Sitting of 13 July 1860

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Volunteer Rifle Corps; Landed Property Improvement (Ireland); Local Government Supplemental (No. 2); Theatres and Public Houses; Bank of Ireland (No. 2).
3° Census (England); Census (Ireland); Queen's Prison; Court of Queen's Bench Act Amendment; Friendly Societies Act Amendment; Felony and Misdemeanour.

TENURE AND IMPROVEMENT OF LAND (IRELAND) BILL—CONSIDERATION.
Order for Consideration read.
Bill Considered as amended.
Amendments made.
MR. WHITESIDEproposed a clause to the effect, that persons having power to grant a lease should also be enabled to enter into a binding preliminary contract. His object was to do away with the preliminary inquiry proposed in such cases, and which seemed to him, to have been based on a distrust of the gentry of Ireland. He had no distrust of the landowners of Ireland, and therefore he wished to give the
1848
power to enter into such arrangements as were included in his clause.
Clause brought up, and read 1°.
MR. DEASYopposed the clause. The real question involved in it was whether a limited owner was to be at liberty to make of his own accord a building lease, involving any amount of land and any amount of rent, affecting materially the interests of the reversioner, without his consent; or whether he was to be placed under the limitations proposed in other parts of the Bill. The House had already resolved that previous inquiry before the Chairman of quarter sessions was in all cases necessary. This was done from no distrust of the landed gentry of Ireland, but from a conviction that such inquiry would be in the highest degree beneficial to all parties; and he hoped the House would not depart from the principles of its previous decision.
MR. HENLEYstated that he could not give his consent to the clause proposed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Whiteside), which would enable a person having a life interest only to dispose of property belonging to the reversioner for a period of, perhaps, eighty or ninety years.
LORD NAASsaid, he thought that the power in question might safely be granted to the limited owner under the restrictions which his right hon. and learned Friend would impose by other provisions which he meant to introduce.
MR. CARDWELLsaid, the object of the Government was to give as much facility as possible, but they must do that within reasonable limits, and within such limits as would allow them to obtain the general concurrence of the Legislature. They were now asked to enable a limited owner to alienate the whole of his estate, if he pleased, upon building leases in perpetuity, without a preliminary sanction of a court of law being required. That was a proposal which, he ventured to say, had never vet received the sanction of Parliament. He certainly could not think of agreeing to a proposal of the kind; and, however desirous he might be to sanction any proposal coming from a quarter which he should have expected to be very tender of vested interests—he nevertheless felt driven to the necessity of opposing the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman.
Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause be now read a second time."
The House divided:—Ayes 19; Noes 86: Majority 67.
MR. WHITESIDEproposed the introduction of a clause, granting an appeal from the decision of the Chairman upon any application for a charging order, in the same manner as an appeal by a plaintiff in a civil bill proceeding from a dismiss by such Chairman.
MR. CARDWELLobjected to the clause as likely to complicate proceedings and increase the expense, and as in his opinion wholly unnecessary.
MR. BUTTsupported the clause, and stated that the process of appeal was both simple and inexpensive.
MR. CARDWELLwithdrew his objection, and the cluase was added to the Bill.
MR. BUTTproposed the introduction of a clause to the effect that if, before the expiration of twenty years from the date of the completion of an improvement, the landlord should evict the tenant for any cause except non-payment of rent or breach of covenant, the tenant might proceed against the landlord to recover compensation for his bonâ fide expenditure and its unexhausted value.
Clause brought up, and read 1°.
MR. LANIGANsupported the clause.
MR. WHITESIDEopposed the clause, on the ground that it proposed to re-open a question which had been already settled, and on the faith of which many millions of property had been purchased under the title given by the Landed Estates Court.
MR. MONSELLsupported the clause.
MR. DEASYsaid, he had always advocated a clause similar to that proposed, and his opinions had undergone no change whatever; but he yielded to the change of circumstances and the current of events in opposing the clause. He did not believe it would be possible to carry any retrospective measure. The Government had introduced the present Bill on the general understanding that no such principle would be recognized in it, and to agree to the clause of the hon. and learned Member for Youghal would be a breach of that understanding. He hoped his hon. and learned Friend would not press his clause to a division.
MR. LONGFIELDsaid, he would go as far as any man in the prospective alteration of the law, but he could not agree to the proposition for retrospective compensation.
MR. VINCENT SCULLYintimated that he should vote with the hon. and learned Member for Youghal, but would propose that the clause should not apply
1850
to any improvements made on the land conveyed to a purchaser for valuable consideration, or to any other case where injustice might arise from the creation of a new charge on the land.
THE O'DONOGHUEsupported the clause, and stated that there was no change of opinion upon this question among the people of Ireland.
LORD FERMOYsaid, the Bill was a delusion, and would not settle the question of tenant-right in Ireland. It was unworthy of Members of the Government to declare their adhesion to the principle involved in the clause now before them, and then to go into the lobby and vote against it. He hoped his hon. Friend would press his clause to a division.
COLONEL DICKSONsaid, he thought it was a most unworthy position for a Government to be in to approve certain provisions, and yet not to vote for them because they believe they could not be carried. He was prepared to go as far as any one in favour of prospective compensation for improvements, but would be no party to retrospective compensation, which, he believed, would only lead to confusion.
MR. BRADYsaid, he wished to remind the noble Lord (Lord Fermoy) that he and his friends were parties to the overthrow of the Derby Government at a time when that Government was pledged to carry a good Tenant Right Bill. It was all very well for those hon. Members who then threw out the Derby Government to argue now for tenant-right, but they ought to have considered the consequences of their act on that occasion.
COLONEL GREVILLEregretted that so much time should be lost in the discussion of a question which could lead to no result. He would, however, support the clause, because it was just, and because he had always acted upon the principle embodied in it on his own property; but he felt it was impracticable.
Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause be now read a second time."
The House divided:—Ayes 26; Noes 102: Majority 76.
Further proceeding on consideration of Bill, as amended, Adjourned till this day.

SENIOR NAVAL LIEUTENANTS.
MR. DUNNsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, if the Lords Commissioners have any intention of ameliorating the present position of the Senior Lieutenants of the Navy, either by promo-

1851
tion or increase of pay; and whether their Lordships have considered the effect of the present system of promoting flag-Lieuttenants to the rank of Commander on the termination of an admiral's command?
LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, the Lords of the Admiralty did not intend to increase the full pay of senior lieutenants. It was, however, their intention to grant an increase of half-pay, according to length of service and in conformity with the scheme which he had already laid before the House. If that scheme were carried out, the position and prospects of those gallant old officers with regard to promotion would undoubtedly he improved. In answer to the second question, he thought he had better read the order which had already been decided on by the Admiralty, with reference to the appointment of flag-Lieutenants. It was as follows:—
"The Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty have thought fit to direct that in future whenever a flag-officer may be permitted to nominate an officer for promotion, it is to be understood that a lieutenant, when so nominated, must have completed at least five years' service in that rank at the date at which the flag-officer may be ordered to strike his flag, of which five years not less than three years shall have been served in a sea-going ship."

CASE OF DR. GUYDIR.
COLONEL GREVILLEasked the Judge-Advocate, Whether it is true that Dr. Guydir, assistant-surgeon, Royal Longford Rifles, who was tried by a general court-martial on the 1st and 2nd of June last, was placed in arrest on the 10th day of May last, and still remains under arrest and debarred from practising his profession, in consequence of the finding of the Court not having yet been promulgated by the authorities?
MR. HEADLAMsaid, it was perfectly true that Dr. Guydir had, in accordance with the rules of the service, been placed under arrest on the 10th of May, and that some delay had taken place before he had been tried before a court-martial. The trial had, however, come on early in June, and he had subsequently had two audiences of Her Majesty to ascertain her pleasure with respect to the finding of the Court. The matter had eventually been brought under the consideration of the Commander-in-Chief, and he was happy to say that the result was that Dr. Guydir would be released immediately by order of the Lord-Lieutenant of the county.

INCH KEITH.
MR. BLACKrose to ask the Secretary of State for War, if, according to the communication made to the Edinburgh Chamber of Commerce in July last, it is still the intention of Government to place a battery on Inch Keith for the protection of the trade in the Firth of Forth?
MR. SIDNEY HERBERTanswered in the affirmative.
On Question that the House at its rising Adjourn till Monday,

SWITZERLAND AND FRANCE.—THE CONGRESS.—QUESTION.
MR. KINGLAKE: I rise, Sir, to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether all the Eight Powers, as well as Switzerland and Sardinia, have consented to take part in the proposed Conference on the subject of the 92nd Article of the Definitive Act of Vienna, and whether there is any preliminary understanding between the Powers as to the basis on which the Conference will take place? A very few words will suffice to explain the point I am anxious to bring under the notice of the House. Every one knows that in the contemplation of the eventuality of war in which either France or Austria should be engaged it was provided by the 92nd Article of the Treaty of Vienna that Switzerland in any such case should remain neuter, and that the two provinces of which we have heard so much—Chablais and Faucigny—should share that neutrality. For that purpose they were placed under the protection of Sardinia. The difficulty which has now been occasioned arises thus:—The King of Sardinia has professed to cede to the Emperor of the French the provinces of Chablais and Faucigny, in other words, he has professed to cede to the French Emperor the provinces which formed the neutralized boundary of Switzerland. It happens also that Switzerland was vitally injured by this arrangement, because whereas Switzerland formerly had an admirable frontier for the Canton of Geneva as the result of the Treaty of Turin, she finds herself surrounded on all sides but one by a great military empire, and ceases to be defensible. True, such defence as is given by a European guarantee still remains, but experience has shown that protection by diplomatic arrangement is of little avail

1853
unless it be combined with a strong military frontier and a warlike people. I have great pleasure in admitting that the second article of the Treaty of Turin acknowledges in distinct terms and in the fairest way the extent to which the contemplated arrangement was questionable on the part of the Powers of Europe, and also by Switzerland; accordingly the two articles of the treaty provide that France should come to an understanding with Europe generally and Switzerland. Now, Switzerland being the State aggrieved by the arrangement made between these two Powers, desired to appeal to Europe; and it did so happen that the treaty arrangements made in 1814 and 1815 at Aix-la-Chapelle constituted an apt tribunal to which an appeal in such a case might be addressed—for that treaty provided that in the event of either party feeling aggrieved a Conference of the Powers was to take place. It is extremely important to bear this in mind because it is this which constitutes the distinction between a Conference in the ordinary sense of the term, and that peculiar Conference to which Switzerland is appealing. It would be extremely anomalous and inconvenient that an ordinary Conference should take place without some antecedent basis as to which there is a probability that the Powers would agree. But this is not a Conference of voluntary Powers, but constitutes what I may truly call a Court of Tribunal, and summoned by Switzerland as one of the Powers which states herself aggrieved, and therefore she is entitled to be present. It seems to me of importance that this Conference should take place, because it is there, and there only, that negotiations can be effectually carried on. It is of the greatest importance that the Swiss Confederation, which from the beginning has shown high spirit, great sagacity, and a firm and unflinching reliance on the great Powers of Europe—it is of great importance that Switzerland, called to negotiate on a matter of vital importance to her, should be able to negotiate without seeming to abandon that reliance she has always shown on the support of the Powers of Europe. Moreover, it is admitted by all, and by none more fairly than by France, that the existing state of things must undergo some alteration in order to be placed in conformity with the public law of Europe; and 'it would be a scandal to Europe if it could be supposed that there was no tribunal competent to decide the question.
1854
The most obvious objection to the conference no doubt is the danger that it might seem to give something like a recognition to the transaction appealed against; but I humbly apprehend that the basis on which the Conference will take place will not be the Treaty of Turin; it will be the 92nd Article of the definitive Treaty of 1815, combined with the fact that these provinces have been occupied by the Emperor of the French, and it will not proceed on the assumption that the treaty signed on the 24th of March was definitive. Now, it appears to me that this Conference, if it should succeed, will confer a very great blessing upon Europe; and if it should fail it will in that event also bring about a state of things far more desirable than that which now exists, because it will show, in the most emphatic manner, what will then be the recognized impossibility of placing the Treaty of Turin in conformity with the public law of Europe. I beg now to ask the question.
SIR ROBERT PEEL: I have only one or two words to say to the noble Lord before he answers the question of my hon. and learned Friend. I do not wish to enter on the general subject, because I hope before the end of the Session it will be fully gone into. But, as the question of a Conference has now been decided, I only hope the noble Lord and the Powers of Europe, who have given their assent to it, will see that the rights of Switzerland, as a party vitally interested in this question, are fully recognized. Now, France has denied the rights of Switzerland in this matter. Over and over again France has asserted that Switzerland has nothing whatever to do with any arrangement that may be made between France on the one side and Sardinia on the other. But the Powers of Europe—Russia, Prussia, Austria, and England—have decided the contrary; and I must say the despatch of the noble Lord (Lord John Russell), of the 24th of April, which is among the papers laid on the table yesterday, is a most energetic recapitulation of the whole question—it is a most admirable and excellent despatch. I only hope the noble Lord will act up to the sentiments it contains. There is another observation I wish to make; it is this—France has denied that Switzerland has anything to do with this question. France has endeavoured to negotiate directly with Switzerland, but Switzerland very wisely refused to do anything with France apart from the other

1855
Powers, Now, France lays very great stress on this—she wishes it to be understood that the invitation or summons to attend the Conference comes from France, and not Switzerland. This is a most important fact—such is not the fact; the fact is perfectly the reverse. The invitation to this special Conference comes from Switzerland, not from France, and has been so recognized by the Powers of Europe. I hope France will not be allowed to take credit to herself for the assembling of this Conference. I have only to add that as France has declined to cede any portion of the neutralized province of Chablais and Faucigny, because she says that universal suffrage has given her those provinces, I can state that the whole operation of that universal suffrage was most false and fallacious. I am authorized to say this—that there are about 30,000 adults capable of exercising the elective franchise in those two provinces; I think that 29,000 voted in favour of France; but only a few weeks before, 12,000, the most important and responsible inhabitants of the very same provinces publicly and without any pressure declared themselves entirely in favour of union with Switzerland. Now, to tell us that you would not admit any diminution of that territory, because universal suffrage has given it to you, is, I say, a most false and fallacious doctrine, and I hope the Powers of Europe will not submit to the degradation of accepting such a position from France.
MR. BERNAL OSBORNE: I have only one or two remarks to make on this occasion. I must say, after reading the despatch of the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) produced yesterday, and to which reference has already been made, I have every confidence in his administration of the foreign affairs of the country. I think we may leave the foreign affairs of England with the utmost confidence in the hands of the noble Lord. [Mr. VINCENT SCULLY: Oh, oh!] That is my opinion. It may not be the opinion of the hon. Member for Cork; but I would rather be wrong with the noble Lord, than right with that hon. Gentleman. There was a very grave statement made last night—a statement unusually grave, because my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Kinglake)who made it, never speaks on light grounds, and his information has generally been found correct; any statement, therefore, which he makes is entitled to the fullest consideration of the House. My hon. and
1856
learned Friend stated that at the last interview which took place between the two Emperors at the conference of Villafranca, the Emperor Napoleon III. made a proposition to the Emperor of Austria to the effect that, on condition that the latter would join the former in an attack on the Rhenish Provinces, Lombardy should be secured to Austria.
MR. KINGLAKE: The condition was that Austria should acquiesce in that attack.
MR. BERNAL OSBORNE: Well, acquiesce in it. I say that any such statement coming from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bridgwater is worthy of the most serious attention of this House, because he evideutly has means of obtaining information that are not available to other hon. Members. The question I therefore wish to put to the noble Lord is, whether he is aware that such a proposition was ever made? I am unable to judge of how my hon. and learned Friend acquired his knowledge, but he certainly was cognizant of the project for annexing Savoy to France long before it was known to any Member of Her Majesty's Government; and that is one reason why I put this question. I can only suppose that my hon. and learned Friend must have received his information from the Emperor of Austria himself, because I believe no one else but the two Emperors was present at the interview. I should imagine that if any person in this country could give a satisfactory answer to the House on this point it would be the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary. I therefore take the liberty of putting this question to him, at the same time repeating what I said at the outset—namely, that I have full confidence in the noble Lord's judgment in conducting our foreign affairs.
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: With respect, first, to the questions put to me by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Kinglake) I will state the facts as far as they are within my own knowledge. My hon. and learned Friend seems to suppose that certain Powers have consented to take part in the proposed Conference. Now, the way in which the matter stands is this. The House will have seen from the papers which have been presented that the French Goverment have proposed three different modes for reconciling the 92nd Article of the Treaty of Vienna with the 2nd Article of the Treaty of Turin, and that a Conference is only

1857
one of those modes. The French Government, therefore, have not summoned the Conference, and asked the other Powers to attend it, but they proposed it as one of these modes. Her Majesty's Government had no difficulty in immediately saying that they accepted the Conference as the best mode of considering this subject; but it does not appear, as far as we know, that any definitive answer has been given by the other Powers of Europe. We have been told—although, of course, the answer would not come to us, but to the French Government—that Austria and Prussia have both shown some hesitation on the matter; and that, although an unofficial answer went from Russia that she was willing to accept a Conference, yet her answer was not formal or definitive' on the subject. Therefore at present no summonses have gone out from France for the purpose of convening the Conference; and it is not yet certain that the other Powers have assented to that mode. I believe, however, they all say that if a Conference is summoned they will send representatives to it.
With regard to the second question put to me, as to whether any preliminary arrangement has been come to with the Powers respecting the basis of a settlement, the French Government have from the beginning stated that the only practical basis is, that the Powers should endeavour to reconcile the 92nd Article of the Treaty of Vienna with the 2nd Article of the Treaty of Turin, and they assume that that will be thought a proper basis, because it allows every latitude to the other Powers to state their views upon the subject. I imagine no other basis than that can be proposed. As to the observation which has been made more than once in this House, that the French Government proposes to tie down the other Powers beforehand against any arrangement by which any part of Savoy may be separated from France, no attempt has been made to fetter the other Powers on that subject. The French Government, however, say that if such a proposal should be made, they will state their objections to its adoption.
With respect to the revelation made by my hon. and learned Friend last night as to what transpired between the Emperor of the French and the Emperor of Austria at Villafranca, what happened on that occasion can only have taken place between those two Sovereigns. I believe that no
1858
other person was present at their interview. We have had various accounts, more or less official, of the general substance of what passed at that interview; but we have not received any intimation that the proposal or suggestion to which my hon. Friend the Member for Liskeard (Mr. Bernal Osborne) alludes, was made. I have, indeed, heard the story in a vague way, but I do not know that there is any authority whatever for it.

VOLUNTEERS IN IRELAND.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. BRADYsaid, he rose to call the attention of the House to the answer given by the First Lord of the Treasury to a question put on Friday last, the 6th instant, relative to the enrolment of Volunteers in Ireland. The people of that country were now quite as loyal and as well-disposed towards the English Government as any other portion of the United Kingdom. If, unfortunately, any hostile descent should be made on our shores, the blow would, doubtless, be struck at England, and then Ireland would necessarily be denuded of troops, whose presence would be required at the part of our Empire which was most seriously menaced. In such a case Ireland would be left in a state of the greatest insecurity, because it would be impossible for her 20,000 men of the constabulary to afford her adequate protection. If a hostile force effected a landing in Ireland the people would be demoralized and the country thrown back a century in material prosperity and civilization. It was, therefore, the bounden duty of the Government to enable the Irish people to arm themselves, so that they might defend their homes in the hour of peril. The Queen's prize at Wimbledon was carried off by a Scotchman, but there was not a single Irishman among the competitors. He understood that the noble Lord at the head of the Government was himself a private in the brigade of Irish Volunteers raised in London, but the existence of that corps, instead of being a compliment, would be a stigma, unless the people of Ireland were allowed to raise similar corps in their own country. By the present system of legislation the people of Ireland were compelled to think that they would not be allowed to be loyal. The House sat till nearly four o'clock in order that a Coercion Bill might be introduced, but the Irish were not allowed to bear arms in order that they

  1859
  might defend their own property, the rights of the Crown, and the institutions of the country.

  THE PAPER DUTY.—OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, he wished to call the attention of the House to the Excise Duty on Paper, and in reference thereto, to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it is his intention to enforce the payment of that Duty? He had no desire to reopen questions that had been already fully discussed, or to add to the excitement which existed, or which might be expected to arise; but, on the contrary, he wished to point out a simple and obvious mode of allaying such excitement, and what ought to be still more the object of this House and the Government—to afford satisfaction to that conscientious alarm and anxiety which had been so fully expressed in petitions, and which he and others so earnestly felt. That course was to abstain from enforcing the payment of the paper duty until the question could be again brought forward in connection with the financial arrangements of next year. There appeared to him to be unanswerable arguments in favour of that course. In the first place, the honour of the Crown, represented in that House by the Minister, was pledged to repeal the paper duty, and this wholly apart from any question about the power of the House of Lords to reject the Bill sent up to them for that purpose; and not only so, but the Crown, with whom alone that House had to deal in the matter, had received the consideration for such repeal in the penny increase to the income tax. That was the distinct proposal made by the Government when the Budget was introduced, and it was further ratified in the most express terms on the discussion of the Motion of the hon. Member for Somersetshire. The words of the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, representing the Government and the Crown, believed and acted upon by him (Mr. Whalley), in his vote on that occasion, were as follows:—Speaking of the income tax, the right hon. Gentleman said—
  "It has many vices, but it has one great virtue, which is this—that in the main, without any injustice in its general scope, without any of those idle dreams of plunder and confiscation which we have heard of to-night, it does make the property of the country subservient to the uses of the State, within limits which are safe, and for purposes which are beneficial. The position of the Government then, with respect to the paper duties,
  1860
  is this,—we think it part of our public duty, part of the pledge we gave to the country which has given such a general and warm support to our financial measures, that we should redeem the pledge which we gave a month ago—namely, that under the existing circumstances of the present year, we should ask for such a repeal of indirect taxation as should not exceed two millions of money. We desire the House to exercise an impartial judgment on the question, 'What is the best mode of applying that sum?" But for all the reasons I have stated, we submit that the wisest and most prudent choice we can make is to determine to repeal the paper duty, and to give freedom to a great branch of industry."
  Now, what could be more clear and explicit, and how would it be possible ever again to rely upon anything that emanated from the responsible advisers of the Crown, if this pledge, so distinctly reiterated, were to be now set at nought, and the paper duty exacted in addition to the penny income tax, which was given in consequence of that pledge? He was not surprised to hear that the Earl of Derby, when he resolved upon a course which thus involved a sacrifice of a pledge given in the name of the Crown, knew nothing of such pledge having been given; but he knew it then, and it could not be doubted that if time were allowed to retrace his course, his Lordship would, on that ground alone, if on no other, relieve, not that House, not the people of the country, but the Crown itself, from the extraordinary and altogether unprecedented position in which by his act it was placed. What he (Mr. Whalley) asked was that the Government should, to the extent of their discretion—and he would even appeal to their patriotism—keep faith with the House by not collecting, for the present year, at all events, this tax. There was, however, no difficulty or risk in adopting such a course. Nothing was more common than to allow Excise duties to remain uncollected, taking some security for the future payment if demanded. That was the invariable course when disputes or litigation arose; and they might rely upon it such litigation would arise, in a manner that would not admit of being trifled with—the momentous question of the right of the House of Lords to retain a tax which the Crown and the House of Commons had repudiated. It was to prevent such discussions, agitation, and excitement by an ordinary exercise of discretion on the part of the Government that he now appealed to them. There could be no greater mistake than to suppose that the reluctance of the people to enter into political agitation on the matter arose from in-

  1861
  difference. The right hon. Member for Bucks had told them, and that truly, that the House had surrendered its privileges as to that £50,000,000 or £60,000,000 still raised from the trade and labour, as distinguished from the property of the country, and that not a shilling would be remitted without the consent of the House of Lords. Such was, beyond all doubt, the fact, and when the full consequences of that state of matters became understood, the remedies might as much exceed the present bounds of the constitution, as did the past and unrecognized surrender to this enormous extent, of the revenue of the country to the control of the House of Lords. His object was to avoid such questions—to deal simply with the fact which every one would understand, and which no one could question, that the honour of the Crown, the good faith of the Government, and the character of the House of Commons, all imperatively demanded that no more Excise duty on paper should be collected. And, as if to aid them in getting out of the difficulty, it appeared that, in fact, it was a duty that could not be collected under the law as it stood at present. That he regarded as a most fortunate circumstance, and one that he hoped the Government would take advantage of to avert the spread of irritation and excitement on this question. On the same occasion to which he had before referred, the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer told the House that it could not be collected under the existing law. He said—
  "There must be a new set of laws for enforcing this Excise, with a new set of restrictions on trade, and a new set of penalties to enforce them. All this must be done to enforce a duty which has been condemned two years ago by the unanimous vote of the House of Commons, and I want to know of my hon. Friend whether, as a practical and sensible man, he thinks it very likely any Government can be found to propose to carry such laws through the House of Commons?"
  He (Mr. Whalley) had brought the matter forward with a view to find a way out of the difficulty, and to ascertain whether the Government might think fit to make on that occasion any declaration of their intentions. He entertained full confidence that the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer would sustain, by the course that he would take in the matter, the high, and, he might say, unparalleled reputation he had acquired, and justify the confidence which the country reposed in him.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The hon. Member for Peterborough, in calling attention to the Excise duty on paper, has asked whether it is the intention of the Government to enforce the payment of the duty. The question was grounded on the difficulties which the hon. Member thinks attend the execution of the law arising from the legal definition of "paper." All I can say is, that this is a very important matter for the consideration of the Legislature with respect to the duty on paper; but I do not imagine that, on account of any apprehended difficulties in the execution of the law, the Government, whatever may be their opinion on the policy of retaining the paper duty, would be justified in pursuing any other course in collecting it than that adopted in collecting other Excise duties.

OUTRAGE IN TYRONE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. MAGUIREsaid, he rose to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, if he has been informed that the Stained Glass Window of the Roman Catholic Church of Cookstown, county Tyrone, was maliciously broken on the morning of Sunday, the 1st day of July, and what practical steps have been taken by the Irish Government to maintain the peace and preserve the persons and property of Catholics from outrage in that and other Counties in Ulster? He had stated on a former occasion that on the 15th of June a procession of 1,500 Orangemen marched into Cookstown, accompanied by a band of music, which played party and insulting tunes before the doors of the Roman Catholic inhabitants; that the leaders of the procession threatened that they would return to Cookstown; and that if they did so the Catholics, as a matter of course, would resist them, and the consequence would be bloodshed. The reply of the Chief Secretary was, that he had received no report, but afterwards the right hon. Gentleman showed him an official document, in which the affair was lightly treated. Since then, however, he had been informed that it was a formidable demonstration, and had excited bad feeling and apprehension in the minds of the Catholics of Cookstown. Moreover, some time in the night, between the 30th of June and the 1st of July, a splendid glass window in the new Roman Catholic Chapel in Cookstown, to which Protestants and

  1863
  Presbyterians had liberally subscribed, and which was erected in memory of a Roman Catholic clergyman, respected and honoured by all classes in the town, was smashed to pieces, and it was well known that the dastardly outrage was perpetrated either by those who shared in the demonstration of the 15th of June, or by persons who sympathized with them. He had received a letter from a Roman Catholic clergyman, in which it was stated that, so far from peace being restored in Cookstown, the whole country was in a terrible state of excitement and alarm; that 1,500 Orangemen marched into Stewartstown on the 2nd of July, and threatened destruction to the churches and chapels of the Catholics; that in a neighbouring town a band of Orangemen broke into a Catholic chapel, and smashed the tabernacle and a statue of the blessed Virgin; that Armagh was almost in a state of siege; and that if the Government did not act vigorously before the 12th, there would certainly be bloodshed on a large scale. The parish priest of Cookstown had clearly shown in a letter published in the Irish papers that the Catholics had given no provocation whatever, and the writer concluded by stating that his only hope was in public opinion compelling the Legislature to place Orangeism and Ribbonism on the same footing. A public meeting of the Catholic inhabitants of Cookstown had been held, and had passed resolutions to the effect that they believed it to be the plain duty of every Catholic to cultivate peaceable relations with all men, no matter what religion they might profess or what political views they might adopt; that the outrageous display of the Orangemen had excited the utmost indignation and alarm; and that it behoved the Government immediately to take steps to protect their persons, property, and churches. These outrages were not the consequence of the recurrence of any of those festivals which excited bad feelings in Ireland, but the persons who led the procession in Cookstown declared that there would be bloodshed by the 12th of July in that place. Were, then, confederacies like these to be tolerated in a civilized country? He was as strongly against Ribbonism as any man could be, but Ribbonism sprang from a spirit of antagonism, and the gauntlet was thrown down by Orangeism. He had been in the north of Ireland, and witnessed the deadly animosity which raged between the different religions, and he believed that if Oraugeism and Ribbonism were utterly
  1864
  extirpated, Ireland would not only be the most pacific, but the most prosperous portion of the United Kingdom. His object in asking this question was peace, not hostility, and he therefore begged the earnest attention of Government to the matter.
  MR. CORRYsaid, that no one could deplore more than himself that such an outrage as that referred to should have taken place in a part of the country which he represented, but he must protest against the right of the hon. Member (Mr. Maguire) to argue from the fact that a single outrage had been committed (but which was more probably a disturbance originated by some drunken persons) that the lives and safety of all the Roman Catholics in that part of Ireland had been or were now endangered. But for the purpose of showing the House what the nature of the alleged outrage was he would read a letter he had received from Mr. Lindsay, the Chairman of the Petty Sessions, before whom the case itself was tried. That letter was in the following terms:—
  "My attention has been drawn to a Report which has been going the rounds of the public papers relative to a statement attributed to Mr. Maguire, M.P. for Dungarvan, in which he is reported to have stated in his place in the House of Commons."
  [Cries of "Order."] Well, he would say, a statement was made,—
  "That a large number of persons stating themselves, and known as Orangemen, and amounting to at least 1,000 in number, marched in procession into the town of Cookstown, county of Tyrone, on the evening of the 15th instant, accompanied by drums and fifes, and playing party tunes, and that they continued for a period of three hours, from eight until eleven o'clock, parading the streets of the town, playing such party tunes, and frequently stopping before the houses of the Roman Catholic inhabitants to beat their drums, and indulge in various insulting manifestations, calculated to lead to a breach of the peace."
  Now, his correspondent observed,—
  "As Chairman of the Cookstown Petty Sessions, held on the following Friday, the 19th instant, when seventeen of the persons alluded to appeared on summons before the Court for having beaten drums and played on fifes in Cookstown on the evening in question, I beg leave to state that the information which Mr. Maguire has received touching this matter is altogether incorrect. It appeared in evidence that there was no marching in procession, no party tunes were played, no insulting manifestations exhibited before the houses of the Roman Catholic inhabitants, nor any abusive or provoking language made use of towards anyone, and I need therefore scarcely add, that there was no breach of the peace whatever. Had there been such a procession and display as Mr. Maguire is reported to

  1865
  have stated in the House of Commons, I should have felt it my duty to have directed informations to have been taken and returned to the ensuing assizes; but it was not even attempted to be proved that there was anything political in the assembly, or of what party they consisted, nor was the word 'Orange,' or 'Orangemen' ever made use of by any one of the witnesses during the trial. I am since informed that there were a number of women and children, as well as men in the crowd, many of whom were persons returning from a spinning manufactory in the neighbourhood of Cooks-town. As I am not, and never was, an Orangeman, I cannot justly be accused of partiality in this statement, which I feel it my duty (as Chairman of these Petty Sessions, as well as in compliance with the wishes of other magistrates) to make to you, as one of our representatives of this county of Tyrone, that you may be fully aware of the facts which Mr. Maguire seems to have been totally ignorant of."
  It appeared, then, from that communication, that the procession was a noisy collection of men and women and children, but no breach of the peace had been committed; it was not even shown that it was formed of any particular class of religionists, or that that was at all any prominent feature in the affair. Even the classic atmosphere of Rome had not been sufficient to restrain the ebullitions of lively feeling natural to Irishmen, as his Holiness the Pope had no doubt by this time discovered, with respect to the force that had tendered their services to him. Why, then, should it be expected that Cookstown was to be more free from a similar exhibition?

  MARRIAGE IN THE PREVENTIVE SERVICE (SCOTLAND).—QUESTION.
  MR. BLACKsaid, that having on a previous occasion put a question to the Secretary to the Treasury, in consequence of a person of excellent character being dismissed from the Preventive Service, in the department of the Excise in Scotland, because he was married, and not having received a satisfactory answer, he wished again to put a question to the Secretary to the Treasury in reference to the treatment of the men of the Preventive Service in the Department of the Excise in Scotland, in preventing them from getting married; whether those regulations were placed in the hands of the men when they joined the service; and whether it was the opinion of the Lords of the Treasury that such regulations ought to be maintained?
THE GALWAY PACKET CONTRACT.

  QUESTION.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE,in rising to put a Question as to the present
  1866
  state of the Negotiation which has lately been carried on for the transfer of the Galway Packet Contract to the Montreal and Ocean Steam Navigation Company, said he had no wish to bring on a general discussion on this subject, but merely wished to set right certain misrepresentations which had appeared in the public papers, and which were, perhaps, confirmed to some extent by the remarks of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the previous night. He would appeal to the Government not to act hastily in this matter, and not to excite any prejudice against the proposed transfer before the question was brought before the House. Hitherto the decision of the Government had been adverse to the transfer of the contract. Now, from the statements in the newspapers, as well as from those made by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the public might imagine that the transaction was one which had been suddenly entered into; that it was, in fact, a proposal made by the Galway Company, finding themselves in difficulties, to get rid of their contract to another Company; that the subject had been brought before the Government without previous notice, and that, not being afforded sufficient time to consider it, the Government felt obliged to refuse their sanction to the arrangement. That was by no means the real state of the case. In the first place, it was not a question between one company and another, but between the Galway Packet Company and the Provincial Government of Canada. In the next place, it did not originate with the Galway Company, but it arose out of a suggestion made by a rather high extra-official authority, Mr. Cobden, Chairman of the Packet Contract Committee, last Session. Then, again, it had not been brought forward at the last moment, but had been, more or less, under discussion ever since August or September last. Nor had it been pressed suddenly upon the notice of the Government for any purposes of the Company. It was a negotiation carried on between the Company and the representatives of the Canadian Government deliberately, and, as was understood, with the cognizance and sanction of the Home Government; the reason why an early decision was desired from the Home Government being that the representatives of the Canadian Government were anxious to go back by the mail of Wednesday last. The Company themselves were not in any hurry

  1867
  for an answer; they were prepared to wait until the 1st of August. The representatives of the Canadian Government were Mr. Gait, Finance Minister, and Mr. Smythe, Postmaster General; and it would be obvious that two such functionaries could not conveniently be absent from the colony for any length of time, especially at the period of the Prince of Wales's visit, and during the September elections. It was with a view to consult the convenience of these gentlemen and of the province that the Government were pressed for a speedy answer. The facts as regarded the Canadian Ministry were these:—After the Galway Contract had been sanctioned by the late Government, it was brought to the notice of the Packet Contract Committee that great injury had thereby been inflicted on Canada, because the Canadians, finding it necessary for their own purposes to maintain and subsidize a line of steamers between the two countries, now found a new competitor in the field, so that their steamers were running under great disadvantage. They were then subsidizing their steamers with £50,000 a year, recently increased to upwards of £100,000, and they were naturally annoyed therefore at the rivalry of a company subsidized by the mother country. At the close of last Session, this state of facts having been brought to the notice of the Packet Committee, Mr. Cobden suggested to the Representative of Canada, the Minister of Public Works, who was examined before the Committee, that some arrangement might possibly be made between the Galway Packet Company and the Canadian Government. Communications were accordingly entered into, in the course of September and October last, with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Colonial Secretary, in order to ascertain whether, in the event of such an arrangement being concluded, it would receive the sanction of the Government. The reply was that the subject was before a Select Committee, and that it was impossible for the Government to take it up until the Report of that Committee had been made. The negotiation accordingly fell through. The Select Committee took a good deal of evidence on the subject and made their Report. They did not go the length of recommending a transfer of the contract, but they mentioned it in rather favourable terms. He understood that immediately after the Report was published, possibly before negotiations were resumed, Mr.
  1868
  Galt and Mr. Smythe came over with a view to purchase the contract from the company; and it was arranged at last that the Canadian Government should pay the company a subsidy of £35,000 a year, the company assigning to them the contracts for the conveyance of the mails between Galway and Boston and New York. Of course this was made subject to the approval of the Government, and the intention was that the mails should be carried to a Canadian instead of an American port. These terms being agreed upon, as the company and the Colonial Government understood, with the cognizance and the approval of the Treasury and the Post Office, the agreement was formally reduced into writing, and signed by the representatives of the company, and by Mr. Gait and Mr. Smythe on the part of the colony. All these facts were notified to the Treasury, and, though they might not have been brought personally under the notice of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, they were so far within the cognizance of the Treasury that an official letter was written to the Post Office mentioning this proposal, and the Post Office accordingly communicated to the company that, instead of the mails being sent on the next occasion by the Connaught, a Galway boat, they would be transferred to the North Briton, belonging to the company subsidized by the Canadian Government. That notice was also published by the Post Office in the form of an official advertisement, and was therefore recognized by them in the most complete way on the authority of the Treasury letter. The parties were thus led to believe, not without reason, that the proposed transfer was sanctioned by the Government so far as it could be sanctioned. They were aware that the Government could authorize nothing but the transfer of the subsidy, the subsidy itself being contingent on the vote of this House, and all they wished was to understand whether the Government had any objection to the transfer. Of course the arrangement would be very advantageous to the Canadian Government. They now paid a subsidy of £104,000 a year, and if they paid the Galway Company £35,000 a year, deducting from those sums £78,000, the amount given by the Home Government, their expenditure would be materially reduced. He would not go into the merits of the case as regarded the bargain with the Galway Company, but it was not so unreasonable as the public press seemed to consider.

  1869
  The Galway Company had incurred large expenses in the establishment of this line; and, having established it and taken steps to give Ireland a permanent packet port, they wished to diminish the losses they had sustained by handing over the mails to the Canadian Government, which would secure the interests of the colony, as well as the interests of Ireland. Considerable consternation had therefore been excited by the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the Government at the last moment had altogether refused their sanction to this agreement. He did not ask on the present occasion for any pledge. He only hoped that the Government would not take any final step in the matter before the House had had an opportunity of considering it; and, following up the hint of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the previous night, he would ask whether his right hon. Friend was aware that Mr. Gait and Mr. Smythe had deferred their departure till the following Wednesday, whether there had been any communication with them, and whether the question was still considered an open one?
  MR. BAXTERsaid, he wished to express an earnest hope that, whatever decision the Government might come to on the Galway contract, they would not sanction the assignment of the contract to the Montreal Ocean Steam Navigation Company. The House was aware that the late Government gave a subsidy of £78,000 a year for seven years to the Galway Company, and that the purchase money paid for this contract by the Montreal Company was to be £35,000 a year for seven years. That was an admission that the service might have been performed for a less sum by £35,000 than the subsidy agreed to be paid. Mr. Lever, as the House would see by the evidence, came before the Committee and told them that the service between Galway and the United States could not be performed either by the screw steamers of the Liverpool and Philadelphia Company, or by those belonging to the Montreal Ocean Steam Navigation Company. It was also stated that four vessels of large tonnage and increased power were being built by the Galway Company, and would be placed on the station in the course of the year, in order to perform the service in a more regular and rapid manner than it had hitherto been done. It now turned out that these ships were not to be placed on the station, and
  1870
  that the service was to be performed by those very screw steamers of the Montreal Company which Mr. Lever declared to be inefficient to carry it out. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was probably not aware that the Montreal Ocean Steam Ship Company had recently lost three of their best ships, and that they were building new vessels to supply that loss. It would be a most extraordinary course for the Government or that House to take, if they sanctioned the assignment of a contract from one company to another, without insisting on the main conditions of that contract being performed. Whatever course the Government might feel disposed to take with regard to the vote, he did trust they would not sanction an assignment which had excited a feeling of astonishment, if not of indignation, amongst all those concerned in the steam navigation of this country.
  SIR FRANCIS BARINGsaid, he did not intend to inter into the merits of this case, and he regretted that the hon. Baronet (Sir Stafford Northcote) had brought on a premature discussion instead of postponing it until the Vote was laid upon the table. But, although the hon. Baronet declared he would not say a word on the merits of the contract, he never heard a speech more dexterously put together to defend the course taken by the late Government. He (Sir Francis Baring) only hoped that the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not come to any decision until the House had had an opportunity of discussing the subject. The Select Committee had indirectly recommended that the Vote should be laid on the table for the decision of the House. He admitted that the question was not an easy one to decide, but the contract, ought to be discussed on its own merits. Above all, no new contract ought be made that would produce an additional complication. He wished also to state that Mr. Cobden's communications were made previous to the Committee coming to a decision, and before the main part of the evidence was taken. One of the recommendations of the Committee was that no contract should be disposed of until the House had had a certain time given for considering its terms. If hon. Members would read a letter in the newspapers of the previous day they would find that certain agreements had been come to between the old contracting party and the new that might entirely change the contract. By the original contract be-

  1871
  tween the Government and the Galway Company it was agreed that if the contemplated improvements in Galway Harbour were not made, or turned out ill, it was in the power of the parties either to insist on the improvements being carried out, or tore-move the packets to some other Irish port; but a private stipulation was now made between the two contracting parties that to Galway in any case the ships should go. He believed that a Bill was now before Parliament enabling certain local parties to make improvements in Galway Harbour. These parties, it might be assumed, would carry out the improvements if in the event of their failure to do so the packets might be removed, but as soon as this stipulation came into force these parties might say, "You are bound to run your ships to Galway under any circumstances, and we would rather that some one else should pay for any improvements in the harbour." He wished to press the Government so far to respect the recommendation of the Select Committee as to wait until they had given the House an opportunity of discussing the circumstances of this contract.
  MR. LAINGsaid, he was glad to have an opportunity of explaining the precise state of the negotiations with the representatives of the Canadian Government relative to the transfer in question, which he thought had not as yet been quite understood. It was quite true, as the hon. Baronet (Sir Stafford Northcote) had stated, that the general idea of the fusion of the Galway with the Canadian line was by no means new. It was quite true that it originated in a suggestion of Mr. Cobden, and was canvassed last Session in the Committee. Many hon. Members felt that a hardship had been done to Canada by the arrangement originally come to, and that it was very desirable the hardship should be remedied. The matter was repeatedly under discussion, and a division took place in the Committee on the subject. His own opinion as an individual Member was that there would be a propriety and advantage in such an arrangement if it could be settled on fair terms. It was, however, incorrect to suppose that the precise arrangement by which the fusion was intended to be carried out had been long under the consideration of the Government. In fact, the arrangement in question came upon the Government by surprise on the previous Wednesday. The original arrangement having fallen to the ground, there was no
  1872
  question of its revival for several months. Two Canadian ministers, Mr. Gait and Mr. Smythe, however, having arrived in this country, the negotiations were renewed. The matter had to go through several stages before it was ripe for the decision of the Government. It was first necessary for the parties to come to terms, and then a convention was necessary with Canada to regulate the terms of the service. Without a convention of that kind the purchase of the Galway contract by the Canadian Company was useless, because the British Government had to give its sanction to the substitution of the ports of Quebec and Portland for the ports of New York and Boston, originally named in the contract. The whole question of the arrangements to be entered into between the Canadian Company and the British Government having been in the first instance only casually broached in conversation, it was deemed necessary that the proposal which was made on behalf of the former should, in order to give effect to any assignment of the Galway contract, be reduced to writing. Under these circumstances he had had a conference with Mr. Gait and Mr. Smythe, the two gentlemen who represented Canada in this country, and had stated to them that, while individually favourable to the principle of the contemplated transfer, if it could be carried into effect, he had no sort of authority to bind the Government in the matter, and that he could not undertake to procure their decision until the terms of the transfer had in writing been duly submitted to their consideration. He had added that he would render all the assistance in his power in getting rid of mere matters of detail, and in the endeavour to frame a definite proposition on the subject. Such was the state of things on Tuesday, and on Wednesday the terms of the transfer were to have been reduced to writing; but, to his great surprise, he had on that day received a letter, stating that Mr. Gait and Mr. Smythe were obliged to take their departure for Canada that very night or the following morning; that they were not in a position to leave anybody behind them with power to represent them in the transaction in question; and that, under the circumstances, unless they had the distinct confirmation upon the part of the Government of the arrangement which they had proposed, the whole affair must fall to the ground. The letter conveying that intelligence had reached him on the afternoon of

  1873
  Wednesday, when the House was engaged in discussing the Census Bill. His right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was confined to his house by indisposition, and could not be seen, while the noble Lord at the head of the Government was detained in the House till six o'clock. A Cabinet meeting had then to be held, at which important matters were coming on for discussion. The noble Lord, however, made an appointment to meet the two Canadian representatives on the rising of the House, and it was under those circumstances, and with only a few minutes for consideration, that the Government were asked to sanction an arrangement not free from difficulty, and calculated to excite much discussion and opposition in Parliament. That being the state of things, the Government had taken the only course which, in his opinion, was open to them, and—the representatives of Canada having stated their inability to allow any further time for deliberation—intimated that they did not see their way to an approval of the arrangement. Since then, however, Mr. Gait and Mr. Smythe, thinking that a strong feeling of disappointment might be experienced in Canada if matters were left in their present unsettled state, had decided upon staying a week longer in this country. Official application had also, he believed, been made to have their proposal dealt with with the least possible delay, and under those circumstances it was, he thought, desirable that he should abstain from entering into the merits of the question. There were two propositions pending the decision of the Government and of the House; because he took it for granted that whatever might be done by the Government would only be done subject to the decision of the House upon it, which must be invited in the course of a few days, or a week or two at the furthest; when the question of the Galway contract was brought before them. A good deal had been advanced on both sides with regard to the price of the vessels, the time of their sailing, and other matters on which he should like to make an observation; but he thought it would be better, under the circumstances, to abstain from doing so. There was only one point to which he would refer—the interference of the Post Office with regard to the sailing of the Connaught. The circumstances were these. The assignment being made, the two parties had come to the Treasury, and stated that they had made an agreement for the
  1874
  sailing of the two vessels, the Connaught and the North Briton, and that it would be a great convenience to them to allow them to go. That permission was given in a letter distinctly stating that it was without prejudice to the entire arrangement; but on the present occasion he would not further enter into the merits of the question.
  In answer to the question which had been put by his hon. Friend behind him (Mr. Black) with reference to the regulations by which men engaged in the Inland Revenue Department in Scotland were precluded from marrying while in the service, he could only repeat what he had stated on a former occasion, upon the authority of the Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue, that although there was no positive rule on the subject, it was found from practical experience that unmarried were more efficient than married men in wild and exposed parts of the country. He might add that his hon. Friend appeared to him to labour under a mistaken impression in supposing that to the circumstance of unmarried men being preferred for such service was to be attributed the immorality which he said prevailed in Scotland, as evinced by the large number of illegitimate births, and for which he seemed to imagine the Lords of the Treasury were responsible. He had been informed that the reorganization of the preventive force in Scotland was under the notice of the Board of Inland Revenue, and that, while dealing with that question, it proposed to consider how far it was necessary to employ in it unmarried men exclusively.
  MR. HALIBURTON,who was very imperfectly heard, said, that as far as he understood the question of the hon. Baronet the Member for Stamford, its object was that no hasty decision should be come to by the Government on the subject, and that, if there was any inclination to refuse the application of the two Companies, they should keep that inclination in abeyance till they had given the question further consideration. In that request he cordially concurred. The subject was one of great interest to him, for he was the first to propose the carriage of the mails between England and America by steam. About the time when Dr. Lardner pronounced that the crossing of the Atlantic by steam was impossible, and long before the contract was made with Mr. Cunard, he went down to Bristol, and there he saw the managers of a company, who were about to send out the Great Western and other

  1875
  vessels of a like class; and he urged them to enter into a contract with the Government to carry the mails across the Atlantic. They entertained a different opinion from him, and the whole matter fell to the ground at that time. Mr. Cunard, however, promptly took up the subject, and had ever since carried out his contract beneficially to the country and honourably to himself. The hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Baxter), who had spoken that evening, had, he believed, once made a voyage in one of Mr. Cunard's steamers across the Atlantic, and, like most hon. Gentlemen who had made a similar flight, fancied he had mastered the whole subject. Now, he, who had, in all probability, been more frequently across the Atlantic than any—with the exception, perhaps, of the naval—Members of that House, could inform the hon. Gentleman that the mails could not with certainty and security to human life be conveyed along that route without a subsidy. The American Government had tried a subsidy nearly twice as large as that which Mr. Cunard received, and failed in their object. It was only that very day, indeed, that he learned from the newspapers that a Mr. Vanderbilt, or whatever his name might be, had given to the American Government notice that he would carry no more mails for them. He spoke under the correction of hon. Gentlemen who knew more of mercantile matters than he did; but there was not, so far as he was aware, a single line across the Atlantic at the present moment which was paying anything like a decent dividend to the shareholders. A great mistake had, in his opinion, been in the first instance made in permitting companies to convey the mails in goods-carrying ships. If vessels were constructed well, and only with the view of taking the mails and a limited number of passengers, the voyage across the Atlantic might, he thought, be performed in two or three days less than was now the case. In the arrangement which was made with the Cunard Company, the Government had in view the advantage of that sea-going fleet in the event of war. They were required to be built in a certain way, they were subject to inspection, and were to be given up to the Government in case of a sudden emergency. The benefit of these stipulations had been found some time since, when several of these noble steamers were taken off the line and handed over to the Government. Those who were acquainted with the fact knew that
  1876
  great disasters would have occurred if this had not been the case. These vessels were faster than any man-of-war. There was no man-of-war in the service that could compete with them for speed. Their accommodation, too, was very great, fit for the transport both of troops and horses. On one occasion one of these vessels was loading at Liverpool for her ordinary service; she was required for the transport service; she was taken off the station, handed over to the Government, the passengers who had taken their berths receiving compensation, and sent off at once to the Crimea. The discipline on board these ships was very conspicuous, as compared with that on the Collins' line. There were excellent officers, and an excellent code of regulations for their government. None of the officers were ever allowed to have anything to do with the passengers—not that they were unfit to associate with them, but that it was felt not consistent with the economy of the ship to allow the officers who were entrusted with the lives and properties of the passengers to come in contact with them. They had separate state and messrooms, with their own servants devoted to them. In the event of danger every man was told off and put in his place, and the marvellous success of that line was such that they could now calculate on the arrival of the American mail with as much certainty as on the mail from Edinburgh. He looked for his letters every Monday morning at ten o'clock, and there was less irregularity than there was in the arrival of the train from Windsor, which often kept him waiting half-an-hour. These were considerations which should not be thrown on one side in consequence of a mere assertion that the arrangement cost too much, and that the mails could be carried for the mere cost of postage. He thought there was a mistake certainly in the origin of the Galway arrangement if the Government thought they were doing much more than opening the resources of Ireland, and developing her agricultural and commercial advantages. It was out of the question to suppose that any man leaving London would go to Holyhead, cross the Irish Channel to Dublin, then make his way to the port of Galway, and, with every inconvenience of embarkation, take passage in an inferior steamer, when in four hours he could be on board a large steamer at Liverpool. It never could he supposed that Galway could compete with Liverpool, backed by the great manufac-

  1877
  turing towns. The arrangement was beneficial to Ireland, no doubt, and he hoped it might be continued; but it was a great mistake to suppose that Galway could compete with Liverpool. There was another mistake—the points of debarkation. Nobody but an Irishman would have thought of going to New York and taking away emigrants from our own Colonies. He thought Canada had been hardly used in this matter hitherto. It was true she had no river outlet but the St. Lawrence, which was frozen for several months in the year; but the railway communication, that was now opening up communications between Quebec and Halifax, would overcome that difficulty. He trusted, therefore, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would take a very large view of this subject. Considering the claims of Canada, it would be well worth while to postpone any adverse decision until the whole matter could be laid before Parliament.
  MR. HENNESSYsaid, he would venture to inform the Chancellor of the Exchequer that a very strong feeling existed on the subject in Ireland. There was but one impression, and that was in favour of the transfer. They had carefully considered the whole circumstances of the case, and he earnestly hoped the Government would adopt the wise and sound suggestion of Mr. Cobden, than whom no person was better qualified to give an opinion on this matter.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I wish to say one word about the Galway contract in confirmation of what has been stated by my hon. Friend the Secretary to the Treasury. The fact is, that on Wednesday, between five and six o'clock, I was told that certain gentlemen with whom I had made an appointment were at the Treasury ready to meet me. I went there, and they put into my hands a written statement of the conditions upon which they proposed that the contract should be transferred from the Galway Company to the Canadian Company. They said, at the same time, that they were going off either that evening or next morning, and that the decision of the Government must be given then and there upon the spot. I went to my Colleagues, then assembled in the Cabinet, and we took that decision which any reasonable man would take in similar circumstances. If a man is called upon on the sudden to give a decision, "Aye" or "No," upon a complicated question involving important considerations, he will,
  1878
  of course, if he is obliged to say "Aye" or "No," say "No," because "No" leaves time for consideration, while "Aye" implies an immediate engagement, the effects of which it may be impossible to foresee. Therefore the only answer we believed we could give was that, under the circumstances, we could not give the assent necessary for transferring the contract from one party to the other.

  OUTRAGE IN TYRONE.—OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD CLAUD HAMILTONsaid, he hoped the House would bear with him for a few moments while he referred to the serious charges which the hon. Member for Dungarvan had brought against his constituents in Tyrone. The hon. Member had talked as if the people of Tyrone were a set of men who disregarded the law, and were in the habit of committing the most outrageous crimes; but the fact was the hon. Gentleman, for whom he entertained the highest respect, had allowed himself to be made the mouthpiece of a few busy-bodies and mischief makers. In the county of Tyrone the great majority of the police were Roman Catholics. The county inspector of police and the clerk of the Crown were also Roman Catholics, and he asked whether the hon. Member was justified in casting aspersions on those respectable gentlemen, as if they had been guilty of neglecting their duty. The case which had been referred to gave him an opportunity of testifying to the character of the population which he represented, and which he maintained was among the most peaceful and loyal in the three kingdoms. A few years ago a Roman Catholic priest, whose piety and virtues had obtained for him universal admiration in that part of the county, died. The Roman Catholics were at the time preparing to erect a beautiful structure for Divine worship, and the Presbyterians and members of the Established Church, in large numbers came forward and begged to be permitted to testify their respect for the deceased Roman Catholic priest by contributing to the expense of placing a painted glass window in the building to his memory. The offer was accepted by the Roman Catholic building committee; but some time ago a ruffian broke the window at night, with a stick apparently. What was the consequence? The leading Protestants of the neigbourhood invited all parties to unite and testify their indignation publicly at the act. The

  1879
  result was that all the leading Protestants, both Presbyterian and Episcopalian, came forward and put down their names for large sums for the purpose of bringing to justice the miscreant who committed the act of destruction. This was the case which his hon. Friend, misled by a restless busybody who for twenty years had been the cause of all the bad feeling about the place, brought before the House, and asked what had been done by the Government to protect the persons and property of Roman Catholics from outrage. It was not fitting that the hon. Gentleman, allowing his feelings to be carried away, should make such ex parte statements, and he (Lord Claud Hamilton) only discharged his duty in now coming forward to vindicate his constituents.
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, that the particular outrage referred to was not at the time considered by the police of sufficient importance to be made the subject of a Special Report, but in consequence of his attention being called to the circumstance by the hon. Member for Dungarvan, an inquiry had been instituted respecting it. According to the Official Report, it appeared that on the night of the 30th of June a pane in the painted window at Cookstown, erected to the memory of the late parish priest, had been wilfully broken by some evil-disposed person or persons yet unknown. A head constable with twenty constables had been sent to the place, and there had been since no complaint of any additional disturbance. With regard to the rest of Ulster, precautions had been taken by the despatch of detachments of troops to preserve tranquillity, as at the present period of the year it was a matter of anxiety with the Irish Government to maintain the peace of the country. He was glad to say that he received intelligence which led him to hope that the day of anxiety had passed over without evil consequences.
  Motion agreed to.
  House at its rising to adjourn till Monday next.

  WAR WITH CHINA.—RESOLUTION.
  Order for Committee (Supply) read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,—"That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  MR. BAILLIE COCHRANErose pursuant to notice to move,
  "That in order to remove one great obstacle
  1880
  to Peace with China, the British Plenipotentiary he instructed not to insist on the fulfilment of the third Article of the Treaty of Tien-tsin, by which His Majesty the Emperor of China agrees that the Ambassador, Minister, or other Diplomatic Agent appointed by Her Majesty the Queen of Great Britain, may reside, with his family and establishment, permanently at the capital, or may visit it occasionally, at the option of the British Government."
  He regretted that his Motion had been postponed to so late an hour that he feared he would scarcely be able to do justice to it. He would however simply confine himself to facts. He was perfectly convinced, and all those who had studied the Chinese question would agree with him, that if we continued to insist on the third article of the Treaty of Tien-tsin, which required a resident Ambassador at Pekin, it would not be a question merely of six or nine millions of money. This country would never remain at peace with China, for no sooner would peace be concluded than circumstances would occur to renew the war. Thus the trade and commerce of the country would be crippled for an object the value of which he could not understand, and which he thought we could only insist on now for the gratification of the national pride—he had almost said of the national vanity. The question was of such importance that it might well claim the full attention of the House. It was important on account of its magnitude, the difficulties by which it was surrounded, and the injustice with which, as he contended, we had treated the Chinese people. The Vote which had been moved showed the magnitude of the question, but that £3,800,000 by no means represented the entire amount which would be required during the present year. He firmly believed (and he had had communications with gentlemen out there)—he believed on excellent authority, that if the war were to go on, there would be a deficit of £6,000,000 more at the conclusion of the present financial year. An army stationed 1,500 miles from their supplies, in the Gulf of Petcheli, blocked up by ice in the winter and by mud in the summer—an army under such circumstances composed of French, English, Bengalese, Coolies, Sikhs, and Lascars, would have difficulties both of climate and country to contend with to afford abundant grounds for alarm. These difficulties a very great military authority considered sufficiently alarming to deter England from entering upon such a war. He had a curious passage, written by the late Emperor Napo-

  1881
  leon while at St. Helena, in which he discussed the possibility of a China war, and he said,
  "I cannot imagine that any English Government would ever be mad enough to enter upon a war with a nation situated as China, for such a war could never be brought to a satisfactory conclusion, but must necessarily be attended with enormous sacrifices of blood and treasure."
  Then, with regard to the injustice of the war. It was lamentable as well as instructive to look back to the debates of 1840 upon the China war in which we were then engaged. At that time, now twenty years ago, the right hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir James Graham), in a speech of powerful eloquence, and in a Motion admirably worded, pointed out the dangers the Government was incurring, and told the House that not for the next ten years, or twenty or thirty years, could we hope to have permanent peace with China if we embarked in that war. The right hon. Baronet was confirmed by many high authorities at the time, but nevertheless that opium war, which he considered a most unjust war, was begun. And what had been the result? To bring down the narrative to the treaty of Tien-tsin, he would merely revert to what had taken place. First, there was the Pottinger treaty, under which we had exacted 21,000,000 dollars as an indemnity, which was paid—and how paid? By taking silver out of the private houses of the Chinese people, the Government of China not having sufficient means at its disposal. Further, we demanded, and obtained permission to establish settlements and appoint consuls in five ports—namely, Hong Kong, Amoy, Ningpo, Foo-choo-Foo, and Shanghae. Subsequently Sir John Bowring brought us into another and if possible a still more unjust war—the war of the lorcha. The question of the lorcha was the ground put forward as the cause of that war; but the demand of Sir John Bowring to enter Canton in full uniform was the chief cause of that war; and though such an avowal of opinion rendered a man unpopular, and had lost him a seat for Lanarkshire, he must express his deliberate conviction that that war also was unjustly undertaken. And what was the result? We gained admission to Canton—we attacked the people and bombarded the city—and in the end a treaty of peace was signed. That brought him to the present war, and the extraordinary conditions now demanded, Mark how increas-
  1882
  ing had been our demands. At every fresh occasion the demand was greater. The jealousy and fears of the Chinese Government and people were excited, and as the right hon. Baronet had eloquently said, in 1840, when the Chinese nation looked across the Himalaya mountains, they might well tremble when they saw a great power like England, whose province India had become, ever making fresh demands. The Earl of Clarendon, in his instructions to the Earl of Elgin, told him to insist upon a resident minister at Pekin. But the Earl of Elgin saw the danger of making such a demand, and, therefore, when first he negotiated with the Chinese Government, he only demanded the execution at Canton of all treaty engagements, including the admission of British subjects to that city, and compensation for losses sustained by British subjects in consequence of the disturbances. Such was the state of the case at the commencement of the negotiation. But shortly afterwards the Earl of Elgin increased his demands; and all of a sudden insisted upon the right which formed the third Article of the Treaty of Tien-Tsin, of having a resident British Minister at Pekin. The Earl of Elgin did that in direct opposition to the advice of Count Pontiatine, the Russian Minister, and he believed also in opposition to the advice of the American Minister. How repugnant that was to the feelings and prejudices of the Chinese would be evident to every hon. Gentleman who would take the trouble to look through the blue-book on the table. He might quote page after page of earnest entreaty from the Minister appointed to negotiate on the part of the Emperor that we should not insist on that article of the treaty. The Minister pointed out to the Earl of Elgin the total ruin it would be to the Chinese Government if a resident foreign Minister was admitted to Pekin; he showed the insecurity that must accompany such a proceeding, that it was quite impossible the Government could be answerable for the safety or even the life of the ambassador, and that his residence there would be sure to give rise to serious disturbances, for which they would be blamed. Those representations made an impression on the mind of the Earl of Elgin, and he wrote to the Earl of Malmes-bury:—
  "The concessions obtained in it from the Chinese Government are not in themselves extravagant, nor, with the exception of the im-

  1883
  portant principle of exterritoriality, in excess of those which commercial nations are wont freely to grant to each other, but in the eyes of the Chinese Government they amount to a revolution, and involve the surrender of some of the most cherished principles of the traditional policy of the empire. They have been extorted, therefore, from its fears. These concessions, moreover, thus extorted from the fears of the Chinese Government by British and French power, are not, in point of fact, extorted from it for the benefit of British and French subjects exclusively. Under the guarantee of most favoured nation clauses and other pretences not always so intelligible, they will, no doubt, be claimed and exercised very generally by the subjects and citizens of other Occidental nations."
  To insist on conditions so repugnant to the feelings of a people which our own ambassador told us were only extorted from their fears, was to declare that we would continue in a state of perpetual warfare with China. In another of the Earl of Elgin's despatches he pointed out again that the Chinese considered that the condition, if insisted on, would result in the total overthrow of their empire. In a letter containing an appeal from one of the Imperial Commissioners to the Earl of Elgin in which he said:—
  "Inasmuch as in the treaty of peace concluded between our two nations, it is laid down that the British Minister shall either reside in permanence at the capital, or visit it occasionally, at the option of the British Government, such being the plain language of the article, it must, doubtless, be abided by; and if it be the fixed purpose of your Excellency's government that the residence (of the Minister) shall he permanent, China cannot, of course, gainsay this. The established reputation of your Excellency for justice and straightforwardness, for kind intentions and friendly feeling, make us place the fullest confidence in your assurance that when you exacted the condition referred to, you were actuated by no desire whatever to do injury to China. The permanent residence of foreign Ministers at the capital would, notwithstanding, be an injury to China in many more ways than we can find words to express. In sum, in the present critical and troublous state of our country, this incident would generate, we fear, a loss of respect for their Government in the eyes of her people; and that this would, indeed, be no slight evil it will not be necessary, we assume, to explain to your Excellency with greater detail. It is for this reason that we specially address you a second letter on this subject, and we trust that your Excellency will represent for us to Her Majesty your Sovereign the great inconvenience you feel (the exercise of the right would be) to our country, and beseech her not to decide in favour of the permanent residence at Pekin."
  In all these communications they might observe the clearest evidence that the Chinese Commissioners were telling the truth. He now came to the Earl of Elgin's decision, in which he yielded the
  1884
  point, and that was important. He says, writing to the Commissioners:—
  "The proposal has been attentively considered by the undersigned; and he now begs to state that although he is resolved by no act or word to abate one tittle of the rights secured to his Government by treaty, it is his wish, so far as such a course is consistent with his duty, to endeavour to reconcile due consideration of the feelings of the Chinese Government with the satisfaction of the rights of his own. He is prepared, consequently, on viewing the whole of the circumstances before him, at once to communicate to Her Majesty's Government the representations that have been addressed to him by their Excellencies the Imperial Commissioners upon this important question; and humbly to submit it as his opinion that if Her Majesty's Ambassador be properly received at Pekin when the ratifications are exchanged next year, and full effect given in all other particulars to the treaty negotiated at Tientsin, it would certainly be expedient that Her Majesty's representative in China should be instructed to choose a place of residence elsewhere than at Pekin, and to make his visits to the capital either periodical, or only as frequent as the exigencies of the public service may require."
  But it might be said that the ratification had not been exchanged at Pekin. He was not about to enter into any discussion in reference to the lamentable occurrences in the Peiho River—but he would say that the despatch he had quoted did honour to the Earl of Elgin, and clearly showed that it would be most prejudicial to the interests of this country, as well as of China, to insist upon the article in question. Then, it might be observed that no other country than England had preferred a demand for a resident minister at Pekin. Neither France nor America had insisted upon the introduction of such an article into their treaties. He would not go into the question as to which Government—whether the present or the former—was to blame for the melancholy events which had happened in China. It was impossible that the Earl of Malmesbury could have foreseen the events which occurred off the Peiho. It was impossible for him to conceive that Mr. Bruce, sent on a mission of peace, would have declared war, without receiving instructions from home. The escort which was sent with him was to add dignity to his position, not to put it in his power to appeal to force to carry out a mission of peace. No particular Government was to blame more than another, the mischief had arisen from the predetermined system to treat the Chinese at one time as barbarians, at another as a highly civilized nation, and at all times with injustice. He regretted that the instructions which he would read to the House had been given to Mr. Bruce. In

  1885
  the despatch of the 29th of October, 1859, the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs said:—
  "You will take an early opportunity of apprising the ministers of the Emperor of China that in consequence of the attempt made to obstruct your passage to Pekin in June last, when you were proceeding thither to exchange the ratifications of the treaty of Tien-tsin, Her Majesty's Government consider that the understanding entered into between the Earl of Elgin and the Imperial Commissioners, Kweiliang and Huashana, with respect to the residence of the British minister in China, is at an end, and that it rests henceforward exclusively with Her Majesty, by the terms of Article 11 of the Treaty of Tien-tsin to decide whether or not she shall instruct Her minister to take up his abode permanently at Pekin."
  That showed that the stipulation was to be pressed on the Chinese, not because it was a wise or prudent one, but simply as a punishment to them for their misconduct. He had no desire to occupy the time of the House longer than was necessary, but he had by him quotation upon quotation from writers well acquainted with China, all showing that it would have been impossible to invent any demand which was more repugnant to the feelings of the people, and that if it were consented to, the Emperor of China would really not be safe. He hoped the Government would reconsider the instructions sent out to the Earl of Elgin; for if this particular article were insisted on it was certain that we should never be at peace with China. Our dealings with China had been most unfortunate, but there was now an opportunity for taking a step in the right direction, and it ought to be taken at once. No minor considerations, no absurd scruples about dignity, ought to stand in the way. To quote an expression of the noble Lord opposite, the true dignity of a nation was to do that which was right and just. Before sitting down he wished to apologize to the noble Lord opposite for having contradicted him on a former occasion. The noble Lord stated that a Chinese despatch had taken four hours to translate, which he had hurriedly contradicted at the moment. Since that time he had seen several gentlemen conversant with such matters, Mr. Oliphant among others, and they had assured him that the noble Lord was perfectly correct. The fact told in Mr. Bruce's favour, and he was anxious not to do an injustice to any one. He would not longer trespass on the time of the House, except to again urge upon the Government the duty of restoring peace between the two coun-
  1886
  tries, and to use every exertion to avoid a waste of blood and treasure.
  Amendment proposed,
  "To leave out from the word 'That' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words in orderto remove one great obstacle to Peace with China, the British Plenipotentiary be instructed not to insist on the fulfilment of the third Article of the Treaty of Tien-tsin, by which his Majesty the Emperor of China agrees that the Ambassador, Minister, or other Diplomatic Agent appointed by Her Majesty the Queen of Great Britain may reside, with his family and establishment, permanently at the capital, or may visit it occasionally, at the option of the British Government.'"
  —instead thereof.
  LORD JOHN RUSSELL: Sir, the hon. Gentleman cannot but be aware that he is making a Motion not only must unusual in form, but which interferes with the authority of the Crown. He seems altogether unmindful of the fact that the Earl of Elgin is sent out by Her Majesty. He has received his instructions from Her Majesty, and he will conduct himself according to those instructions. It is impossible, if this Motion were agreed to, that Mr. Speaker should undertake to send out instructions to the Earl of Elgin. If he really meant to attain his object, the hon. Gentleman should have moved an Address to the Crown, praying Her Majesty to give these instructions to the Earl of Elgin. If the House of Commons were to undertake to give instructions to our Ministers at foreign Courts contradictory to those which have been given by Her Majesty, the greatest confusion would be introduced into our affairs. It is quite impossible, therefore, for the hon. Gentleman to insist on his Motion. With regard to the Motion itself, it is answered in a very few words. He tells us that the Chinese look upon it as a great degradation to have a foreign Minister resident in Pekin, that the people would rise, that the Emperor of China would be lowered in the eyes of his subjects, and that it would be impossible to insist on the condition without completely ruining the authority of the Emperor. But it so happens that after the Earl of Elgin had advanced that condition and had inserted it in the Treaty of Tien-tsin, Russia, having a title to every advantage we gained, claimed the privilege of sending a Minister to Pekin. The Chinese Government did not object to his going there, they only pointed out that they wished him to go by the Overland route. He did go by the Overland route, he was received with great distinction at

  1887
  the Chinese frontier, he went to Pekin, and he has been resident there a great many months. Yet, the empire of China has not fallen, the Emperor of China is apparently not degraded. The' people of Pekin have had an opportunity, perhaps the first, of seeing that there are other potentates in the world besides their Emperor, other States, the sovereigns of which are not his vassals and subjects, but claim an equal rank with him. This fact has been revealed to them, and we should add nothing to the demonstration by sending a British Minister to reside at Pekin. The Earl of Elgin, with whom I have had many conversations on this point, always said that the state of the question was entirely changed now, because, as there is a Russian Minister resident at Pekin, it would be impossible for the Chinese Government to argue that they could not grant a right to Great Britain which they have granted to Russia, and which has been exercised by Russia without dispute. That being the case, the Earl of Elgin was of opinion—as were all the Members of the Cabinet—that we should insist on the condition that a British Minister should reside at Pekin, not as a punishment to the Chinese, but as a condition which had been agreed to by the Emperor himself. The option of the British Minister residing at Pekin or elsewhere was an indulgence agreed to by the Earl of Elgin after the Emperor of China had approved the treaty—it was an option to he exercised by the British Government, not by the Emperor of China. That which the hon. Gentleman says the Chinese would never agree to was actually in the Treaty of Tien-tsin, and was agreed to not only by the Ministers of the Emperor, but was confirmed by the special ratification of the Emperor himself. In the first place, it is quite impossible that this House can give instructions to our Minister contradictory to those which Her Majesty herself has given, and in the next place there is no reason why those instructions should be altered. I hope, therefore, that the House will not agree to the Motion.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.

  SUPPLY.—CHINA WAR.
  House in Committee.
  Mr. MASSEY in the Chair.
  £443,896 Repayment of Advances on account of former Expeditions to China.
  LORD JOHN MANNERS: I should like to ask whether any Member of the Government can tell us when the East India Company announced to the Imperial Government that the money was not only-due, but that payment was expected during the present financial year?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: In point of fact the true explanation of this case is to be found in the nature of the system which prevails between the two Governments, whereby payments are in fact allowances made on an open account. The British Government has at present, under the system under which it supplies so very large a British force to India, very large claims against the Indian Government, and the consequence of that is that the Indian Government can withhold satisfaction of the claims sent to them, and thus pay themselves. The British Government is not in a state to prevent the operation unless in case we happen to be debtors to the Indian Government, and then it is a question of account before the balance is liquidated. I think the question of my noble Friend is, when the Government became aware that the Indian Government had made these stoppages. I can ascertain that exactly by inquiry. I myself was not aware of it until a fortnight or three weeks ago. I believe that before the commencement of the last quarter the Treasury were made aware of it, but I only knew of it within the last two or three weeks, since the time when my statement was made to Parliament with respect to Chinese expenditure. Upon inquiry a more particular answer can be given to the question.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: I wish to ask the right hon. Secretary for War how soon he thinks the Returns will be laid on the Table for which I moved the day before yesterday, as I think it will throw light on the subject?
  MR. SIDNEY HERBERT: I will take care that it shall be laid on the table as soon as possible, but I am afraid it will not throw any great deal of light upon the subject, because I stated that the figures were entirely conjectural, and of course the Government will not be bound by a Return of that character.
  MR. BRIGHT: I wish to ask a question of some Member of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the amount of force out in China. If I am not mistaken, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for India stated that the amount

  1889
  of force ordered was not more than 10,000 men. We hear now that there are 20,000 men there. I will not go into the question whether 20,000 were necessary, or 10,000 not enough. I believe that for any purpose contemplated by the Government, however unjust, 10,000 would be ample. But I should like to know who ordered that increase of force—whether it was the decision of the Cabinet, whether it was the decision of some authorities in India, or whether it was the decision of the Horse Guards at home. It makes a great difference in the expense, which embarrasses the House and is embarrassing and threatens to be very perilous to the Government. I do not know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the noble Lord at the head of the Government, the Secretary of State for War, or the Secretary of State for India can answer,—because it may be under either of those four heads; but can any one tell us anything about it? The House has a right to know. I, therefore, take the liberty of putting a distinct question, and I hope I shall have a distinct answer.
  MR. SIDNEY HERBERT: I think that on a former occasion both myself and my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for India, stated the intentions of the Government as to what force should be employed. I should say that Estimates framed by the Earl Canning, on the representations of Lord Clyde, differed from the estimate at which we arrived. When first we became aware of the events which took place at the Peiho, we sent reinforcements to the garrisons of the ports in China, fearing some general rising against the European population, and thinking it better to have at those ports a sufficient force to guard British life and property. We stated at the same time that it was the intention of the Government to send, in the spring, a larger force for operations in the North. The Indian Government wrote to us that they were about to send a force, on the whole, larger than we contemplated. We endeavoured to arrest their departure by communication; but it is not so easy to conduct war at that immense distance; especially as the basis of operations was beyond the reach of constant communication with ourselves. Under those circumstances a larger force was sent. The force now in China amounts to between 17,000 and 18,000 men. The expeditionary force itself is about 10,000. The rest form the garrison, and there are about 1,700 men detained at Singapore as a reserve.
  MR. BRIGHT: I do not ask any question about the French force, and I do not know that we have anything to do with it; but, of course, the amount of the French force bears on the necessity of so large an English force. I should like to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will lay upon the table of the House any correspondence between the Government and the Government of India upon this subject? Bad as our condition is, it will be ten times worse if Lord Clyde, or any one else, can send off 10,000 men without orders from the Cabinet; and, without knowing what policy is to be pursued, can ship off some 5,000 or 10,000 men numberless miles further, and then send in the bill for payment to the English nation. Nothing is more likely to preserve our finances in a chronic state of embarrassment, and cause endless difficulty to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Of course there must be despatches; and I wish to know whether the Government will let the House know by whose authority, and in what manner, this extraordinary act has been committed, by which an unnecessarily large force is accumulated in China—increasing the temptation to the authorities there to enter into warlike proceedings; aggravating the expenditure, and therefore increasing the taxation of the people. If the Government tell us they will give the despatches, we shall know all about it; all which the statement of the right hon. Gentleman does not tell us, and which ought to be known.
  MR. SIDNEY HERBERT: I will look through the despatches and see if they can be given; hut, of course, many communications took place by telegraph. Let me add, that Lord Clyde had been in China; and it was not unnatural that Earl Canning should be influenced by his opinion. I know that the opinion of Lord Clyde was, that a large demonstration was more likely to terminate these differences rapidly, and prevent the effusion of blood; and therefore to say that the act was without the consent of the Cabinet, when it was only in anticipation, is to cast blame when it is not deserved.
  MR. BRIGHT: I am not about to cast blame. What I want to know are the facts. But I protest against the assumption just made that Lord Clyde thought this or that. I might think that a great demonstration would prevent the effusion of blood; but, whatever I might think, neither I nor Lord Clyde had a right to send a single soldier beyond what was or-

  1891
  dered by the Government. If the course to be taken is to be dictated by public servants thousands of miles off, the Cabinet may as well be dethroned, and the House of Commons may as well abdicate its functions.
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONE: There is another point of great importance. This House ought to be in possession of accurate details of the monthly expenditure with regard to this war. We have 17,000 men in China, but those 17,000 men are attended by a very large number of camp followers. There is also a large Transport Service, and the price of coal is 60 s. or 70 s. a ton. The cost, therefore, of carrying on warfare at that distance must be enormous. I believe that this war will last for a very long time, and under the present policy I do not see any end to it. But it will not do for the hon. Member for Manchester to object. It is really a Manchester war. It was originally got up for the purpose of creating traffic with China, and forcing our manufactures upon that people. I do not see how it is possible for my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester to stand up and find fault with a war which he and his Friends were the first to commence. But we ought to consider the position in which we are placed. We can exercise no control. The Governor General sends on troops when he pleases, and the accounts are always running. We shall find our finances in a very extraordinary state if we do not very speedily bring the matter within compass; and, as a first step, we ought to know what are the actual monthly outgoings.
  MR. BRIGHT: I trust the House will allow me to interfere for a moment. The hon. Gentleman ought first to recollect that I am not the Member for Manchester; and, secondly, that there have been no greater opponents of mine in that city than those who are connected with the China trade. It was exactly upon that question that I ceased to be Member for Manchester. Further than that, the House must recollect that the origin of all the calamities in China, as stated by the hon. Member for Lanarkshire, has been connected with the trade in opium and not the trade in cotton. If there be any Friend of mine who believes that honest trade can be promoted by this policy, I can only say I will utterly repudiate him and his views.
  MR. ROEBUCK: I was anxious to rise before the hon. Member for Birmingham
  1892
  (Mr. Bright), in order by my independent evidence to exculpate him. But while exculpating him there are others who do deserve blame. I remember once a majority against the noble Lord at the head of the Government, joined by the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Secretary for War, and the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs. They were all then virtuously indignant at this Chinese war. We were told that we had so advanced in knowledge that we ought to set an example in virtue and forbearance; but that we were about to impose by force, on a people who in religion were much beneath us, and in virtue could not dare to compete with us, a traffic which was odious to them; that we were about to send a force to thurst down the throats of that people a drug the consumption of which violated one of the first principles of their morality. And there was a party in this country—connected, I believe, with Manchester, but to which I do not say that the hon. Member for Birmingham did then, or does now, belong—who sided with the noble Lord at the head of the Government in a war with China. The House of Commons placed these men in a minority. The noble Lord then appealed, as the cant phrase is, to the country. The country gave him an acquittal, and supported him in the policy which he had adopted, and now we have to pay for it. We are not yet at the end of the Bill, though. At the commencement of the Session we were told that the Estimates would be laid on the table, and that we should soon know what the China war would cost us. The Estimates were laid on the table. Persons whose ill fate it always is to find fault, said we did not know what the whole amount would be; and in reply they were told that they were always groaning, always grumbling, always prophesying evil. Then came the Chancellor of the Exchequer with a Bill of £4,000,000 more. But £4,000,000 more is not the end of it. And what has all this outlay been for? The original object of this war was to maintain the opium trade for India. That was the end which the war was really intended by the country and by the Government to attain. The House of Commons repudiated the transaction; but the people of the country, fascinated by the prospect of getting our manufactures introduced into China, aided and abetted the Government in a most immoral war. I am glad that there is a Nemesis. The punishment has followed

  1893
  swiftly on the crime. We have now £4,000,000 of money to pay; and the happy expectation is, that to the Bill £4,000,000 more will soon be added. [An Hon. MEMBER: "It will be £6,000,000.] Aye, £6,000,000, I warrant you, and more than that. The people of this country must learn that they cannot break through the great principles of justice and morality and expect to retain the good opinion of the world. This House—no, not this House, but one which preceded it—did its best to prevent the calamity. The present House has aided and assisted, as much as it could, the noble Lord in the career in which he is now running. We are now reaping the first fruits of his policy; the last fruits we have yet to see. It will be a lucky thing if we see them twenty years hence.
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONE: I have to offer an apology to my hon. Friend opposite for having connected his name with the imputation which I cast on that section of politicians to whom I believe this war is duo. I had not the honour of a seat in the House at the time when these occurrences took place, and I had forgotten some of the circumstances. But in my place in this House, I must express my conviction that the Chinese war was originated by the pressure of that party in this House, and that if that war be not arrested, its consequences will prove highly disastrous to this country.
  SIR CHARLES DOUGLASobserved that nothing could be more natural than that Earl Canning should be guided by the opinions of Lord Clyde; but he should be glad to know whether Lord Clyde was aware of the amount of force sent by the French to China, and of the policy of the Government at home when he recommended the additional men to be sent.
  LORD LOVAINEsaid, he trusted that the House, and especially those who represented the commercial party in it, would profit by the severe lesson which was now being administered. He hoped that the policy which had involved us in that war would be abandoned; that the desire to extend our commerce would not be indulged beyond its legitimate bounds; and that we should not again be driven to support our commercial policy by force of arms.
  SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, the preparations in India were made in the first instance without any instructions from home, upon the receipt of the intelligence from China of the affairs at the Peiho. The
  1894
  consequence was that a much larger force was ultimately sent to China than was thought necessary by the Cabinet. Even after the instructions had been sent out to India, Earl Canning still doubted the expediency of sending so small a force to China, and on the advice of Lord Clyde recommended the employment of a much larger force.
  MR. SCLATER BOOTHsaid, that he had been for some weeks engaged in assisting a friend of his in bringing under the consideration of the Government a mine in Formosa, from which, it was alleged, coal could be raised at a cost of from 6s. to 12 s. per ton. He was desirous of knowing whether the Government had taken any steps in the matter.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, they were now called upon to vote £443,896 for a purpose which had nothing to do with the present war, and he therefore hoped that that war would be left entirely out of consideration while that item was being discussed. The observations of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright) showed that they were in imminent danger of bills being run up on account of India which this country would have to pay. Such was the position in which they now stood. This £443,896 had been so incurred, but no Gentleman could now object to its being paid. He did not, however, think that any Gentleman knew for what that debt had been incurred, and he submitted, therefore, that the Government ought to prepare a balance-sheet showing the purposes to which it had been applied. It was obvious, now that the old Government of India was done away with, we were in still greater danger than we were during its existence of having more debts of a similar kind incurred, which of course would have to be paid. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War had stated that there had been no settlement come to with the Indian Government since 1848. That was eleven years ago, and other debts night have been incurred since. He should, therefore, like to know up to what period this £443,896 would balance the account. Did it clear the account up to 1858–59? He believed not. He bad also understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that there was a sum of £281,000 yet in dispute. Was there still a large amount outstanding on account of a previous China war? These were points which the Committee should clearly understand, before they passed the Vote now

  1895
  applied for. They ought to be specially guarded upon this point, because they had heard from the right hon. Gentleman that an account was already running up with the Indian Government amounting to nearly £2,000,000 for the present war. The Vote under consideration was only a sample of others which would follow in the course of time. There was no hope, he supposed, of finding out how the debt was incurred; but it was the duty of the Committee to insist upon the production of a balance-sheet, showing how the Indian Government ran up these accounts against the British purse. Unless they did that the two finances would become perplexingly intermixed. He had the greatest fears for the finances of India; those of our own country did not present a very pleasant prospect. It was high time that steps should be taken to check these demands upon the national Exchequer. He therefore requested the Secretary of War to state distinctly the period up to which this sum of £443,896 balanced the account, and whether there was any other debt still outstanding.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, this was the third time this country had been compelled to wage war with China, and on each occasion it was for pretty nearly the same cause—namely, their utter disregard of treaties we had made with them, and our obstinate persistence in our own course. By the two former wars we were compelled to garrison Hong Kong and Canton. The present war arose from our insisting upon the strict observance of the third article of the Treaty of Tien-tsin. That treaty entitled us to have an ambassador at Pekin. But how did we attempt to carry that into effect? We made a military demonstration, and we told the Chinese we could only approach the capital in our own way. But instead of insisting upon what we considered a fit and suitable mode of approaching their capital we might have done the same as the Americans, who were quite as tenacious as ourselves of their dignity, and have followed the advice of the Chinese Government by taking a different route. Had this been done our Ambassador would have been received with honour, our treaty confirmed, and this war rendered unnecessary. But we had obstinately pursued our course, and what was the result? Brave lives and British blood had been sacrificed, and no benefit had been obtained. Our pertinacity, obstinacy, and pride had been the cause of all this.
  1896
  He did not doubt that we should be victorious in the present war, and that we should get another treaty, or a piece of paper containing certain conditions. But to ensure those conditions being adhered to, what must be done? Were our men to remain in China and garrison the Peiho? Nothing short of this would secure the performance of those conditions, and we should further have to garrison Hong Kong, Canton, and Shanghae. This would impose a permanent charge upon the country which he was sure would not be submitted to. Under these circumstances he hoped Her Majesty's Government would regard more attentively the probabilities of the future, and provide in some better manner than had hitherto been done for the ratification of the treaty which would follow a successful termination of this war.
  MR. CAVEsaid, he wished to make a suggestion in reference to the expense of the war in connection with our occupation of Canton. He was told that the English authorities kept order in the town, paid the police and other expenses, and then handed over the balance to the Chinese Treasury. He also heard that the Governor of Canton was most anxious that we should still occupy the town, because we gave him a larger revenue than he ever had before. The people, on their part, were equally anxious, because they were protected in purse and in person, which had never been the case before. Now it appeared to him that that balance of the revenue, instead of being placed at the disposition of the Governor of Canton, ought to be paid into a reserve fund to provide for any indemnity which we might require in future from the Chinese on account of their well-known disregard of treaties, and our consequent loss and misfortune. He entirely concurred with the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck) in the sentiments he had expressed, and no one admired more than he the humane policy of modern times, which mitigated the horrors of war as far as the unarmed and defenceless population of a country was concerned. But he was bound to say that he thought it was carrying that principle a little too far when warfare was made so agreeable to our enemies that the event they regarded with the most dissatisfaction was the return of peace.
  MR. ROEBUCK: The hon. Member for Evesham (Sir Henry Willoughby) has demanded a balance-sheet. In that demand I fully concur. But there is another thing

  1897
  for which I would also ask, and that is that Her Majesty's Government should tell us what we are to gain by this war. What object have they in view, and what benefit is to be conferred by so extraordinary an expenditure of blood and treasure as that now contemplated? It was my fate to sit on the benches opposite, just under the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he delivered a speech to this House, than which I never heard one more startling, which more enchained attention, or which more completely won admiration and esteem. He then, Sir, fulminated against the Administration of that day for undertaking a Chinese war. He pointed out how vain were the ends they sought; and how mischievous were the means they took to attain those ends. But now, places being changed, opinions change, and I find him supporting the very vote which on that occasion he described as a disgrace to the country. The very words of that speech are now ringing in my ears, and I recollect turning round to the right hon. Gentleman and expressing to him—very presumptuously perhaps, but very sincerely—my earnest admiration both of the sentiments he then expressed and the manner in which he uttered them. Little did I think it would be my fate within three years to sit opposite that right hon. Gentleman, and find him the most eloquent supporter of this most atrocious proceeding. At that time, Sir, he spoke with an eloquence which was impressive, startling, and affecting. There could be no mistake as to his meaning, and no doubt as to his feelings. He did not then cover up his meaning with a multitude of words. He did not on that occasion smother his feelings in a multitudinous assemblage of verbiage. Not a bit of it. He was plain, succinct, and, on that occasion, very effective. So much so, indeed, that the effect of his speech on my mind, and upon the mind of the country, has lasted to this hour; and if I want a strong argument against the Chinese war, I have only to go to the quiver of the right hon. Gentleman and draw out the most effective arrow that could be discharged against that project. But, Sir, I want to know why this change has taken place. How is it that that which in 1857 was considered so very immoral becomes in 1860 so very right and proper? And why, descending from one step to another, do we find the right hon. Gentleman now an advocate for that which he then most violently and most success-
  1898
  fully attacked? I would again ask any right hon. Gentleman on the Ministerial benches to state to this House the object which they expect to gain, and what benefit they expect this country to derive from an expenditure of blood and treasure, the end of which we do not now see, and from the violation of every principle of morality which was in 1857 so effectively defended by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I would ask him, and his colleagues who on that occasion went with him into the lobby, how it is that, on this occasion, black has become white and white has become black?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I feel no difficulty whatever—[Much laughter.] I was going to add, if I had not been interrupted by the humorous reception of my first words, that I felt no difficulty whatever, although I felt a good deal of pain, in answering the challenge of the hon. and learned Gentleman. He asks how it is possible for a man to be so inconsistent as to have objected to a war with China in 1857, and to be the supporter of a Vote to carry on a war with China in 1860? The explanation of the fact, I apprehend, is this:—The nature of these two wars is entirely distinct—their causes are entirely different. It may be that the war in 1857 was right and the present war is wrong; or it may be that the present war is right and the war of 1857 was wrong; or it may be that both are right, or it may be that both are wrong. Without inflicting a multitudinous assemblage of words upon the hon. and learned Gentleman, there is here an abundant choice of alternatives. With respect to the present war, I hope I have never spoken of it in any other terms except those of the deepest regret and lamentation. I conceive that the steps taken by the Government have been adopted in conformity with their public duty, and, painful as that duty has been, I do not think that that opinion has been at all confined to such Members of the House as have changed places since 1857, because the policy of the Government had not been challenged in this House. And, though I for one have seen with the greatest satisfaction that the House was disposed to deplore the occurrences which have rendered the war with China inevitable, yet I think hon. Gentlemen, generally speaking, admit the existence of its necessity. When we found what had taken place at the mouth of the Peiho, the hon. and learned Gentleman

  1899
  will, I am sure, admit that while we deemed it to be our duty, in the interests of our countrymen and humanity at large, to send a considerable force to China, we at the same time manifested a desire to make that force the bearer of a message containing terms as moderate as it was possible for us, under the circumstances, to propose. I do not believe any hon. Gentleman has stated it to be his belief that those terms inclined to the side of violence or severity. Sir, I, for one, have ventured, perhaps in excess of my duty, to point out in remarks lately made in this House what I consider to be the root of these wars. I have never attempted to dissemble in this matter, or to gloss over the evils in respect to it with which we were called upon to deal by an appeal to national pride. Upon the contrary, it has always appeared to me right that the House should be afforded a full view of the enormous cost of this war, and should be made alive to the possibility of the renewal from time to time of a great expenditure for the prosecution of hostilities with China, unless we adopt wise and prudent rules to guide us in all our transactions in the East. I cannot regret that hon. Members should have an opportunity of daily weighing all the social and political responsibility which this quarrel involves. I, therefore, feel I have no reason to shirk the questions which, in a temper of which I have no reason to complain, have been put to me by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite.
  I now turn to the observations of the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir James Elphinstone) who has expressed a wish to know what the monthly disbursements are on account of this war with China. My answer to the hon. Gentleman must be that it is entirely beyond our power to furnish him with any trustworthy accounts of that nature. In regard to a war of that nature, having its basis of operations in India, it would be a mockery to attempt to render any precise information, such as that for which the hon. Member asks. I may, however, state that we have framed the best estimates in our power from such unofficial data as the Indian Government have supplied, and our knowledge of what has actually taken place in China. We are not, I may add, aware that there is any ground for the assertion which is made by the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield and others, that all the money which we require at your hands has been already spent, and that many more millions will be required
  1900
  in order to defray the expenses of the year. At the same time I feel it my duty frankly to state, now that hostilities have broken out, that this whole matter is full of uncertainty. One piece of information, I may say in conclusion, which I can give the hon. Member for Portsmouth—if he should wish to have it—is the amount of the draughts drawn by the Treasury Chest in China upon the Treasury at home, with the view mainly of meeting the expenses of the war. But even that account, if furnished, would not be very explicit, inasmuch as the ordinary and extraordinary expenditure could not be distinguished on the face of it. It simply remains for me to add that the Government are in possession of no information on this subject which they are not desirous to lay before the House.
  MR. BRIGHTreminded the right hon. Gentleman that he had not answered the question put to him by the hon. Member for Evesham (Sir Henry Willoughby) with respect to the advances made by the East India to the Home Government.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the estimated amount of those advances during the years 1848–49 and 1858–59, was £281,396, while the charge at the end of last year, on account of the Indian military force sent to China, was £82,500, there being a further charge of of £80,000 for the augmentation of that force, which sums, added together, gave the total of £443,000 and odd, provided for in the Estimate which had been laid on the table. His right hon. Friend near him (Mr. Sidney Herbert) had read a document to the Committee in which it was stated, and he believed with truth, that the accounts for the last China war were not yet closed, various items remaining over to be adjusted. So far, therefore, as the details of the expenditure were concerned, no balance-sheet had been rendered. The audit of those accounts was, however, in progress, and although several points with respect to them still continued open, he did think the sum dependent on those points for adjustment were very large.
  MR. BERNAL OSBORNEsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had given no answer to the important question which had been put to him by the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield with reference to the objects of the war.
  MR. A. MILLSremarked that if the observations which the right hon. Gentleman had just made were to be regarded as

  1901
  furnishing an explanation of the policy of the Government in the case of China, he could only say that explanation left that which was before sufficiently inexplicable in total darkness.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he wished to know whether the Government could not place upon the table the balance-sheet to which he had drawn their attention, so far as it went.
  SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, he did not think there would be any advantage in producing a statement of accounts which he believed had been actually balanced only up to the end of 1854.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, it would be useful to have a balance-sheet up to the year in which there was a balance.
  LORD JOHN MANNERS: The right hon. Gentleman has not deigned to give any reply to the questions which have been addressed to him as to the real objects of the war for which this Vote is to be taken. He, however, favoured us with a declaration, which I should have been glad to hear if it were of any practical value, to the effect that unless wise and humane rules were adhered to in the conduct of hostilities with China, nothing but evil could in his opinion result from the contest. But I may be permitted to remind the right hon. Gentleman that if such rules are observed something very different would have taken place from that by which preceding wars in China have been characterized. I may add, that although the right hon. Gentleman gives us no more satisfactory assurance than that which I just mentioned, he assumes a position which I venture to dispute, and which is that this House has sanctioned the war with China, and that it is being carried on with our full approval. Now, let me tell the right hon. Gentleman that this war was virtually commenced not only without the consent of Parliament, but that military proceedings had been entered upon and a large expenditure on account of it incurred even before Parliament assembled, and that this is really the first opportunity on which the opinion of the House of Commons has been tested on the subject. And how, let me ask, is that opinion now tested? Why, by laying before us a gigantic bill for a sum which has been virtually expended, and the payment of which we have, consequently, no power to resist. I am, however, happy to think that, so far as the debate to-night has gone, no inadequate test of the view which the House of Commons takes on this question
  1902
  has been afforded; and I would entreat the Government to reflect, to weigh well the fact, that scarcely a single Gentleman on either side of the House has in the course of this discussion risen to express any sympathy in the objects for which this war is undertaken. For my own part, I earnestly pray and hope that this melancholy and miserable contest may be brought to as speedy a termination as possible, and that the utmost consideratiun may in its prosecution be shown for the feelings of the Chinese people.
  LORD JOHN RUSSELL: I have heard again from a Member of the late Government the expression of his ignorance of the objects of the war with China, but surely if any Gentlemen in this House ought to be informed as to the origin of that war, those are they who chose a Minister to go to China, who appointed an Admiral who was to command our vessels in the Chinese waters, who gave instructions to Mr. Bruce, and who directed from the Admiralty that he should be accompanied by a sufficient force, said one Minister; by an imposing force, said another Minister. We were, like the rest of the House, astonished, and at the same time grieved, by the arrival of the news from the Peiho. Those events were not of our preparation. We had not appointed the Minister, nor had we given him his instructions, but there came upon us this calamity, and now it appears that the noble Lord and the right hon. Gentleman the late First Lord of the Admiralty hold us responsible for that calamity. Well, the noble Lord seems to think we were not afflicted by this intelligence. But we are not to be supposed to be less than other Members of this House, or than any person in this country, afflicted by this intelligence, or to grieve less for the loss of our countrymen. I apprehend that we regarded with more sorrow than any one else the renewal of the war. We did grieve deeply to receive this news, but it was not the less our duty to consider what, as the Ministers of our Queen and of the country, it behoved us to do under the circumstances. The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Sykes) says, to my surprise, we might have taken the same course that the Americans took; but they took that course, not having sent out an imposing force to the Peiho, and not having endured this calamity. The time had passed. I am not now disputing whether that was a wise and a dignified course which was taken by the Americans, but the time had past

  1903
  when we could take that course. It seemed to us, not only from the first aspect of affairs, but from every account that came from China, that unless we asked for some reparation upon a basis honourable to this country, the lives and property of every British merchant and subject in China would be exposed to great danger. It was our business—it is our business—to protect the lives and the property of our countrymen. That duty we are bound to perform, and that duty we will perform. I am told that this war may cost much treasure. I regret much that our treasure should be lost. I am told that it may expose the lives of many gallant men. I lament that those lives should be exposed to danger. I lament the loss of life that may occur, but it is our business, as representing this great empire, to see that the subjects of this empire are not injured. It is our duty to see to that; but if the noble Lord or any one else thinks we are pursuing a wrong course, I can only say that at the commencement of the Session we described the general course we were pursuing, and, if I mistake not, we took a Vote of money on account of it. The noble Lord then, or any other Member, might have moved an Address to the Crown praying that no naval or military forces should be sent to China, that we should rest contented with the disaster at the Peiho, that we should not take any steps to resent it, but that we should continue, without the enforcement of the Treaty of Tien-tsin, upon our ordinary relations of peace without making any demand for reparation. That was in the noble Lord's power; and if his opinion is what it appears now to be, why did he not take that course, and boldly take the opinion of the House upon the subject? But no; the general opinion was that we could not sit down under the disaster. I am now told that for the sake of morality we should be satisfied. It is an odd way of teaching morality to say that a treaty having been made with a nation, when a Minister comes to ratify it, that nation shall not give him any notice that he will not be received if he conies by a certain route, but shall enter into apparently friendly relations with him, and receive his announcement that he intended to take a certain route, which was the common and usual route to the capital, and then that it should place in that route an army and cannon prepared with the exact range of his vessels, in order to destroy him.
  1904
  That is the way in which the Chinese endeavoured to teach us morality. I know not that by submitting to that course we shall be doing anything to promote morality. But it is quite certain that the terms we proposed, seeing what a dreadful calamity war is, were not severe terms, but were moderate terms, such as, no doubt, required a disavowal and apology for those proceedings; but as to the terms of our future relations upon which this nation proposed to live in amity with China, they were no other than the terms to which the Emperor of China had already given his solemn assent, to which we asked for no addition. We sought no additional articles, but we asked for the execution of the Treaty. I am told, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is told, that those who were against the war on a former occasion must also be against it on the present occasion. The cause of the war may be utterly different, and it is the most absurd thing in the world to say that because a man was against a war with a certain cause, therefore he should be against a war with a different cause. Mr. Burke was taunted in the same manner when he approved the French war. He was told, "You opposed the war with America, and it is inconsistent for you to support the French war." This argument is, that because you think there is not sufficient cause for one war, therefore there is not sufficient cause for any war. Sir, I do not disguise from myself, and none of Her Majesty's advisers disguise from themselves, the fact that the entering upon a new war with China is a great calamity. We believe that the Chinese themselves are not hostile towards English traders who resort to their shores, and we find that the relations of commerce have continued uninterrupted from the day of the events at the Peiho down to the present time. Our orders have always been to confine the war as much as possible to those who are engaged in hostilities, and not to extend its misfortunes to innocent persons pursuing their usual occupations, and who are willing to enter into relations of amity with us. I believe those relations exist and will continue, and that the struggle will be between Her Majesty's forces and the forces of the Emperor of the French on the one hand, and the forces of the Emperor of China on the other; and, so believing, I cannot but think that the war will be of short duration. But, at all events, as I have said, it is our duty to

  1905
  protect the lives and property of British subjects. Those lives and that property-have been endangered by an act of a Government which has made a solemn treaty with us; and when, in defiance of that solemn treaty, that Government sends a body of soldiers to attack our sailors and subjects, I say we are bound to demand some reparation for that injury, and to place our relations with that country in such a state that the Emperor of China and his Ministers shall respect this nation as one that is equal, at least, to the Chinese in all the qualities that become a great and independent nation.
  MR. T. BARING: Sir, I find it is said that this war is to be carried on in favour of commerce. As one somewhat interested with commerce, I must say I do not believe that so far as commerce is concerned there can be a more unfortunate event than this war. I say that for the protection of trade and of those engaged in trade it is not necessary that we should insist upon our Minister going up to Pekin. If the noble Lord had consulted those who are concerned in trade there, he would have learnt that it is not at Pekin that trade needs protection, but in those ports where commerce is carried on, and where alone British interests should be protected. The noble Lord says, "Why do you accuse us when you, when the Earl of Malmesbury, recommended that our Minister should go up to Pekin?" The representatives of trade will tell the noble Lord that these contests and struggles of party, so far from interesting them, are much against their interests; and if the only answer the noble Lord can give us is that his predecessors did something like what he has done, then I say that trade does not care for either but laments the acts of both. I am bound to say, although I speak in opposition to the opinions of a majority in this House, that I have lamented throughout the policy of this country towards China, and I regret that the policy of Sir John Bowring and the noble Viscount received the approval of the country. I believe that the policy then pursued was the most disadvantageous, I might almost say the most disgraceful, to the country. It has led to what has followed, and the noble Lord and those who sit with him on the Treasury bench may reconcile the fact as they please to their own consciences and feelings. It gave, I say, au impulse to the opposition to what they call in China foreign interference, and we are now reduced to this position—that
  1906
  if you go on with the war in China you may shake the dynasty that reigns there; for if you are successful the feeling in China is not with foreigners—with those whom they look on as barbarians; if you make the Emperor yield he yields against Chinese feeling, he may be shaken from his throne; you may introduce anarchy and confusion, and what you gain for trade you will get by upsetting all the established institutions in China. You are reduced to this most unfortunate alternative—you say you must avenge what has happened at Pekin. The noble Lord says we are to do that for trade, for the protection of the merchants. But we do not for that purpose want to force the passage of the Peiho; still less do we want a Minister at Pekin. The noble Lord said, the whole thing is now changed; Russia has a Minister at Pekin, therefore we must have a Minister at Pekin too. Now I do not want a Minister at Pekin unless it will benefit British interests, although Russia may have a Minister there. I believe Russia in old times had a representative at Pekin; but if we had a Minister at Pekin, and France had a Minister there, and the United States too, all they would do would be to quarrel with one another, to introduce a system of jealousy and confusion, as has been done in other countries by diplomatic bodies. We do not want diplomacy, but trade, in China, and we want protection in those places where trade is carried on. This is not to be gained by forcing the entrance of the Peiho or establishing a Minister at Pekin. The noble Lord said this war was a defence of morality—we must teach the Chinese morality.
  LORD JOHN RUSSELL: I beg pardon of the hon. Gentleman. It was said on the other side that for the sake of morality we ought not to make war with China. I was answering that argument. I did not say we were teaching them morality.
  MR. T. BARING: One great mistake we have made all along in China is that we seem to think that country is like France, or any of the other Powers of Europe, and we must force on China the same arrangements we have established with those Powers with which we have been for a long time connected. I believe that China, in view and feeling, is perfectly distinct from other civilized countries. I believe that if you seek to force on China a system of diplomacy and policy like that established among the European Powers you will have a great deal before you. You

  1907
  will never do much except to damage the trade of this country and force yourselves into repeated, constant, and, perhaps, unfortunate wars.
  SIR CHARLES NAPIERsaid, the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck) had asked what would be got by the war; the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. B. Osborne) had asked what was the object of the war; but, for his part, he should like to know if the object of France and England were exactly the same, and why the Earl of Elgin did not remain in China and see his own treaty carried into execution?
  LORD ROBERT CECILsaid, he would call the attention of the Government to only one point—how to prevent the recurrence of these wars. It was not fair for one party to cast blame on the other for these wars. Cabinets were mere puppets in such cases. They were invariably dragged into such contests by the unbridled combativeness of officials in those distant parts. Until they restrained the officials they employed they never would be able to prevent the recurrence of these wars. Mr. Bruce had led them into one war, Sir John Bowring had dragged them into another; Mr. Murray had dragged them into the Persian war, and the Marquess of Dalhousie into the Burmese war. If our officials led us into embarrassments with a European Power, as all officials thought themselves at liberty to do in Asia, they would be immediately recalled or disavowed; and until some condemnation was uttered, not only by that House, which had done its best, but by the Government, against those persons who had dragged us into these wars, it would be vain to suppose that any other measures they could adopt would be effectual to prevent their recurrence.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: The noble Lord who has just sat down seems inclined to think that all the officials employed abroad by the Government in different administrations have violated their duty by dragging this country into unnecessary wars. I venture to say that if anybody will look into the circumstances to which he alludes he will find that these officials have done their duty and no more than their duty to this country. The hon. Gentleman who spoke before him greatly perverted and misrepresented the argument of- my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. He wished the Committee to understand that my noble Friend had said that we want to go to Pekin there to trade—"Why
  1908
  don't you go," said the hon. Gentleman, "to Ningpo, Shanghai, and Canton? If trade be your object, you ought not to insist on the terms you are requiring from the Chinese Government." But does the hon. Gentleman think that trade in a country like China can be secure unless your fellow subjects have certain rights and privileges assured to them? Does he think that a great number of British merchants would establish themselves on the coasts and in the towns of a remote country without any security whatever arising from the compacts made with the Government of that country that their persons and property would be safe? The hon. Gentleman knows commercial transactions too well, he is too well aware of the sentiments and opinions of merchants not to know that such a supposition is utterly inconsistent and untenable. It is perfectly well known that in order to enjoy good and advantageous trade with a country you must have treaty conditions and engagements by which your merchants who enter into transactions in that country may be secure, that they shall not suffer injustice either from individuals or from the Government. That is the object with which our treaties with China have been concluded. It is very well now to endeavour to treat lightly all such compacts obtained from the Chinese Government, but does the hon. Gentleman not remember with what acclamations of applause the treaty concluded by Sir Henry Pottinger was received in this country? Does he not recollect the anticipations which then prevailed in the mind of every one of the commercial advantages to be derived from that treaty? And although these anticipations may not have been realized to their full extent, yet allow me to say the increase of our commercial transactions with China since that treaty, and in consequence of that treaty, has been such as fully justified the policy of the Governments by whose instructions that treaty was concluded, and under whose auspices the ratifications were exchanged. Why, Sir, I had the honour of sending out the instructions under which Sir Henry Pottinger acted; the Earl of Derby's was the Government by whom that treaty was received, and who took credit for the transaction, and, so far from dealing with it as a light and insignificant treaty, were the first to proclaim that it would be attended with great advantage to the commercial interests of the country. After that came the transactions in the Canton river, to

  1909
  which the hon. Gentleman (Mr. B. Cochrane) traced the present war. Why, Sir, the present war has nothing whatever to do with those transactions. That is a most unjust and injurious charge to bring on the name of Sir John Bowring. Sir John Bowring had no more to do with the causes of the present state of affairs in China than the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. The late Government authorized the conclusion of the Treaty of Tien-tsin. The late Government sent out, as my noble Friend stated, a Minister, to be supported by a sufficient force, in order to exchange the ratifications of that treaty at Pekin. The Earl of Elgin was not sent out to establish a set of merchants at Pekin; but it was at Pekin, the seat of the Government, that the ratifications of the treaty with the Government were to be exchanged, and without that treaty all our commercial transactions at Canton, Shanghai, and Ningpo and the other parts of the Empire would have been placed in jeopardy. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Baring) says we are dealing with the Chinese on the mistaken notion that they are to be dealt with according to the forms of diplomacy usual in Europe, that the Chinese Government are simple-minded men and know nothing of these forms. But he must know that, of all men, the Chinese attach the most importance to forms. With the Chinese forms are as vital as matters of substance. And, so far from their being ignorant of forms, there is no nation which attaches more importance to the most minute gradation of form, none with whom it is more essential to maintain your own dignity and assert your own rights by binding them with those formalities, the value of which they estimate as well as, if not better than, any other race. Well, our object was to obtain that ratification of the treaty which should be binding on the Emperor of China. The Emperor, by an edict which he ordered to be communicated to our Minister, sanctioned in the fullest manner every article and every word of the treaty; but he knew as well as anybody in Europe does that a treaty, until it has been ratified by the Sovereign, is not obligatory on the Sovereign by whose agents it has been concluded. Therefore, although by an edict addressed to his own Minister the Emperor of China acknowledged and approved every part of that treaty, yet by refusing to exchange the ratifications he endeavoured to hold himself free, and at liberty to break every stipulation to which he had given his sanction. That
  1910
  was a state of things to which it was impossible for the British Government to submit. It was necessary, therefore, that the ratifications should be exchanged, and that by the terms of the treaty itself could be done only at Pekin. It was, therefore, not, as the hon. Member implies, for the purposes of trade that our Minister was to go to Pekin, but to obtain at that capital the ratification of a treaty which was to give security to the trade carried on at other places. It is a gross misrepresentation to pretend, then, that we are going to Pekin for the benefit of trade at Pekin, when the fact is, our object is the benefit of the trade elsewhere. Pekin is the seat of the Imperial Government, where alone the ratification is to be obtained, and, unless it is obtained there, our commerce in every part of China must be insecure.
  It is asked, "Why did you insist upon having direct communication with the capital—why did you insist on having a Minister there?" I say to that, ask those who sent out these instructions. If they do not choose to defend their own proceedings, I will give an answer for them. Ask any of our own merchants connected with China, or any of the merchants associated with them, and they will tell you that we have sustained very considerable inconvenience at different periods from being compelled to carry on our communications with the Chinese Government through their officers at the different outposts, who have played off against us all sorts of excuses and delays, pretending they have received no answer to our remonstrances, putting us off with one frivolous pretext and another, whenever we have complained of serious injuries or the violation of our rights. Everybody acquainted with China thinks we should have the power, whenever we choose, to hold direct communication with the seat of Government itself. What other country in the world with which we have commercial or political relations is there to the centre of whose Government we have not a right to go, and communicate either with the Sovereign or those who are responsible for the conduct of his affairs? I say that for us not to have the power of reaching Pekin and having a representative, either resident there or, at least, able to visit the capital periodically when cirumstances demand it, is to be placed in a position of inferiority in regard to the Chinese Government in which no country ought to stand in regard to another and which certainly the rela-

  1911
  tive importance of England and China does not require us to occupy. As my noble Friend has stated, the Government of Russia has a representative at Pekin; so that at once falls to the ground every pretence put forward on the part of the Chinese that it is contrary to their feelings and habits, or inconsistent with the stability of their empire that there should be a foreign Minister resident in their capital. The hon. Gentleman says our proceedings will defeat our very purpose by involving that vast empire in convulsion and anarchy. I believe no such thing. That may seem very good reasoning to those who cannot attack what they wish to impugn by arguments of a different kind. But I say that if we succeed, as I trust we shall at no distant time, in obtaining from the Emperor of China the full and formal ratification of the treaty he has concluded with us, I am convinced that, so far from this endangering his empire, by restoring friendly relations between him and the great Powers of the West, we shall add strength and security to his authority. The hon. Gentleman says we ought to bear patiently the gross insults and cruel outrages offered to us, and submit quietly to the perfidious attack which took place at the mouth of the Peiho. Why, what were the feelings of the people of this country when the news of that disaster reached them? Was there a man living here who would not have indignantly scouted any Government which should have come down to Parliament and said we ought passively to submit to that insult—that we ought to allow our fellow-subjects to be murdered, our treaty to be torn up as waste paper, every indignity and outrage to be heaped upon us; and all this, which would not be borne for a moment if it came from any other nation in the world, was to be endured because it was received at the hands of a remote and comparatively less civilized State. I say that if any Government had proposed to the country such a course of action it would have been visited with universal condemnation. We had no choice, then, as to the conduct to be pursued. The only question in regard to which we stand responsible to Parliament and the nation is this,—whether we have adopted adequate measures and means for obtaining redress for the injuries that have been sustained, and whether those measures have been wisely planned and those means judiciously applied to secure the object to which our expedition and our resources are directed,
  1912
  and I trust the result will answer those questions in the affirmative.
  Vote agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Resolution to be reported on Monday next.
  Committee to sit again on Monday next.

POOR LAW BOARD CONTINUANCE BILL.

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  LORD EDWARD HOWARD*said, he feared he must interpose before the Bill went into Committee. No one less than himself wished to bring religious matters into that House—it was not the proper place for discussions of a religious nature—but the evil of the present case was very great; he had been much urged to bring it forward, and he could not resist doing so under such circumstances.
  Upon the present occasion he could not venture to adduce all that he had to bring forward—all that the nature of the case required—but what he did bring forward would bear the test of truth. He did not intend to divide the question categorically into these heads, but the question did resolve itself into evils of law and evils of administration of the law. He did not complain of any individual, or of any Board of Guardians, nor of the Poor Law Board. The latter had, on questions which had been brought before it, been willing to hear them, and to decide upon them for the best, according to its powers, or such powers as it was supposed practically to possess. In all that he had to propose he did so without interfering with any one, or with any established regulation. There was no need of intrusion upon any. What he suggested did not, he believed, give rise to any expense, or even anything that could be called trouble—it interfered with nothing. All he claimed was justice—and that justice had, no doubt, been intended by the framers of the law now in force—all he wished was in accordance with the evident intention of the law, which was chiefly regulated by the 19th section of the 4 & 5 Will. IV.—the Poor Law Act.
  Now, he begged to say that looking at the case in the view in which it ought to be regarded, as one would think—the poor Protestant who entered a workhouse should in reality find greater advantages in a moral and spiritual point of view, than he who lived in some large populous town, or some remote country district. The

  1913
  atmosphere of the workhouse ought to he such as would conduce to this; a chaplain whose duty it was to instruct the inmates and advise them—officers who were there to see to order—charitable visitors who came to look after them; books lent to them; all this ought to confer on a poor man greater advantages than he had found before. And now what was the case in Ireland—in Ireland the Protestants were in the minority—in this country the Catholics were so. See how the privileges of the Protestants were guarded in Ireland. He would read the regulations as provided by the Poor Law.
  "It shall be lawful for the said Commissioners, if they shall think fit, to provide a chapel, or to direct that a suitable apartment of the workhouse shall be specially appropriated for the religious worship of any denomination of Christians, being inmates of the workhouse."—[Moore's Irish Poor Law, p. 142,10 Vict. c. 31].
  "1 & 2 Vict. c. 56, says, 'And he it enacted that the Commissioners shall take order for the due performance of religious service in such workhouses, and for appointing fit persons to be chaplains for that purpose.' It goes on to say that not more than three are to be appointed—one of the Established Church, one Protestant Dissenter, and one Roman Catholic."—[Moore's Irish Poor Law, p. 38.]
  "DUTIES OF CHAPLAIN—1. To celebrate Divine Service, and to preach to the paupers, &c.
  "2. To visit any sick pauper from time to time, and at all times when he may be applied to for that purpose by the master or matron.
  "4. To examine and catechise the children at least once in every month," &c—[Moore's Irish Poor Law, p. 675.]
  Here, then, was provision showing how jealously the religion of the Protestant in that country was watched and guarded. Now take the case conversely—suppose a Catholic country where the Protestants were in a minority, and cases happened in regard to them similar to those as regarded Catholics in England. He would like to know how great would be the outcry on the part of certain Gentlemen in that House—we never should hear enough about the injustice and shame practised in such a case.
  Now look at the poor Catholic who was in the workhouse. What ought to be done was that when once his creed was established he should be treated as of that religion, and facilities given him. But, perhaps he is not aware of his rights, and he encountered much difficulty. First, he must ask positively to see his own clergyman, and go through different forms in order to accomplish this; the request had to be conveyed through the wardsman,
  1914
  &c., to the master before he could get at him—and delays might take place. While arguing against difficulties which were uncalled for, of course he did not mean that some form was not necessary. Now the Act of Parliament seemed to give the Poor Law Board all kinds of power for general regulations, and that Act most clearly meant that religious rights and principles should be protected—and whose rights were they? They were those of the very poor and helpless, of those who had a right to be heard, and whose case was most deserving the attention of the House of Commons, who had none to befriend them, hardly, out of that House j whose case therefore he must strongly urge upon the House. But what happened when the Catholic clergyman was admitted. Why, even then, there were considerable limitations to his access to those who asked his attendance. The Act says that he may have access to an inmate at his request at "all times of the day." It is evident that all proper means of the clergyman seeing this poor man was intended, and that when a person had sent for him, he would, as a matter of course, be able to see him more than once; but this beneficent intention of the law is sometimes perverted into being obliged to send for the clergyman at each separate time of wishing to see him, thus giving infinite trouble to the officers of the house, and placing considerable difficulty in the way; and this happens to the poor and friendless man whom sickness, old age, or adversity has brought into the house; and who needs the comfort and consolation which he can derive from his clergyman alone. It is true, he admitted, that when hardships of this kind were brought before the Poor Law Board, as they had been in some instances, that Board had done what it felt it could to remedy the evil, but he wished he could say that the evil no longer existed. But when this was the kind of view taken in the working of the law, and when such was the interpretation placed upon it, it was clear that such evil cried for some remedy. But also in some cases one person might be kept waiting till others applied too; and he was quite shocked to say that he had even heard of cases in which, when a poor sick man had seen a Catholic clergyman in a ward, and when the clergyman had given him all the necessary spiritual consolation, if another from a neighbouring bed had called out that he was a Catholic and wished the assistance

  1915
  of the clergyman, the power of giving such assistance was denied the clergyman, although the person had himself requested the aid.
  Well, then, some persons were allowed to go out of the workhouse to attend their religious service at their chapel, such as obtained that permission were sometimes not allowed to see the clergyman when he came to the workhouse, unless they were sick. Then, again, others were only allowed to go out to divine worship once a fortnight. But it was singular indeed to say that sometimes persons were not allowed to do so until they were sixty years old—now, as their religion required that they should sometimes attend their service fasting, that is, not having eaten anything since 12 o'clock on the previous night, how hard it was to make these poor old people wait until 11 or 12 o'clock in the day without eating—then, again, the clergymen were very busy on Sundays, and could not give up the time to see them on such occasions. But he begged the House to observe with what real absurdity these cases were covered, when, for example, it occurred that where deserted wives and young women were not allowed to go outside the house to attend chapel—a woman might have been deserted by her husband say at thirty—and would have to wait for thirty more years before she could attend divine worship. Both of these classes, who would much need advice and instruction, could only be seen in the workhouse, therefore, in the limited time—perhaps an hour and a half or two hours a week—accorded to the Catholic clergyman; after he had seen the sick, or others—a mere remnant of time. Now, common sense seemed to show that the greater was the obstruction to persons going outside the workhouse for service, the greater should be the facility granted inside. It was very easy to furnish Catholic inmates with the means of attending their religion inside the walls, in the Board-room, for example, and what had been mentioned in one book treating on these matters as an objection was really none at all—there was no difficulty about an altar to conduct the service. He maintained that attendance on their religious service should be treated not as a privilege, but as a duty. It was plain that these poor people set a value on such attendance, because the permission was restricted if they misbehaved, and they were punished by being kept from it for a time. The discipline of the workhouse was much
  1916
  assisted by attention to these affairs. As an instance, he had known a case where, in a prison, a prisoner of most violent character could not in any way be restrained, he bit and severely wounded a turnkey, at last, contrary to the discipline which is adopted in prisons (where great jealousy is shown towards the religion of Catholics) it was suggested, "let us send for a priest," the man being a Catholic—this, though contrary to rule, being done, and the priest obtained,—the man immediately submitted and became tractable.
  What he wanted was, that the practice of workhouse discipline should be uniform and just; that it should be liberally carried out, as it was in some unions; it should be brought down to one general level; and not one rule here and another there.
  And he spoke to the House in favour of these very poor helpless beings, who were looked down upon, and had very few friends; and entreated that their case might be treated as it ought, in bare justice, to be treated. The persons whose cause he advocated were weak; they appealed with confidence to the British House of Commons, as a body who would hear them and apply a remedy to the crying evils by which they were afflicted. If they were denied relief, it was a mere mockery to talk of this being a country of civil and religious liberty: where that really existed these evils could not be. We were so proud of our excellent legislation, yet see how defective it was on points of such importance, and which might be so easily remedied, without trouble, or difficulty, or disturbing others.
  He thanked the House for the attention with which they had heard him; but he had now to intrude upon them with even, if possible, a worse case, and that was with regard to the children in workhouses and district schools. Now, evidently the 19th section of the 4th and 5th William IV. meant that the children should be brought up in the same religion as the parent. But as the thing stands in practice, observe how it works. Suppose, after due examination, a father and child admitted into a workhouse, they are properly described on the Register as Catholics. Well, following the usual method of treating the case, that child is nevertheless brought up as a Pretestant, unless the father takes a further step, and besides stating as at first the religion of which the child is—then actually objects to its being brought up

  1917
  a Protestant. Common sense would point out that it should be otherwise, but thus the burthen is thrown upon the parent of taking this course in defence of the child's and his—the parent's rights. There is great injustice in this. For one reason, because the parent, alone and friendless in the workhouse, may fear to object—he will be very likely to think that his position in the workhouse will be the worse for making objection and giving trouble, and making himself to a considerable extent an object of remark and of separation from the great body of persons under the same roof; or, suppose it is some single parent, indifferent to, and reckless of, the religion of the child; neglecting a pledge given to the father or the mother who may be dead, but who may have left to the survivor the charge of bringing up the child in the Catholic faith; well, the child is not so brought up, and thus loses its religious rights, in consequence of this anomalous legislation. Again, the parent may think, "I will not disturb the child now—it will get a good education—I can claim it hereafter—and bring it up in its old religion;" but this may easily not happen, and thus, in point of fact, the child is cheated out of its religion.
  He had not time at this late hour of the night (past one o'clock) to show from the papers themselves the apparent discrepancy between the provisions of the 19th section of the Act, taken together with the Consolidated Order, No. 122. It only showed how carelessly the regulations on this subject had been made out. Taking them together, it would appear that they both prescribed religious protection to children, and by both of them that was limited to the children of inmates. Now how did this act in practice? Why, by the return of January 1st, 1859; in 629 Unions, out of 45,000 children in the workhouses, no less than 25,000 of these were "orphans, or other children relieved without parents;" thus a very great number were affected by this want of proper definition and proper attention to regulations for protecting religious rights.
  But, now, how stood the case with regard to the district schools, and the numerous children placed in them? Whereas in the workhouse the persons to look after the religion of children were the parent; or in the case of an orphan the godfather and godmother—so in the district school there was a new regulation, and the next of kin came into play—and
  1918
  you might have this absurdity, that an orphan would be in a workhouse, entered as a Catholic but educated as a Protestant, claimed by the godfather, and the claim allowed, he might be instructed as a Catholic, moved to a district school, he would be again educated as a Protestant until the "next of kin" found him out, claimed him, and had him re-educated as a Catholic. Why, the thing was really absurd on the face of it, and it must be remembered that by the 8th and 9th of Vict. children were liable to be brought into district schools from a distance of twenty miles. Now how can the poor understand all these distinctions? In the workhouse the "next of kin" is no good; in the district school the godfather and godmother are of no use.
  But the section also says, "child of inmate:" how then again as to deserted children—what becomes of them? In fact carelessness in these provisions is apparent, and in truth there is no equality for religion, and religious liberty is set at nought. In truth, at this instant, there are hundreds of Catholic children in district and pauper schools in the neighbourhood of this Metropolis, and, by very far indeed, the greater number of these Catholic children are being brought up as Protestants.
  But now in order to claim a child and have him educated, you had cases where the personal attendance of the godfather was required. What a difficulty and a grievance was here. Who was the godfather or godmother? Who was the next of kin? Where were they? Perhaps the child was in London, the godfather at Liverpool or in Ireland; and here also were involved, waiting to establish the claim, loss of time, of wages, and so on; and all this for another person's child. Here was an instance of personal attendance being required and its consequences.
  "Board Room, May, 1859.
  "Dear Sir—I am directed by the Board of Guardians to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 18th instant, making application on
  behalf of Mrs.—for her godchild W—C—to be instructed in the Roman Catholic religion, also making a similar application for C—and A—, and I am to inform you that as the Board require the personal attendance of the godfathers and godmothers who object to the instruction of children in the establishment in the Established Religion, they are anxious to save you the trouble of making such written applications in future.
  "I am, dear Sir, your obedient servant,
  "—Clerk."
  But the person rightfully concerned in

  1919
  claiming may be far off in Australia or America perhaps. Here was a case where children were brought up Protestants because, though claimed by the mother, the claim was not allowed until the father in Australia was heard from. How was he to be got at?
  "A Catholic woman in a workhouse has four children. The father, for want of work at home, has gone to Australia. He had been in a situation of trust. The boy used to attend the Catholic school. The mother said she knew her children were being brought up as Protestants, and that she wished the Roman Catholic clergyman to instruct them. She signed an application to the Board of Guardians, 4th March, 1860. She was called before the Board, stated her wish, and was told that her request should not be complied with till she had procured an application from her husband in Australia. This mother is entered in the indoor relief list in the workhouse as a 'Romanist.'"
  Here was the case of a Catholic widow whose child was brought up in another religion, and which shows the evils which befell these poor persons:—
  "A written application was sent by the mother to the Board of Guardians—the mother was ordered before the Board, and stated her wish. The Chairman said, 'it could not be complied with,' and to defeat the object of the application threatened to send the girl from the school to the adult house. The Poor Law Inspector inquired into this case. The Chairman acknowledged he had used the above threat, and refused to listen to the application of the mother. This was in April, 1859. The girl has never yet been allowed to receive any instruction from her clergyman. The Poor Law Inspector knows of this case personally, yet no redress has been granted. In this Union it would appear that the women and children are in separate houses, and mothers are only allowed to see their children four times a year.
  Thus, in consequence of these defects of legislation, this child loses its religion. Yes, and he had other cases too, but it was not proper at this late hour to bring them before the House.
  These were only samples of the injustice which prevailed. He had another case, which he would not read, where children, the father being dead, were left by a mother, who went to America, in charge of a grandmother and aunts, who, contrary to the express directions of the mother, placed them in a workhouse. The mother wrote to beg they should be brought up as Catholics. A lady hearing of it went with the relations to the workhouse, they were insulted and unsuccessful.
  In another, a Catholic sister applies for a girl, the girl being in the workhouse. She is moved from the workhouse to a
  1920
  Protestant establishment, the sister is unable to see her, or ultimately to hear of her, and access to her is refused.
  He would not weary the House at this late hour more than he could possibly help, but he must remark upon one very large class, he was very sorry to say it was, which was also affected by this state of things—he meant the illegitimate children—in their cases the mother was powerless to prescribe the religion of her child, and yet the Poor Law throws upon her all the burden of the case. Surely she should have the power of saying how her child should be brought up. He deeply regretted to say that this was a very numerous class, there were of illegitimate children in 629 unions:—
  "In workhouses, under sixteen years of age, of able bodied and not able bodied inmates there are—8,456 illegitimate to 10,382 legitimate; total, 18,838.
  He must say that everything in these workhouses and district schools was of a different nature to the religion of the child. These children and people, comparatively few, perhaps looked down upon and laughed at, demanded, under these circumstances, more attention than could be given to them by their clergyman in the hour or two in a week accorded to him. Sometimes, perhaps, on a Saturday half holiday, when the other children were at play, then the Catholic children were allowed to be stuffed with catechism, and so, in fact, it is made a punishment to them.
  But there was one thing he must particularly advert to. Partly to remedy one of these abuses, the Poor Law Board had issued an Order last year on the 23rd of August. There was nothing of any interfering character about it, it was a mild order enough, but it was stated not to be law, and not to have any force. Now he particularly wished to know how this case stood. It seemed to him quite unaccountable. The law itself, and the writers on the law, seemed on all points to give the Commissioners the utmost power; in point of fact there were only two things they could not do: one was to warp the religion of anybody in the workhouses, the other not to prescribe directions to Boards of Guardians, with regard to an individual in reference to his relief. But here was an order about which, most strangely, there appeared to be a doubt; and an opinion, it seemed, adverse to the power of the Commissioners had been given. There were often differences of opinion among different people,

  1921
  and sometimes there were amongst lawyers; and he much wished to know whether there was no authoritative opinion upon this order, and whether it really was the law of the land or not? Here in a very important matter the necessity of doing something, of affording a remedy to a great evil, was admitted and tried to be remedied, yet nothing was, in fact, done. He now placed the case before the House of Commons, It was the case of people, the most poor, the most friendless, the least able to help themselves—such was a case which appealed loudly to the House of Commons, and which he felt would not appeal in vain to such an assembly of British Gentlemen.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to introduce Clauses requiring that a Creed Register be kept, both in Workhouses and District Schools, and be open to the inspection of the Ratepayers: and providing that access, at all reasonable and proper times, shall be had to every inmate of such Workhouses and District Schools by the minister of the religious persuasion to which he or she belongs."
  MR. C. P. VILLIERSsaid, although he believed that he was entitled by the forms of the House to ask them to reject the Motion of the noble Lord, on the ground that—either he proposed to the Committee to do what they had power to do without an Instruction, or to introduce matter which was foreign to the object of the Bill, and in either case an Instruction was informal. From the respect which he felt for his noble Friend and for the sincerity with which he advocated any matter affecting his religion, he would not avail himself of the power which he possessed. The subject, he could assure the noble Lord, was engaging the earnest attention of the Poor Law Board. The present Bill, however, did not profess to deal with anything beyond the immediate object with which it was framed,—it did not profess to remedy grievances, and additions such as those contemplated by his noble Friend could not be imported into it without serious inconvenience. The noble Lord's course ought to have been to wait for the Bill which, as he was aware, the Government intended specially to introduce, to effect amendments in the law, and he knew that it was the anxious wish of the Poor Law Board to provide for the evils of which Catholics reasonably complained, and which had reference to the attendance of ministers of different religions in the workhouses. The noble Lord well knew the difficulties
  1922
  with which the Poor Law Board had to contend, and the noble Lord could hardly doubt that he must be prejudicing his cause very much, by attempting to change the law in this respect in a manner that was so irregular. It was well known, that the present regulations with respect to the access of priests and other ministers to the inmates of workhouses rested on a provision in the Act, known as the New Poor Law Act, and could only be changed by an amendment of that Act. There was already some difficulty on the part of those who had to maintain the discipline of the workhouse, to know who to admit, for doubtless there were then many persons who sought to get admission as teachers of religion for the purpose of proselytism. He could not help thinking, therefore, that the noble Lord had not shown his usual discretion in attempting to accomplish his object, by means that were not quite regular, and which would interfere with the purpose of the Bill then before the House. There had been, he believed, some misapprehension with respect to the objects of the Bill, and it had been supposed that it was to extend the powers of the Board; it had, however, been carefully avoided to attempt anything of the kind—it was simply to continue the powers of the existing Board for the usual time, and did not in any way fetter the discretion of Parliament in causing any inquiry whatever to be made, either into the operation of the law or the Board. He hoped, therefore, that no further obstruction would be offered at this stage of the Bill, and that Members would not attempt in the absence of any evidence against the full success of the present system, without any complaints from the poor, and at a moment when a Report has been presented to the House, showing the most satisfactory results of the law, especially during the last year, to limit the duration of the Board for a less period than has been usual, and thus by casting discredit upon the central administration to paralyze its authority in future throughout the country. He firmly believed that it would be far better to abolish the Board at once than to weaken its power by such means. By the manner in which the Bill was drawn any change might be made hereafter in the powers of the Board, and he trusted, therefore, that the House would now allow the Bill to so into Committee.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he did not think it fair that the statement of the noble

  1923
  Lord should be allowed to pass without objection. He (Mr. Newdegate) was as willing as any man to give paupers in workhouses every facility for coming out to attend to their religious observance. He would also give the individual Catholic pauper the right of sending for his priest; but the House had already decided that it would not be safe to give Roman Catholic priests an ex officio right to enter workhouses and prisons. As to deserted children, he could not consent to the surrender of the rights of the Established Church in respect of such children. They ought to be brought up in the religion of the State.
  MR. EDWIN JAMES MR. EDWIN JAMES moved the adjournment of the Debate.
  MR. HENNESSYexpressed a hope that Mr. Speaker would give his opinion on the point raised on the Motion of the noble Lord.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, that if he had considered the Instruction was out of order it would have been his duty to inform the House, and save them from the discussion which had taken place. Whether on a Continuance Bill it was a convenient occasion to introduce such an Instruction was an entirely different question, but in point of form he did not think that the noble Lord was out of order.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he would recommend the noble Lord (Lord E. Howard) not to proceed with his Motion, and he hoped the House would proceed with the Bill, which was merely a continuance Bill.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
  The House divided:—Ayes 40; Noes 97: Majority 57.
  Question again proposed,
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to introduce Clauses requiring that a Creed Register be kept, both in Workhouses and District Schools, and be open to the inspection of the Ratepayers; and providing that access, at all reasonable and proper times, shall be had to every inmate of such Workhouses and District Schools by the minister of the religious persuasion to which he or she belongs."
  MR. EDWIN JAMESsuggested that the noble Lord (Lord E. Howard) might remove difficulties by withdrawing his Motion and bringing up a clause in Committee.
  MR. MONSELLsaid, he would beg to ask Mr. Speaker, would it be competent for the noble Lord to bring up a clause
  1924
  without such an Instruction as that which he now moved for?
  MR. SPEAKERdecided that it would not be competent for the Committee to introduce such a clause without a special Instruction.
  MR. MONSELLsaid, he should in that case support the Amendment. They all knew the excitement recently caused by the alleged interference with the religion of a single Protestant child. There were hundreds of children of Catholic parents who were being brought up in the Protestant religion. Was that consistent with the principle of religious toleration?
  LORD EDWARD HOWARDsaid, that as he began by saying, so he now repeated, that it was most distant from his wish to introduce a religious subject into the House, or to give the House trouble by taking up its time. His right hon. Friend the President of the Poor Law Board was mistaken in supposing that he had blamed the Poor Law Board. Such was not the case, he not only did not do so, but he had stated that the Board was deserving of credit, so far as its action had gone. If his right hon. Friend would really undertake to take into his best consideration the evils he had stated, with a view of remedying them in the Bill he had mentioned as being prepared to bring before Parliament, he would not press his Motion. The subject was felt to be of so much importance that he was prepared to go very great lengths in its behalf. The settlement of this question would, he felt, save much trouble to this House, and also to Boards of Guardians, because such grievances could not exist without Borne remedy being attempted, and without the cases, if unredressed, being complained of and brought before this House.
  MR. C. P. VILLIERSsaid, the matter was already under the consideration of the Poor Law Board. One portion of what the noble Lord required could be carried out by Board order. The other would require legislation. If what the noble Lord asked for could be done with safety, he (Mr. Villiers) should endeavour to effect it.
  LORD EDWARD HOWARDsaid, he would withdraw his Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  House in Committee.
  Bill considered in Committee. House resumed. Committee report Progress; to sit again on Monday next.
  House adjourned at half after Two o'clock till Monday next.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Registration of Births, &c., (Scotland); Tramways (Ireland);
1842
Annuity Tax Abolition (Edinburgh and Montrose), &c.
2a Labourers Cottages (Scotland.)
3a Ionian Islands (Marriages); Railway Cheap Trains, &c.; Phœnix Park; Tenison's Charity; Local Government Supplemental.

ITALY.—THE ROMAN STATES.
THE MARQUESS OF NORMANBYsaid, he had given notice that he would move for certain papers additional to the despatches which had been produced from Mr. Lyons with regard to the condition of the Roman States. He was happy to take that opportunity to state that during the whole of the three years during which he had been in official communication with Mr. Lyons, there was the most complete concurrence between them on all subjects connected with the affairs of Italy, and he regretted that his promotion elsewhere had prevented Italy from having in the present crisis the benefit of his ability and experience. On a former occasion he had taken an opportunity to express his high sense of the merits of Mr. Odo Russell, and he was sure that gentleman would be the first to admit the great advantage he would now derive from having the benefit of Mr. Lyons' experience. These despatches when produced would show the efforts that had been made by Mr. Lyons and himself to induce the Papal Government to institute reforms: but their efforts were often frustrated by the conduct of others. On one occasion, in particular, there occurred an incident that ought to be known. Mr. Lyons had received some conciliatory instructions from Lord Clarendon, and he was making use of them to induce the Roman Government to institute some reform in their mode of government, when there arrived the account of a public declaration made by the highest Ministerial authority in the other House of Parliament, to the effect that the Roman States had never been so well governed as under the republic of Mazzini. Their Lordships could not conceive the painful effect that this declaration produced on the Papal Government. He was himself at that moment engaged with a person of high influence at the Court of Rome, endeavouring to persuade him to introduce that reform which he hoped the Roman people were now about to enjoy—the right of a deliberative council; but that Gentleman said, "How is it possible for us to institute reforms when we are told from your Parliament that the Government we ought to imitate is a Govern-

1843
ment that in our eyes was the impersonation of anarchy, a Government in which neither life nor property was secure?" Under these circumstances he thought it necessary to address a further despatch to the Government, stating the painful impression which this declaration had made, and communicating what he had ascertain-ed as to the real facts of the case, to show the inaccuracy of the statements that had been made in the other House of Parliament. This was one of the despatches which he hoped the Government would not object to produce. His Motion would be for, Copies or Extracts from the Despatches of Her Majesty's Minister in Tuscany in 1855, 1356, and 1857, referring to the Condition and Administration of the Roman States.

SCOTTISH DRAINAGE AND IMPROVEMENT COMPANY BILL.

  THIRD READING.—BILL PASSED.
  LORD REDESDALE LORD REDESDALE moved, that this Bill (which is a private Bill), be read 3a.
  LORD ST. LEONARDSremarking on the exclusive advantages which these companies obtained by private Acts of Parliament, suggested that a general Act ought to be passed, and expressed a hope that with that object the Government would early next Session give the subject their serious consideration.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYthought it very desirable that when lending powers of this kind were given to a company there should be some independent tribunal established to see that the money advanced was expended on a bonâ fide improvement. The question ought to form the subject of general legislation. It was very desirable, too, that some system should be adopted with regard to these private Bills which would bring them more particularly under the notice of the House, requiring them, for instance, to go through a Committee of the whole House.
  LORD REDESDALEdid not think that any good would be derived from treating these Bills in a different manner from other private Bills. It would be much better that the subject should be dealt with by a general law.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, the subject should be taken into consideration by the Government, but, of course, he could not give a pledge that they would take any action upon it.
  THE EARL OF DERBYthought it most
  1844
  objectionable that any lending or borrowing powers beyond those of the ordinary law should form part of a private Bill. If legislation were necessary, it should be in the shape of a general measure. He had strong objections to the Bill, though he could not take upon himself the responsibility of moving its rejection; but if there were a distinct understanding that the Government and the House would for the future set their faces against the introduction of such Bills some good would have been done by the present discussion.
  THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHshared the opinion of the noble Earl that this matter should be dealt with in a general measure.
  LORD ST. LEONARDSproposed that the consideration of the present and another similar Bill should be postponed for a fortnight.
  THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCHexplained that the Scottish Drainage and Improvement Company had been in existence for some time, and that it now sought merely to be placed in the same position as another company of the same kind in Scotland. He deprecated the maintenance of a monopoly, and opposed the Motion for postponement.
  LORD ST. LEONARDS LORD ST. LEONARDS moved, That the further Debate be adjourned to Friday next.
  On Question, That the said Debate be adjourned to Friday next? their Lordships divided:—Contents 36; Not-Contents 39: Majority 3.
  Resolved in the negative: Then the original Motion was agreed to: Bill read 3a accordingly: an Amendment made: Bill passed and sent to the Commons.

  GALWAY HARBOUR BILL.
  THIRD READING.
  Bill read 3a, with the Amendments.
  On Motion that the Bill do pass.
  THE MARQUIS OF CLANRICARDEsaid, that the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees had, in the exercise of his functions, struck out of the Bill two clauses which were of considerable importance. This made it necessary for him (the Marquess of Clanricarde) to take what was a rather inconvenient course. He might observe that the step taken by the Government of the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby) in granting a subsidy to a line of packets between Galway and America bad already been attended with very important results. Two years ago there

  1845
  was not a single steam packet running between Ireland and America. At the present moment Sir C. Cunard's Transatlantic mail steamers called at one of the southern ports of Ireland; the Canadian Company's called at one of the northern; and there was this Galway line: so that Ireland was now practically recognized as the portion of the United Kingdom from which the packets employed in speedy communication between Europe and America should depart. The Bill before their Lordships was to improve the harbour of Galway; it proposed that a sum of £180,000 should be raised; part of this sum was to be applied to the payment of existing charges, and the remainder to the making of a pier and breakwater in Galway Harbour, and for other works in connection therewith. It was intended in the first place that the tolls on the harbour should be charged with the payment of this money; next that it should be raised off the property in the immediate neighbourhood; and, as a last resource, that a limited rate should be imposed upon the county. Now as the harbour was a benefit to the county as well as the town, such a mode of securing the money was not improper, though he admitted that that course should be adopted with great caution; moreover, the course was not without precedent. Taunts had been often thrown out that whenever an effort was made for the improvement of Ireland it was always at the expense of English capital; but this was now refuted in the case of Galway, which only sought powers to tax itself for a purpose that he believed would prove beneficial to the commerce of the United Kingdom. Not a word of any opposition to this Bill had they heard until last week, and this fact was the more extraordinary, inasmuch as the objects of the measure had been generally approved of. He was, therefore, extremely surprised to find that the Select Committee had struck out of the measure a clause which imposed upon the county Galway a guarantee for a large sum of money for the improvement of the harbour. He begged, therefore, to move that the clauses which had been struck out should be reinstated.
  Amendment moved, in Preamble after ("Galway") to insert ("and county of Galway respectively").
  THE EARL OF LUCANhoped the House would reject the Amendment of the noble Marquess. The Chairman of the Select Committee had acted very wisely in striking out the clause in the Bill which de-
  1846
  volved on the county of Galway the guaranteeing of a large sum of money for the improvement of the harbour, and had shown a wise discretion in declaring that the charge should not extend beyond the town. Under the Bill it was proposed to raise £180,000, of which £25,000 were to be applied in the payment of debts, and £100,000 were to be expended on a pier, breakwater, and graving docks—he wondered it was not for building ships. He believed that such a proposition was altogether without precedent. No doubt small sums had been expended on the repairs of fishing harbours under the Grand Jury Act, but that case did not afford a parallel to the present, in which a great national harbour was concerned. He believed it was the general wish of the landed proprietors of the county that the proposition of the noble Marquess should not be adopted. If the Amendment were agreed to, the result would be to impose a permanent charge of £1,700 a year upon the county funds.
  LORD MONTEAGLEconcurred with the noble Earl that this was the first time any proposition had been submitted to Parliament to impose a guarantee upon a county for works undertaken by local companies only, without any recommendation from the Board of Works in Ireland. He should oppose the Amendment. At the present moment the very existence of the packet station was at stake. Already £120,000 had disappeared in connection with Galway harbour, and the House was now called on to decide without a security as to the utility of the plans, or as to whether the harbour would be available for the purpose. He thought it would be better to suspend the further progress of the Bill until they had the plans and reports of competent engineers, and not allow £180,000, constituting a permanent fund, to be saddled on the country. If we were to have the American trade it was highly important there should be a proper packet station at Galway.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, he had always felt it to be his duty not to allow a new principle to be introduced in private in legislation without it was a very sound one, or without its being the sanction of the House. The principle proposed in the present Bill was entirely a new one that of taxing a county for the improvement of a local harbour, and if adopted might be drawn into a precedent in numberless cases, to the injury of pri-

  1847
  vate enterprise; and he thought the principle of guarantees in such cases was altogether objectionable. He had seen too much of the manner in which grand juries in Ireland would vote taxation in the shape of these guarantees to be very well satisfied with the prospect of an extension of it. In this case there was no security that the money proposed to be raised would be sufficient to complete the work, so that the county might be saddled to an indefinite extent.
  EARL GRANVILLEwas inclined to think that, when a district came forward ready to take the expense of an improvement on itself, instead of asking for public money, it was a principle he thought that ought to be encouraged rather than discouraged.
  On Question, Whether the said words shall be there inserted? their Lordships divided:—Contents 18; Not-Contents 26: Majority 8. Amendment disagreed to; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
  House adjourned at a Half-past Seven o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.