might be, for nothing could be |more dangerous than for Government to make any alterations which might alarm people in reference to the safety of the investment of the money which they had deposited in savings banks. The object which the Bill had in view was the making of a profit by investing the savings-banks money.
  EARL GRANVILLEdissented; the intention was to prevent a loss, not to make a profit.
  LORD ST. LEONARDS: It was to be allowed that the money should he invested in any of the class of securities named which would secure a profit.
  EARL GRANVILLEreferred to two returns of the particular funds in which the investment could be made, all of which funds were guaranteed by Parliament.
  LORD ST. LEONARDSrepeated that great caution was required, for in some of the securities named, though the interest was guaranteed by Parliament, the principal was not. There were many of the funds mentioned in the second return in which a prudent man would not invest his own money; and, therefore, the Government should not invest in them moneys which they held in trust. His objection was that they ought not to allow the Chancellor of the Exchequer to invest these funds at his pleasure. It was true that he might get a higher interest, but the depositors would only be paid at the usual rate. Everybody knew that high interest meant bad security; so that whilst the depositors got worse security their interest remained the same.
  LORD MONTEAGLEthanked the noble and learned Lord for his statement. He retained the opinion which he had originally expressed with regard to this measure; and he did so with the more confidence, because he was supported in it by the high authority of the noble and learned Lord. That noble Lord had repeated and confirmed his (Lord Monteagle's) assertion that higher interest represented a worse security, and therefore could not with any justice be described as favourable to the party investing. He had been reminded on a previous occasion by the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack, that funds in the Court of Chancery were now allowed to be invested in the securities in which it was the object of this Bill to permit the investment of savings-bank moneys. It was true such a clause had been introduced without explanation into a Bill which had passed their Lordships' House. It was done elsewhere. But it formed no precedent for the Bill now on the table. He very much regretted that the investments under the authority of this Bill were not to be as cautiously guarded as were those which were made by the direction of the Court of Chancery. The Bill of last year required a previous approval of the Judges

  1775
  in the Courts of Equity. The power of the present were vested absolutely in one political officer, the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There was most important amendments which he would now venture to explain and to propose. He had already informed their Lordships that there were now in existence many banks which falsely assumed the title of savings-banks without having any right thereto, the rules of which had not been certified, and the funds of which banks never came into the hands of the Commissioners of the National Debt. The depositors in these fictitious banks were liable to he misled and defrauded by this deception, and he had, therefore, to meet the evil, prepared a clause which he entreated their Lordships to accept. It was introduced three years ago into a Government measure, and had received the sanction of Sir Alexander Spearman, the Comptroller of the National Debt, and of the law advisers of the Savings Banks Commissioners. It had also the high authority of his hon. Friend Mr. Hubbard of the Bank of England. It bad been suggested that such a provision did not quite come within the terms of this Bill; but that difficulty might easily be avoided by the insertion of a few words in the title. The importance of this clause was so great that he trusted their Lordships would not allow a merely formal objection to prevent its being added to the Bill. The effect of the clause would only be to prohibit a fraud and to guard innocent depositors from certain loss.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he thought the observations that were made were, in his opinion, calculated to suggest suspicion in the depositors of savings banks, without any just cause whatever. There was no foundation for the opinion that the smaller stocks were less secure than the greater ones. The interest upon the whole of them was equally guaranteed by Parliament until the principal was paid. The only difference between the two classes of securities was, that the one might be more convenient than the other for purposes of investment. The noble Lord (Lord Monteagle) the other evening had talked of dealing with £40,000,000 of money belonging to the savings banks; but it should be remembered that these minor securities did not amount to more than £6,000,000 or £7,000,000. With regard to the clause suggested by the noble Lord, he regretted that be could not agree to its insertion. He had not a word to say against the clause
  1776
  in itself, for he thought it a very good one; but it was not consistent with the scope and character of the Bill. The noble Lord, having prevailed on their Lordships once to vote that this was not a measure of urgency, could hardly now plead urgency in favour of his own clause.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, his objection to this Bill was, that it would open a door to further transactions, such as those from which a heavy loss had already been incurred through the investment of the savings-banks' moneys. That loss had been stated at £2,500,000; but he believed it amounted at that moment in reality to nearly £4,500,000. Through the operation of this measure the debt of the country might be increased without the sanction of Parliament. He objected to the Chancellor of the Exchequer going into the stock-market, not in a purely official character, but as a speculator, which he more or less became in dealing with the moneys of the savings banks.
  LORD MONTEAGLEhaving agreed to move his clause on the Report.
  Motion agreed to;House in Committee accordingly.
  Bill reported, without Amendments.
  LORD MONTEAGLEthen moved to add the following clause—
  "And for the Protection of any Party or Parties desirous of making Deposits for Investment in a Savings Bank lawfully established and certified under the several Acts of Parliament relative thereto, be it enacted, That if any Person or Persons shall, after the First Day of January next, establish, continue, or carry on, any Bank, Institution, or Society of whatsoever kind, for Receipt of Deposits at Interest or otherwise, assuming or using for such Bank, Institution, or Society, the Name, or Title, or Description of a Savings Bank, of whatsoever kind, except in respect of Savings Banks established under the Acts now in force for the Establishment thereof, or in respect of any Penny Savings Banks of which the Monies are deposited in any Savings Banks established under any Act or Acts relating thereto now in force, such Person or Persons shall be held guilty of a misdemeanour."
  On Question, Amendment negatived. Bill to be read 3ª To-morrow.

ROMAN CATHOLIC CHARITIES BILL.

  RESOLUTION OF URGENCY. SECOND READING.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to Resolve:—
  "That inasmuch as, unless immediate Legislation take place on the Subject of this Bill, the Roman Catholic Charities to which it is applicable will be subject to the Operation of the Charit-

  1777
  able Trusts Acts of 1853 and 1855, from which by the said Acts and other subsequent Acts they have been exempted for several successive Periods, 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 noble and learned Lord, having explained the purport of the Bill, said that, in his opinion, its provisions were perfectly unexceptionable. It had been suggested that the measure might have an effect upon the existing law affecting superstitious uses, and a proviso had been proposed, declaring that it should effect no change in the law. His own deliberate opinion, however, was that the Bill would have no such operation, and that the proviso suggested would he utterly useless.
  LORD WYNFORDsaid, he had heard no reason why the Standing Order of the House should be rescinded in this instance. The measure was one calculated to cause uneasiness; and he could not sec why time had not been allowed them to consider the subject.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, the reason was that there had been an annual Bill, exempting the Catholic charities from the operation of the existing law; and unless this measure passed, these charities would conic under the existing law, which would afford matter for great regret.
  LORD WYNFORDcould not understand why the Bill had not been brought up to their Lordships' House at an earlier period of the Session.
  EARL GRANVILLEreferred to the great delay which had taken place in the passage of the Bill through the other House.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, this measure was the settlement of a question which had been accepted by persons of different opinions in the other House; and, as such a settlement was urgent, although he did not agree with the provisions of the Bill, he should be disposed to agree to the Resolution.
  Motion agreed to. Order of the Day for the Second Reading of the Bill read.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.
  LORD PETREsaid, he did not approve of the Bill; nor was it the fact, as had been stated, that the Catholics of the North approved it. The rejection of the first clause had completely altered the character of the Bill. It would, if passed in its present shape, be unjust and injurious to Catholics; and many small charities would be confiscated by the expenses in Chancery. A
  1778
  noble Lord had given notice of an Amendment; and he should wait to see whether that would improve the Bill, as otherwise he should offer it his opposition.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he moved the second reading upon the understanding that no Amendments should be introduced; and he should resist any proposition to that effect.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2ª accordingly. Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3ª To-morrow.
  House adjourned at a (Quarter before Nine o'clock, till To-morrow, Twelve o'clock.