Sitting of 8 June 1860

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Selling and Hawking Goods on Sunday.

CLARE COUNTY ELECTION.—REPORT.
House informed, that the Committee had determined,—
"That Francis Macnamara Callcutt, esquire, is duly elected a Knight of the Shire to serve in this present Parliament for the County of Clare."
And the said Determination was ordered to be entered in the Journals of this House.

LONDONDERRY CITY ELECTION.

  REPORT.
  House informed, that the Committee had determined,—
  "That William M'Cormick, esquire, is duly elected to serve in this present Parliament for the City of Londonderry."
  And the said Determination was ordered to be entered in the Journals of this House.

CORRUPT PRACTICES PREVENTION ACT.—QUESTION.
MR. HUNTsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Homo Department, Whether it is his intention to introduce a Bill this Session based upon the Report of the Committee upon the Corrupt Practices Prevention Act?
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, that as the Corrupt Practices Prevention Act expired on the 10th of August next it would be necessary that some legislation should take place on the subject during the present Session. The Report of the Committee having been issued only yesterday the Government had not had time to examine the recommendations which it contained. No time, however, would be lost in considering the subject, and, as far as he was concerned, he would be ready to propose to the House some measure founded on that Report if there were any chance of there being time during the present Session for its consideration.
MR. LAING MR. LAING moved, That the House at its rising do adjourn till Monday next.

EXPORTATION OF SPANISH CORKS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. T. S. DUNCOMBEsaid, he wished to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, if in consequence of the reduction in duty on the importation of Foreign Wines, he has any reason to believe that his anticipations that the free exportation of unmanu-
  176
  factured Cork from all parts of Spain might take place would be fulfilled? He put this question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with the view of affording him the opportunity of doing justice to a very industrious and worthy trade—that of the corkcutters. In the course of the discussions on the Customs Act the right hon. Gentleman said that, in consequence of the large reduction which was to be made in the duty on foreign wines, he hoped that no duty would be charged on the export of unmanufactured cork. The right hon. Gentlemen also took occasion to criticise very unfavourably the conduct of the journeymen corkcutters, asserting that they were in the habit of going out on strike, and that the masters had been obliged to employ boys and even foreign workmen. He had since ascertained that there were six Catalonians over here at that time, who were employed by a man at Greenwich; but they were all such bad characters that their employer was soon glad to get rid of them. With some difficulty they procured another engagement in the City, but had again to be discharged. They then took to working "on their own bottom," as the phrase was, and he believed it was from them that the right hon. Gentleman obtained the cork which he exhibited to the House in order to prove the superior excellence of foreign workmanship. He had intended to revive this question when the Customs Act was again brought before them; but, as the business of the House was in such a state that it was impossible to say when any question would come on, be had resolved to put this question to the right hon. Gentleman. He had received from the master corkcutters of different towns,—Plymouth, Liverpool, York, Birmingham, Aberdeen, Dublin, Belfast, &c.—letters bearing testimony to the good character of the men in the trade. The hon. Member read the letter which he had received from the Liverpool manufacturers, stating that they were able, from the experience of many years, to contradict the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the House of Commons, that a tyrannical and arbitrary system of restriction prevailed among the journeymen, and that the masters had been obliged to employ foreign workmen on account of their superior skill. The letter was signed by men who had been sixteen and seventeen years and some fifty years in the trade. He had also a letter from Aberdeen to the same effect, in which the master manu-

  177
  facturers did full justice to their men. He had also one from Dublin, signed by many who had been more than thirty years in the trade, and who gave the most emphatic contradiction to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. He thought the right hon. Gentleman could have no difficulty now in saying that he had been misled upon that point: and as to foreigners being better workmen than English corkcutters he was told that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer liked to put up a prize with open competition, the English workmen were quite confident they would gain it. He wished to ask whether Catalonia was about to make any reduction in the duty on unmanufactured cork in consequence of the reduction which England had made in the duty on Spanish wine.

THE TELEGRAPH TO GIBRALTAR.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL PERCY HERBERTsaid, he wished to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer with regard to the Submarine Telegraphic Cable to Gibraltar, for which a sum of £30,000 was granted last year. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer then stated that the actual cost of the cable, when constructed, would be £115,000, and he believed, al though he could not find it in Hansard, that it was stated by the Government that, although the season was too advanced to enable them to proceed with it last year, it would be proceeded with early in the spring. The spring had passed, and they were well into the summer, but they had heard nothing of it, except a rumour that the cable, after having been purchased by the Government, had been taken by the Indian Government, to be laid down between Singapore and Rangoon. It was of great importance to have rapid communication with the fleet at Gibraltar, in the event of any disturbance in Europe, and no delay in laying the cable ought to take place. He should be glad if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give some explanation on the subject.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEasked Whether there would be any objection to lay on the table copies of the correspondence which had taken place on the subject. The late Government, looking upon the laying of this cable as a matter of urgency, undertook it in a peculiar way, in the hope of carrying it into operation in the summer of 1859. Owing to the change of Govern-
  178
  ment and other circumstances, it was not carried out then; and if they were to wait to discuss the subject until Vote 7 of the Civil Service Estimates, in which the Vote for the cable was contained, came on there was a great chance that nothing would be done this year.
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, the papers should be examined, and if any of them were calculated to give information they should be laid on the table.

COMMERCIAL TREATY WITH FRANCE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALDsaid, he had not given notice of this Question, and if it were the desire of the Government he would repeat it on Monday. He wished to know what progress has been made by the Commissioners sitting in Paris to convert the ad valorem Duties on British Produce into Specific Duties? The time was rapidly approaching at which, if those ad valorem duties were not converted, the maximum duties of 30 per cent would attach. He should also be glad to know whether if the ad valorem duties were not converted into specific duties by the end of the month, the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary intended to make any communication to the Government of France with a view to extending the time for that purpose?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the question put by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Horsham (Mr. S. FitzGerald), would perhaps be answered with greater advantage by his noble Friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs. He believed, however, that for the present the answer must be in the negative, that was to say, he had not understood that any point had been reached in the labours which were now being performed at Paris, which would enable those who were concerned in them to make a definite communication to the Government—those labours being, in point of fact, an adjustment of details. He had not the terms of the Treaty sufficiently in his mind to speak with very great confidence, but he apprehended that the hon. Member was not correct in supposing that the necessary consequence of failing to agree upon any particular terms with regard to the conversion of any particular duties would be that the ad valorem duties would be levied at the maximum rate. [Mr. S. FITZGERALD: There is the right to do so.] There was a right

  179
  to fix the specific duties at the maximum; but he was not aware that the maximum was at all affected by the duties being either ad valorem or specific. As he had said, however, he was not aware that there was any official information that could be laid before the House. If he remembered right, there was a stipulation in the Treaty that the stipulation of the Supplemental Convention should be framed before the 1st of July; but he presumed, if these examinations should be greatly prolonged, which he conceived was very probable, it would be the object of both Governments to give facilities for extending the time necessary to conduct the investigation.
  With respect to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. T. Duncombe) he could venture to assure him that he should be very glad to do justice to any class, and particularly to those whom the hon. Gentleman represented, where it was shown to him (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) that he had done injustice; but his hon. Friend had pursued an inconvenient course in relation to this matter, inasmuch as he had taken three months to produce this vindication, which it appeared was in his possession a great part of the time. If the hon. Gentleman had kindly favoured him with the documents he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) should have been in a condition to examine the case, and to have reverted again to the sources from which he received information, and to have given to the hon. Gentleman a reply, either abiding by, retracting, or modifying what he had stated. As the hon. Gentleman had not taken that course, and the statements now made were new to him, he thought it necessary to investigate those statements before he could be bound by them. The hon. Gentleman had met but a very small portion of the allegations which had fallen from him, and those with whom the hon. Gentleman had communicated had entirely misapprehended him on the principal point of that statement to which the hon. Gentleman had referred. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had never said that masters had been driven to the employment of boys, but he did say that the regulations of the trades' unions very greatly limited and fettered trade, and some of them tended to restrain the employment of boys. Some masters, however, did not submit to those restrictions, and were placed under ban by the trades' societies for having used their own discretion in the employment of boys. With regard to the
  180
  six Catalonians, he had received no particular information on the subject, and whether they were men of good or bad character he was not prepared to say; but he had stated that he was informed that the six Catalonians who came over from Spain to this country, for the purpose of working at the trade of corkcutting, under all the disadvantages of foreigners in a strange country succeeded in earning more at corkcutting in England than the English corkcutters. Whether that statement was correct or not, it at all events stood unshaken by anything which had fallen from the hon. Gentleman. With regard to any change in the law of Spain with respect to the exportation of the raw material of cork, the hon. Gentleman must be very sanguine indeed if he thought by this time the Government would have been able to announce that any change had been effected. The change in our own law had not yet taken place. In Spain the state of the law was peculiar. The general law of Spain did not prohibit the exportation of corks; it was only the local regulations in Catalonia which prohibited that exportation; and those regulations, he believed, were mainly founded upon what his hon. Friend ought to have great respect for, namely, the operation of a principle in Catalonia very like to the principle of trades unions in this country. The people of Catalonia combined against the exportation of cork, and the authorities were unwilling to place themselves in conflict with the people, just as the authorities here were unwilling to place themselves in conflict with the workmen who belonged to trades unions. He believed that his noble Friend the Foreign Secretary intended to make an application to the Spanish Government with respect to these commercial arrangements; but possibly it might be judged premature to make such application until the subsidiary arrangements connected with the French Treaty should have been fully determined upon and carried into effect.
  With respect to the question which had been put to him by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, the Member for Ludlow (Colonel P. Herbert), that naturally was a subject which deserved the attention of the House; but he must be excused if he did not enter fully into it at the present moment, inasmuch as a Vote would be proposed to Parliament in the Estimates, for the purpose of completing the manufacture of the cable, and when that Vote came before the

  181
  House, hon. Gentlemen would have a full opportunity of discussing the matter. He could assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman, however, that nothing had been done by her Majesty's Government upon their own responsibility:—it would, in point of fact, have been an act of presumption on their part to anticipate the judgment of the House upon the final application of the money which was taken last year. It was true that, when the Government came into office, they found that a contract had been entered into for the manufacture of certain submarine cables; it was also true that there was not time to carry the operations into effect last year; but he looked for the accomplishment of it during the present year. A variety of circumstances had led the Government to think that, upon the whole, they would not be justified in asking the House to vote money for the purpose of undertaking that operation at the expense of the public, in the present state of that description of enterprise, and of the knowledge which bore upon it. It might be within the recollection of the House that when this project was originally entertained by the late Government, there was a very great difference of opinion among the authorities with regard to the practicability of laying down deep-sea cables with a fair prospect of their working, and unfortunately the whole experience which they had had during the last twelve months had tended very greatly to confirm that view. The instances of failure in the working of deep-sea cables had been unfortunately so numerous as almost to be universal. He believed that at this moment there was only one deep-sea cable—a cable 1,000 or 1,200 fathoms deep—in efficient operation. The operation of laying had failed in many instances, and in several conspicuous instances during the last twelve months, including that from Malta to Corfu. The knowledge of those facts had made the Government very cautious in the expenditure of the public money on these projects. The Vote of £30,000 to which the hon. and gallant Member had referred, was, in fact, a Vote of £135,000, and it would be necessary to take a further Vote this year on account of it, even if it were taken to Singapore. India, being interested in the laying down of the cable between Rangoon and Singapore, would bear a portion of the expense attending that work, He begged to assure the hon. and gallant Colonel that nothing which had been done would preclude the
  182
  House from taking any course which they might think fit with regard to this important undertaking.

CHINESE WAR.—NAVAL PAY.
  QUESTION.
  SIR GEORGE PECHELLsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether it is intended to give to the Navy serving in China the same extra pay and allowances enjoyed by the Army in India, and which are said to be now granted to the Military Forces to be employed with the Navy in the same quarter?

INDIAN CIVILIANS KILLED DURING THE MUTINY.—QUESTION.
MR. VANSITTARTsaid, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for India, Whether the names of those Civilians on the Bengal Establishment who were killed in action, murdered, or died from wounds and exposure during the late Mutiny, between the 11th day of May and the 19th day of November, 1857, have at any time been brought under the notice of the Government, and whether he intends to do honour to their memory by the erection of a Monument. As Her Majesty had been graciously pleased at the recommendation of her responsible Ministers to confer from time to time high honours upon members of the Indian Civil Service, and in speaking of that service to couple the deeds performed by them with those of their military brethren, it would ill become him to add a word in their behalf. He held, however, in his hand a list which contained the names of no less than thirty-six civilians, who either fell nobly in upholding the honour and dignity of their Sovereign and their country, or were brutally murdered at their posts, in reference to whom no allusion had been made, except on one occasion, namely, on the 14th of December, 1857, on the final closing of the East India College at Hailey bury by Mr. Mangles, the Chairman of the East India Company, whose name was familiar to most hon. Members in that House. Mr. Mangles, in touching upon this subject, said:—
"Let me also say that I intend to propose to my colleagues to erect a tablet in your chapel to the memory of those of the civil servants in India, educated at Hailey bury, who have fallen in this atrocious mutiny; and I trust it will go down to the latest posterity as a memorial of their deeds, and of the gratitude, not only of the East India Company, but of the country, for their services."

183
Shortly afterwards, and before this praiseworthy object could be carried out, Parliament in its wisdom deemed it expedient to abolish the East India Company; and this fact, in the absence of any other explanation, no doubt, would account for its having hitherto escaped the attention of Her Majesty's Government. Under these circumstances he ventured to bring the subject under the notice of the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for India, in the hope that he would take it into his early consideration, assuring him that by so doing he would earn, not only the deep gratitude of the relatives and friends of those civilians, but the appreciation of the country generally. With the permission of the House he would read out the names of the civilians on the Bengal establishment who had been killed in action, murdered, or died from wounds and exposure during the late mutiny between the 11th May and the 19th November, 1857, and the places at which they died:—Messrs. J. R. Colvin (Lieutenant-Governor of the North-Western Provinces) and W. C. Watson died at Agra; Mr. H. E. Cockerell, at Banda; Messrs. D. Robertson and G. D. Raikes, at Bareilly; Messrs. R. B. Thornhill, C. G. Hillersdon, T. R. Mackillop, and R. N. Lewis, at Cawnpore; Messrs. S. Fraser, J. R. Hutchinson, H. H. Greathed, and A. Galloway, at Delhi; Mr. R. T. Tucker, at Futtehpore; Mr. R. H. Pomeroy, at Ghazeepore; Mr. W. Clifford, at Goorgaon; Mr. W. R. Moore, at Gopeegunge; Mr. J. Wedderburn, at Hissar; Messrs. T. K. Loyd and D. Grant, at Humeerpore; Mr. B. R. Cuppage, at Juanpore; Mr. A. Johnston, at Meerut; Messrs. G. F. Christian, M. C. Ommaney, A. H. G. Block, C. W. Cunliffe, A. Jenkins, H. B. Thornhill, J. B. Thornhill, J. G. Thomason, G. S. Benson, H. Gonne, and Sir Mountstuart Jackson, at Oude and, most of them, at Lucknow; and Messrs. M. Ricketts, C. J. Jenkins, and A. C. Smith, at Shahjehanpore.

ORGANIZATION OF THE INDIAN ARMY.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL SYKESexpressed his entire concurrence in the object which had been stated to the House by his hon. Friend, and trusted the Government would see the propriety of carrying it into effect. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman, Whether he has received any Despatch by the last Mail from the Governor General of India with respect to the organization
  184
  of the Indian Army; and whether he will lay the same upon the Table of the House?

CONVEYANCE OF STORES FROM INDIA TO CHINA.
MR. SOMESsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, Whether an American ship has been taken up by the Government for the conveyance of stores from Calcutta to China; whether eligible British ships were tendered for the same service; and, if so, whether he will state the reasons which induced the Government to make such selection? It appeared that in Madras, on the 13th of March last, the Government chartered the Bremen ship Lerius, and the American ship Frank Flint, to convey troops and stores to China. Some years ago, in consequence of a similar occurrence, the following correspondence took place between the General Shipowners' Society and the East India Company:—
"General Shipowners' Society, 12, St.
Michael's-alley, Cornhill, London,
Dec. 2, 1851.
"Sir—The attention of the Committee of the General Shipowners' Society having been called to the fact that foreign vessels have been tendered to the Honourable East India Company for the conveyance of stores to India, I am directed respectfully to request that you will be so good as to call the attention of the Honourable Court of Directors to the circumstance that no English ship could be taken up by them unless the master and officers have passed a searching examination into their capabilities of conducting the ship safely to the port of destination; and if foreign masters and officers are not required to undergo a similar examination, it is evidently unjust to the British shipowner, captains, and officers, that foreign ships should be engaged on a public service. Moreover, in addition to the officers' certificate of competency, it is required that the British ship must be subjected to the strictest examination by Lloyd's surveyors, and classed in the books of that association, while from this also the foreign ship is exempt.
"Although it may appear not to be in the province of this Committee to refer to the risk which, in the event of war, damage to the ship, and consequent sale of cargo to pay for such damage in a foreign port which the Honourable Company incur by the employment of foreign vessels, yet in justice to the British shipowner they feel warranted in calling attention to the additional security he offers, as a justification of any preference you may give him.
"I have the honour to be, Sir,
"Your obedient servant,
(Signed) "WM. BONAR, Secretary.
"James C. Melvill, Esq., Secretary
East India Company."
"East India House, Dec. 18, 1851.
"Sir—In acknowledging the receipt of the letter you addressed to me under date the 2nd in-

185
stant, consequent on the attention of the Committee of the General Shipowners' Society having been called to the fact that foreign vessels had been tendered to the East India Company for the conveyance of stores to India, I am commanded to state that the said letter has been duly laid before the Court of Directors.
"I am, Sir,
"Your most obedient humble servant,
(Signed) "JAMES C. MELVILL.
"Wm, Bonar, Esq.
"The above letter from the General Shipowners' Society was written in consequence of a Danish ship, the Hindoo, being taken up by the East India Company."
Although no distinct Resolution was adopted in consequence of this correspondence, the practice of employing foreign ships in the Company's service had been discontinued up to the date he referred to—the 13th March last. Other nations were particularly careful to encourage their own shipping. The Americans, when they purchased in the West Indies, invariably kept their purchases till their agents could ship them in American vessels, although eligible British vessels might be lying in the port. The consequences of employing foreign vessels might be serious in the event of war breaking out. He had no wish to dissuade the Government from taking advantage of the services of foreign ships; but he thought that when British ships were offered they ought to receive the preference. He could only anticipate one answer—namely, that economy was the motive which had induced the authorities to employ an American ship in the case to which his question referred; but as the whole of the money paid for a foreign ship went out of the country, he could not but think that the economy was in this instance false.

THE BENGAL ARMY.—REWARDS TO OFFICERS.—QUESTION.
MR. KENNARDsaid, he had read in The Times of the 30th of May the announcement that,—
"It is intended that the officers of those Native regiments which mutinied shall be allowed to retain those staff appointments by means of which nearly the whole of them have been provided for. It must be conceded that this, if just, is a very liberal justice."
On reading that statement it occurred to him to inquire, if those officers who had lost their corps were to be thus rewarded, what was to be the reward of those officers who had retained their troops. It was manifest that if the soldiers belonging to
186
the 74 regiments of the Bengal army had remained faithful there would have been no mutiny, and, therefore, those officers who had managed to retain the obedience of their regiments had accomplished a public service for which the country could hardly show sufficient gratitude. The only four regiments which remained faithful were the 21st, 31st, 66th, and 73rd. The 66th was a Ghoorka regiment, composed for the most part of Nepaulese, with hardly any admixture of Hindostanees, and was, therefore, drawn from the class which was least likely to mutiny. The 21st and 73rd had never been disarmed, but he believed had not been employed on any active duty. The Ghoorka regiment and the 31st, on the contrary, had rendered important military services, which were referred to in the General Orders, under date 8th September, by the Governor General in Council. The manner in which the mutineers were encountered was there detailed, and the Governor General went on to say, "The 31st Native Infantry prominently distinguished itself by its loyalty under severe trials." Compliments had been paid to other regiments; but when the Indian army was thanked no reference was made to this distinguished corps. The only reward of which he had heard was, that the distinction of making it a light infantry regiment had been conferred. Being convinced that neither the House nor the country would be niggardly in rewarding the services of those Gentlemen who had so highly distinguished themselves, he begged to ask the Secretary of State for India, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to reward the services of those Officers of the Bengal Native Army whose regiments remained faithful to the British Government during the late Mutiny?

LOCAL ARMY IN INDIA.

  QUESTION.
  SIR DE LACY EVANSsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for India, Whether the Bill respecting the Local Army in India had not better be introduced on some other than a Motion day, Tuesday, the 12th June? The hon. and gallant Member said that perhaps the despatch received last night from Lord Canning might have changed the mind of the right hon. Gentleman and the intention of the Government upon this subject of the local army in India. But if it had not, he hoped

  187
  the right hon. Gentleman would select some other day for the discussion of the question instead of Tuesday next. As to the despatch itself, he should like to have the whole document laid upon the table, rather than extracts from it. He had also to ask whether the Council of India had been consulted by the right hon. Gentleman upon the subject, and, if so, whether they had acquiesced in or dissented from the policy proposed to be adopted. He believed it was very questionable whether the law would admit of the proposed alterations being made without first having the opinion of the Council in India in favour of the propositions.
  MR. W. EWARTsaid, he desired to express a hope that the services of the civilians on the Bengal establishment would be remembered by the Government, and that the services of the non-civilians, or those not in the pay of the Government, would not be forgotten.
  MR. ADAMthought every opportunity should be taken to point out to the Government the duty of honouring, not only the living, but the dead. He had no wish to decry the Civil Service of Bengal, but in the distribution of honours he thought sufficient consideration had not been shown to the minor Presidencies of Bombay and Madras. It was the lax discipline of the Native army of Bengal that did much to produce the mutiny, and make it formidable; yet it was Bengal that had reaped most of the rewards. The cause of this injustice to Bombay and Madras was, he believed, the system of centralization that had been the curse of India.
  SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, he would answer the several Questions, on the affairs of India, in the order in which they had been asked.
  In answer to the Question of the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Vansittart), the right hon. Gentleman stated that the then Chairman of the Court of Directors had announced an intention of erecting a tablet in the chapel of Hailey bury to the memory of the civil servants of the Company who were killed during the mutiny. Nothing could be more appropriate than such a monument in the chapel of the seminary of the Civil Service; but, as Hailey bury had ceased to be kept up, a doubt occurred as to the intention being carried out, and when other sites were under consideration, it seemed difficult to confine the memorial to Civil servants only. The question had thus assumed much larger dimensions than when
  188
  the original announcement was made, and nothing had been done. This occurred, however, before the change to the present form of Government, and he himself had never heard the subject spoken of till it was mentioned to him by his hon. Friend.
  To the second Question, put by the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster (Sir De L. Evans), his reply was that an extract from the despatch referred to would be given, but not the whole of it, as the other parts only related to military arrangements not relevant to the subject.
  As to the Question of the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Somes), he was not aware that any American ship had been employed by the Government in India, and could not give any reasons for what he was not aware bad been done.
  To the fourth Question, put by the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Kennard), he had to answer that whether the officers had belonged to Native regiments or not, they were not placed on the Staff as a reward for their services; the Government had rewarded those who were recommended in the best way it could, whether they belong to the regiments that had mutinied or not.
  To the fifth Question, asked by the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster (Sir De L. Evans), the answer was, that he wished to make the statement on the Bill referring to the local army of India as soon as possible; but it was very difficult, in the present state of public business, to obtain a day for it. He had named Tuesday because he thought that he should on that evening have a chance of bringing it on at an early hour. The opinion of the Council of India had been taken on the subject of the amalgamation of the Indian army; that opinion was adverse to the plan; but it would defer to the opinion of the Government if confirmed by Parliament, and what they resolved on, the Council of India would do its best to carry out.

SALE AND RE-PURCHASE OF GOVERNMENT LAND.

  QUESTION.
  LORD WILLIAM GRAHAMsaid, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether the land sold at Portsmouth for £8,000, and re-purchased for £28,000, was originally purchased under an Act of the 8th of Queen Anne, which recited that the land was specially to be bought for the use and purposes of the defence of Ports-

  189
  mouth; and further declared, "that all and singular the premises shall be and are enacted and declared to be unalienable from the Crown?" One would think that if there were any value in words, such land could not have been sold. The money had been granted by the House of Commons for a special purpose, in a special Act of Parliament. He was aware that in the 1st and 2nd George IV., an Act was passed, transferring this and other land to the Ordnance Department, and that this Act had been confirmed by an Act of William IV. He had, however, been informed that these Acts, being General Acts, could not override the Act of Anne, which was worded in a special manner. Under these circumstances, he thought they ought to have the legal opinions of the law officers of the Crown whether such sale was legal; and if not, the House ought to mark the transaction with their reprobation, for this was a most remarkable instance of that penny-wise and pound-foolish economy, which so often actuated the Government of this country. Nor was this the only instance of the kind. Land had been sold at Harwich, at Chatham, at Milford Haven and other places, which, if required again by Government, will have to be repurchased at an exorbitant price. He would now put the Question of which he had given notice:—"Whether the land sold at Portsmouth for £8,000, and repurchased for £28,000, was originally purchased under an Act passed in the 8th year of Queen Anne, which Act recited that the land was specially to be bought for the use and purposes of the Defence of Portsmouth; and further declared, 'that all and singular the premises shall be, and are enacted and declared to be, unalienable from the Crown;' and, if so, what legal power was vested in the Master General of the Ordnance to authorize the sale of such lands; and whether he will lay upon the Table of the House any Papers, or Correspondence, or Legal Opinion which may exist in the Ordnance Department with reference to such sale?"

THE NATIONAL DEFENCES.

  QUESTION.
  SIR FREDERIC SMITHsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for War when he intends to lay upon the Table of the House the Report of the Commissioners on the National Defences; and whether it is the intention of the Govern-
  190
  ment to present to Parliament in the present Session an Estimate for carrying into effect any of the recommendations of the Commissioners? The hon. and gallant General said it would be in the recollection of the House that a Royal Commission had, in the month of August last, been appointed for the purpose of inquiring into the condition of our national defences. The Report of that Commission had, he believed, been in the hands of the Government for some time, and he, under those circumstances, wished to ascertain what its nature was, and whether any steps had been taken by the Government to carry into effect the recommendations which it contained.
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEstated that the position of the Government property at Portsmouth was most unsatisfactory. Some twenty-five or thirty years ago it was the fashion to sell everything that came under that head; and not only was timber sold out of the dockyard, but a large portion of land was sold at the foot of the glacis at Portsmouth, the consequence of which was that at the present time the sentries could be picked off the fortifications by a revolver fired from the houses built upon the property so sold. Now the tide was turned the other way, and the authorities would not part with an inch of land which the inhabitants of Portsmouth might require for their convenience, be it ever so worthless. Last year a Bill was introduced into Parliament to carry the line of railway from the terminus at Landport, between the works of Portsea and through the Milldam, to a convenient landing-place in the harbour, for the purpose of accommodating passengers to the Isle of Wight. The War Office was understood to be willing to comply with the request, but the Admiralty vetoed it. The Admiralty, however, pointed out a line which they would permit, and this the War Office vetoed. In this way the Departments played into each other's hands, and the consequence was that the passengers had to be carried twenty-five miles round, and the direct communication with London through Portsmouth was interrupted by the obstinacy of the Departments. The Government property lay in shreds and patches all over the place, while portions of ground fit for docks and other works of defensive description were not in possession of the Crown to the proper extent. The ground held by the Government, uselessly lying in waste, would purchase all that was wanted. Just now

  191
  the War Department were doing, probably, the most absurd thing that could be done. They were building a line of fortifications at the bottom of Portsdown Hill; so that any force in possession of the hill could fire down into the whole of the fortifications, and with guns carrying four miles could burn and destroy the whole of the dockyard at Portsmouth. If the Government would appoint an independent Commission who knew the value of property, not of officers who regarded a bastion as a holy thing, he thought they would be able to realize money enough at Portsmouth to excavate all the docks that were necessary there, and provide an adequate arsenal, which certainly did not exist at present.

RELATIVE RANK OF ARMY SURGEONS.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL DICKSONsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether the Warrant of October 1st, 1858, giving to army surgeons the rank of majors, was meant to be retrospective? He admitted that the medical officers of the army were entitled to every consideration, but he thought it hard that non-combatant officers should have all the privileges of field officers. He thought that it would be sufficient to give surgeons the rank of junior major. According to the present understanding, a major who was acting commanding officer of his regiment might find the surgeon of the regiment senior in rank to himself.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Perhaps I may be allowed to answer a Question put by an hon. and gallant Member, who asked when the Report of the Commissioners on the National Defences would be laid upon the table. The Report is here, and my right hon. Friend will lay it on the table in the course of the evening. I wish at the same time to state that it will be my duty, at an early day, to submit to the House the course which Her Majesty's Government intend to recommend to Parliament with regard to the matters which are treated of in that Report.

CLERK OF THE COUNCIL.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I shall at the same time take advantage of being on my legs to answer a Question of which notice has been given by the hon. Member for Devizes, to whom I must apologize for
192
not having been here five minutes sooner that he might put it. It stands upon the Notice Paper, and, therefore, he will allow me perhaps to answer it, and thus save him the trouble of putting it. The hon. Member wishes to know whether the salary of £2,500 a year which was received by the First Clerk of Council, who has now retired, has been abolished, and whether the Clerk of Council who is to succeed, and has, I believe, succeeded Mr. Bathurst, is to receive the higher rate of £2,500, or the rate of £1,200 which was received by Mr. Bathurst. The state of the case enables me to answer affirmatively the question of the hon. Gentleman. The salary of £2,500 was abolished at the time Mr. Greville retired. Mr. Bathurst, when he was Clerk of the Council, received the salary of £1,200, and that is the amount of salary which will be received by Mr. Helps, who was appointed in his place. With regard to the allowance to Mr. Bathurst, its amount has not, I believe, been fixed. It will be awarded in conformity with the Superannuation Act, under the provisions of which he is about to retire.

ARMY PURCHASE.—QUESTION.
CAPTAIN STACPOOLEsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if a Captain of Cavalry who has purchased all his steps under the old Regulations wishes to exchange with a Captain of Infantry or to sell out of the Service, from what source he is to receive the difference between the price which he had paid and the present Regulation value of his Troop?
Mr. SIDNEY HERBERTin reply said, that the sum advanced by the officers was paid into the reserved fund, and they would receive any difference from that source.
The object of the warrant referred to by the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Dickson) was to place the medical officers of a regiment in a position to give weight and authority to their advice and professional opinion when it was tendered. Changes of this kind were carried out with some difficulty at the time, but it was felt to be desirable by giving the surgeons a higher army rank to mark the status which the surgeon held in a regiment. [Colonel DICKSON: Will the warrant be retrospective?] Every officer now in the army dated back his seniority, and the same rule would apply in the present case.
In reply to the question of the noble Lord (Lord W. Graham), he had to state

193
that he had made an inaccurate answer to the noble Lord on a former occasion, in regard to the repurchase of a portion of the land. There could be no doubt of the legality of the sale. The land was not sold under the statute of Queen Anne, but under an Act passed in October, 1784. It was subsequently vested in the Ordnance Board under the provisions of the same Act amended. The power of the Ordnance to sell was undoubted, but the policy of the sale was a very different question. There was a great deal of truth in the opinion that the sale of this land was made without proper consideration and forethought as to the future value of the property. With respect to the railway extension adverted to by the hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Elphinstone), no doubt the Company had offered that the works should be destroyed in case of war or other necessity, but such promises were easy to make and very difficult to exact. The hon. Gentleman had recommended the appointment of a Commission acquainted with the value of land to inquire into the subject of the Government land at Portsmouth which it might be advisable to sell. It would, however, be necessary that such a Commission should contain Members acquainted with Ordnance. [Sir JAMES ELPHINSTONE: I would combine both; gentlemen acquainted with the value of land and gentlemen acquainted with the improved ordnance of the times.] That was, no doubt, an improvement in the hon. Gentleman's recommendation.

COLONEL SIR JUSTIN SHEIL.—ARRESTS IN DUNDALK.—OBSBRVATIONS.
MR. WHITESIDEsaid, he would take the opportunity of making a statement in reference to a charge brought a few nights ago by the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. H. D. Seymour) against a gentleman who had been twenty years in the service of the Crown, that he had conducted himself in Persia as "a bully," that his policy had been "a bullying policy," that he was without influence at the Persian Court to which he was accredited, and that he secluded himself from Persian society. Anything spoken by a Member of that House was read all over the country; and he would ask the House, after they had hear! his explanation, whether the hon. Member was justifiable in applying such terms to Colonel Sir Justin Shiel. As he (Mr. Whiteside) had the good fortune to know Colonel Shiel, he might be allowed to state that he was
194
trained for the service of the East India Company. In 1834 he went to Persia to discipline certain regiments, and in this way he became personally known to the present Shah of Persia, whom he assisted in placing on the throne. After a long residence in Persia and Turkey, Colonel Sheil was appointed by Lord Aberdeen in 1844 British Minister in Persia. It was said he was without influence, but the Treaty of Erzeroum was effected by him. In 1845 he succeeded in abolishing torture, in conjunction with a Russian ally, and he induced the Shah to lay aside the pastime in which he had formerly indulged, of having the heads cut off and the eyes of his subjects put out in his presence. Colonel Sheil also induced the Persian Government to empower British vessels to seize every ship belonging to a Persian subject which had slaves on board. When Persia annexed Herat, although Colonel Sheil was without an army, made no presents and offered no bribes, yet he succeeded in obtaining a renunciation of all claim to Herat on the part of Persia, The hon. Gentleman (Mr. H. D. Seymour) said that in his time he found it more convenient to travel as a Russian subject than as an Englishman, or rather that he had travelled as a Circassian chief. However that might be, he believed that the character of an Englishman, which was always respected abroad, had been more respected in the Persian dominions during the time Colonel Sheil was there than in any state in Europe. Taking all these circumstances into consideration, he thought the observations made by the hon. Gentleman could scarcely be justified. He (Mr. Whiteside) wished, however, to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland for an explanation respecting recent Arrests for Conspiracy in Dundalk, and in relation to the discharge of certain other parties charged with or convicted of the like offence in Ireland. He had lately read an account of an arrest in Dundalk of persons charged with belonging to a secret society and being engaged in a conspiracy. It was said that the parties arrested belonged to the same order as some who had been previously convicted; that eleven men were in custody, and that it was believed the authorities were on the track of others. He wished to know whether that statement was true, and whether the conspiracy alluded to was one with which he was himself acquainted—namely, the Ribbon conspiracy, having, when in office under the late Government, found it

195
necessary to prosecute some members of that confederacy. There was a trial in Belfast; but one juryman held out, and there was no verdict, and when he left office these men were in custody; but he understood that the present Government had released them. The police had ascertained that their ringleader was a sergeant in a militia regiment in the pay of the Crown, and he thought him, therefore, having been guilty of perfidy as well as conspiracy, a very proper subject for prosecution. He, however, understood that this man had slipped through the fingers of the police, or had been pardoned. He trusted that he had not been restored to his regiment; for he could assure the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cardwell) opposite, that although a regiment of Sepoys might not be regarded as a very loyal support to a Government, a regiment of Ribbonmen would be far loss reliable as a force in the service of the Crown But there was another case, namely, of a schoolmaster in the south of Ireland, who had also been prosecuted. This man had also been receiving the pay of the Crown, and was convicted of treason. From the manner, however, in which he had been since treated, it would seem that treason was but lightly thought of as an offence. Sheep-stealing was punished severely as a crime, but the person who attempted to dethrone the Queen was not looked upon as so great a criminal as the sheep-stealer. At least, this was the only inference that could be drawn from what he understood to be the fact—namely, that the schoolmaster in question had been pardoned. He wished, therefore, to know whether this was the case, and, if so, whether the pardon had proceeded upon the recommendation of the Judge who had tried him. He felt it only right to mention that the learned Judge, Baron Green, one of the kindest-hearted men that ever lived, said upon the trial of the schoolmaster, that such was the sense he entertained of the enormity of the crime that he felt it to be his duty to sentence the man to fifteen years' penal servitude. He (Mr. Whiteside) acquiesced in the propriety of pardoning misguided men who were evidently repentant, but he could not agree that treason should be treated so lightly. At the same time that these men were prosecuted a man at Mullingar was sentenced to seven years' penal servitude fur Ribbonism. He wished to know whether that man had also been pardoned, and if so, whether his pardon had been recommended by the Judge who tried him. In
196
order to show the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cardwell) the delicate ground on which he was treading, in thus dealing with Ribbonism, he would state a simple fact. A few years ago the Ribbonmen of Dundalk had determined to put to death several gentlemen residents in the county of Louth. One of them, Mr. Eastwood, was nearly murdered. The two men who were appointed to kill him did not know his person, and they applied to a railway labourer to point him out to them. It was through this circumstance they were taken. They were prosecuted, and were executed. One of the grand jurymen of the same county called upon him (Mr. Whiteside) and informed him that he actually knew the public-house in Dundalk at which Ribbonmen had met and come to the deadly resolution of taking away his life, which they had fortunately not succeeded in carrying into effect. Now, a few years after that occurrence, he read the account which had induced him to ask this question. Eleven men were said to have been arrested for the same offence of Ribbonism. He wished to know if this were the case, and if they were in truth members of the same confederacy as those who, it was said, had been pardoned by the same Administration. He was perfectly willing to agree in the propriety of extending the mercy of the Crown to those who deserved it, but he was sceptical about the policy of pardoning men belonging to such a confederacy—men who could revolutionise a kingdom as well as disturb a province. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cardwell) that he would find the Ribbon conspiracy much more dangerous in its character than he had yet discovered it to be.

DEFENCE OF PORTSMOUTH.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  SIR CHARLES NAPIERsaid, he expected to have heard some Member of the Government reply to the Question of the hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth (Sir J. Elphinstone) relative to the defences of that Port; but as none had been given, he was desirous of adding the expression of his hope that Her Majesty's Government had employed some competent Engineer to superintend the fortifications at Portsmouth. An immense amount of money had been spent in this way some years ago; but it was perfectly unnecessary, for in consequence of the narrow passage of the harbour, its shallowness, and

  197
  other circumstances, it could easily be made secure by sinking any old vessel at the entrance, which would effectually prevent any ship from coming in. Or it would be quite possible, by burning damp powder in some old hulk or two, to cause such a smoke to rise all over the harbour, that it would be perfectly impossible for an enemy's vessel to see its way to the entrance. There was not a waterman in the harbour of Portsmouth that was not able to make a suggestion of this kind, and to see the inutility of such expensive fortifications as those which had been adopted. The Russians had taught us the use of sunken vessels at Sebastopol. But with regard to land fortifications at Portsmouth, he really could not see the use of them. They were building great redoubts all round the dockyard at a great expense. These redoubts were commanded by Portsdown Hill. It would, therefore, be necessary to build some enormous castle there to protect the redoubts. If those were built it rendered the lower fortifications seaward quite useless. It was said that fortifications were to be carried on throughout England. He hoped they would not be of the same useless character as those at Portsmouth. He believed that with some Armstrong and Whitworth guns placed on the Isle of Wight it would be possible to shell the dockyard and fortifications of Portsmouth to atoms. It was perfectly absurd and ridiculous to spend millions in such a manner. If an enemy wanted to invade England he would choose one of the many parts of the eastern coast of England where no fortifications existed. Fortification in truth was of no use. The only real and substantial defence of the country was a large, well-manned and well-disciplined fleet. In the time of Napoleon Buonaparte, when all Europe was against her, and 3,000 vessels were assembled at Boulogne for her invasion, England was defended by her fleet alone, and she required no other protection.

DESTITUTION IN IRELAND.

  QUESTION.
  MR. HENNESSYsaid, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether the Government adhere to their determination not to take any special steps to remedy the destitution prevailing in Ennis and other parts of Ireland? The hon. Member said he addressed a question on the same subject to the Chief Secretary for Ireland on the 17th of April last, and he was then
  198
  told that the Government would do nothing beyond the ordinary administration of the Poor Law. A very unfavourable impression had been created by the course the Government had adopted. A memorial had been presented from Belmullet to the Government, stating that, of a population of 20,000 people, one-half were in a destitute condition; that hundreds were deserting their homes, and fleeing to other shores to escape the horrors of impending famine; and that thousands could not emigrate, and were therefore compelled either to seek refuge in a workhouse or perish by famine. The prayer of that memorial was supported by clergymen of all denominations. The Government, however, had done nothing. The subject was noticed in the foreign journals and in America. A newspaper published at Turin contained an article, in which the writer said:—
  "The British Government do not seem to trouble themselves about this Irish famine; they neither make efforts to check the emigration to America nor attempt to provide for the grievous necessities of the Irish people. They show great affection for our nationality, but wish that the Irish should be borne down in slavery, without being able to raise their heads."
  Of course it was exaggerated language, but it was the language of a Sardinian journal, which had eulogized the noble Lord for his sympathy in the Italian cause. In a French journal the writer said:—
  "Let France send forth an offering worthy of that great nation. The French Government might throw into the balance its powerful authority and interfere in favour of Ireland. It would be a noble action indeed, and as serviceable to humanity as to that country."
  No doubt he should receive the same answer from the right hon. Gentleman as he did in April, that the Poor Law Commissioners had power to provide for the relief of the poor in those districts, and must insist on the people filling the workhouses before granting other relief. But it was well known that the peasantry of Ireland would perish of starvation rather than give up their cabins and little pieces of land and enter the workhouse. The total failure of the Poor Law system in an emergency like this had been amply proved, and to the mode of its administration he attributed the extraordinary tide of emigration from Ireland to the United States. When there was great distress in the village of Inniskeagh the Poor Law Inspector, after visiting the place, recommended the employment of

  199
  the people on public works proposed by the grand jury of the county, but was reproved by the Commissioners, who told him he must regard the case of the inhabitants in reference to Poor Law relief alone. It seemed harsh on the part of the Commissioners; but they knew that under the Act they had no power to give out-door relief to able-bodied persons while there was room for them in the workhouse. This destitution was going on increasing every day, and he therefore respectfully asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he would not take some steps to relieve it.
  MR. CARDWELL, in answer to the right hon. and learned Member for Dublin University, said it was quite true that eleven persons were under arrest at Dundalk on a charge of Ribbonism—an association which it was the duty of every Government to put down by all the means at their command. In the case at Belfast, to which the right hon. Gentleman had alluded, while the right hon. Gentleman was Attorney General, the parties were put upon their trial twice, and on both occasions the jury disagreed and no verdict was obtained. On the third occasion the parties pleaded guilty, on the understanding, sanctioned by the Judge, Mr. Justice Christian, that they should be released on their recognizances. That was done when Mr. FitzGerald was Attorney General, and if the right hon. Gentleman opposite disapproved of that course, he ought to have questioned it when Mr. FitzGerald was a Member of that House. With regard to the sergeant who the right hon. Gentleman had allowed to slip through his fingers, the information which the right hon. Gentleman had received was due to the imagination of his informant.
  MR. WHITESIDE: The statement I received was from the police.
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, the Government had never heard of the sergeant since he succeeded in slipping through the fingers of the right hon. Gentleman, and there was no truth whatever in the statement that he had been restored to his regiment, and was now receiving the pay of the Queen. With regard to the prosecution which had taken place in the south of Ireland, the same course had been followed as in Belfast, and with the approbation of the Judge, Mr. Justice Keogh. The parties pleaded guilty and were released upon their recognizances, with the exception of one, Daniel Sullivan, who had been convicted by the jury; as, however, his
  200
  case was precisely similar to the others, on consultation with Baron Greene who tried him, he also was released upon his recognizances; and since then his case had been represented to the Lord Lieutenant, who had granted him a pardon. With regard to Martin Farrell, who was tried in Westmeath, the learned Judge, Chief Justice Monaghan, was consulted, and the result was not favourable, as the antecedents of the prisoner were objectionable, and the prisoner was now undergoing his sentence. With regard to Ribbonism, it was a most nefarious system, and he was happy to say it was gradually but steadily diminishing throughout Ireland, and it was honestly discouraged by the clergy of all the churches in Ireland. He did not hesitate to express his confident belief that its progress towards diminution would be rapid as well as steady.
  In answer to the observations of the hon. Member for the King's County in reference to the distress in Mayo, in the first place he must demur to the hon. Gentleman founding his information from Turin newspapers and extracts from French journals—which had the hon. Member been longer in the House he would not have read. He was sorry to say that extreme distress existed in the district of Erris. This had arisen from various causes. The storms in the autum had destroyed the oat crop; in the winter there had been a serious failure in the potato crop, and there had been an extraordinary failure in the fisheries. All this was followed by a further calamity, an extraordinary drought that deprived their cattle of the pasture on which they placed their entire dependence in the spring. It unfortunately happened, too, that the farmers had considerably increased their stocks of cattle, relying upon their finding provender on the mountains. From all those four causes combined very great distress was caused. The hon. Gentleman must not suppose for a moment that it was the intention of the Government to break down those laws which Parliament had provided for the relief of the necessities of the people under circumstances such as those of the present case. In the workhouse of Belmullet there was accommodation for 600 paupers, but the maximum number relieved had been 125; and the latest number which had reached him was 116, being however, more than double the number of the inmates last year. The guardians, with the sanction of the Poor Law Commissioners, had determined not

  201
  to raise additional rates at present, but to incur a small debt for their supplies; and the supplemental rates raised in five of the electoral divisions varied from 9d. to 1s. 4d. in the pound. The arrangements for affording relief were reported to be quite satisfactory, and no person requiring assistance was refused. The persons who had really suffered the greatest distress were the small farmers of the district. But how would the hon. Gentleman propose that the Government should act with respect to them? He had found fault with a letter written by the Poor Law Commissioners to one of their Inspectors, who had taken on himself to travel into the province of public works instead of confining his efforts to the department of poor relief. The Commissioners not unnaturally thought the most satisfactory way of discharging public duties was, for each person to mind his own business. The hon. Member for the King's County wished the Government to engage in a system of public works; but there was no necessity for doing so. He was informed that the landed proprietors had not been inattentive to their duties, that considerable activity was displayed upon some of the estates, and it was reported to him that there an air of "cheerfulness and ease" prevailed. Supplies of meal were abundant, and arrangements had been made to facilitate the sale of seed at moderate prices. Any interference by the Government, he contended, would only have dried up the sources of private enterprise, and have been productive of far more suffering to the unhappy people.

WAKEFIELD PROSECUTIONS.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  CAPTAIN JERVISasked the hon. and learned Attorney General, Whether he had understood correctly that the prosecutions in connection with the Wakefield Election, would be founded, not on the common, but on statute law, he should withdraw the Motion on this subject which he had placed on the paper.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: Previously to the Motion of the hon. and gallant Member, I had determined that if, contrary to my opinion, the lapse of one year was an objection to the prosecutions that I had instituted under statute, there should be no attempt to support those prosecutions by a resort to common law. If, therefore, I and those who have advised
  202
  me, are wrong in supposing that they are not affected by time, and if it should turn out that they are so affected, those prosecutions fail, and will be given up, and they shall not be supported by any resort to the common law.

AFRICAN SLAVE TRADE.—QUESTION.
MR. CAVEsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether his attention has been directed to the Message of the President of the United States to Congress, on the 19th day of May, respecting the Slave Trade: And, Whether Her Majesty's Government have received any recent communications from the Government of the United States, or intend making any fresh proposals to that Government on this subject? His reason for asking the question was, that an opportunity appeared to present itself for striking a decisive blow at that detestable traffic, which had for so many years disgraced Spain, and caused the expenditure of so much treasure, and the loss of so many valuable lives to this country. In the years 1856–7 the high price of sugar had given an extraordinary impetus to the slave-trade; and during the summer of that year he had had the honour of waiting with a deputation upon the noble Lord (Lord Palmerston) then, as now, at the head of Her Majesty's Government, for the purpose of suggesting some means by which the traffic might be more effectually checked. In consequence of the suggestions of the deputation, the noble Lord had initiated the two best measures that had ever been adopted since the squadron of repression was first stationed in those seas. Through the right hon. Baronet, the Secretary for India, then First Lord of the Admiralty (Sir Charles Wood) he sent steam gunboats into the Cuban waters, and instructed the naval officers in command, that when a Spanish slaver was taken without papers or colours, which was generally the case, she should be considered as having forfeited her nationality, and should be taken into a British, instead of a Spanish Port; so that the liberated negroes might really regain their liberty, instead of being retained in virtual slavery, under the name of Emancipados, which would have been their fate in Cuba. He (Mr. Cave) had had the honour of submitting to the Admiralty a plan drawn up with great care by persons intimately acquainted with the West Indies, marking

203
out the best cruising ground, in which there would be the least risk of coming into collision with the lawful American traders. He fully believed that the Government of the Unitel States was as sincere as our own in their endeavours to suppress this odious traffic. He did not believe that the great mass of the American people would tolerate for a moment the revival of the slave trade to America, which had sometimes been talked of. All accounts showed that the officers of the United States Navy employed on this duty performed it with zeal, and without favour. But it could not be denied that a considerable amount of American capital was employed in the slave trade. The small but active section who so disgraced themselves and their country, and on whom the employment and success of these gunboats had fallen like a thunderbolt, were determined that they should be recalled. If there was one point upon which Americans were more sensitive than another, it was the right of search; relying upon this, these slave traders got up complaints of insult to the American flag; most of them grossly exaggerated, many of them utterly false; so that the American people became excited, their Government uneasy, till at length Her Majesty's Government, to avoid unpleasant consequences, recalled the gunboats, or, which amounted to the same thing, prohibited their interfering with the American flag. This was in 1858. Since which time the Cuban planter had imported as many slaves as he wanted. The whole number in the Island was said to be 400,000, of whom 10 per cent died annually, and there was no natural increase. We learned from other sources, that 40,000 Africans were imported every year, which exactly supplied the loss; and if any more were required, they were supplied by the equally atrocious slave trade from China and Yucatan. Now, it seemed monstrous that this should be allowed to go on in the teeth of England and America, and in defiance of the most solemn treaties. And so thought the President of the United States, for he concluded a message to Congress, on the 19th May last, which appeared in The Times of Tuesday last, in these words:—
"That it is truly lamentable that Great Britain and the United States should be obliged to spend such a vast amount of blood and treasure for the suppression of the African slave trade, when the only portions of the civilized world, where it is tolerated and encouraged, are the Spanish Islands of Cuba and Porto Rico."
204
He omitted, indeed, to mention, that it was the abuse of the American flag, which caused the chief difficulty. Lord Malmesbury had done as much as man could do, as the Slave Trade Papers presented to Parliament showed, to obtain a modification of the American law in this respect; but he had only obtained a long argumentative despatch from General Cass, which closed the published correspondence, and which did not advance the question one iota. He (Mr. Cave) believed the United States Government were powerless in this respect; and could not, if they wished, run counter to the prejudices of the people. Here, however, a fresh advance towards action in this matter seemed to be made by the President. The Americans were bound by the Ashburton Treaty to have eighty guns employed in the service. Half that number in light steamers would be more efficient than their present armament. The Cuba coast was easily watched. The navigable channels were not very wide. The wind almost always blew in one direction. For about four hours in the morning, between the land and sea breezes, there was usually a dead calm, giving steamers an immense advantage over sailing vessels approaching the land. A joint system of cruising might be adopted with a proper code of signals; so that whenever a suspicious vessel, with an American flag, approached within sight of a British cruiser, the latter might signalize to an American cruiser to come up and overhaul her. Other means might have been suggested; but he had already overstepped the limits of a question. His excuse being this unexpected opportunity, and the importance of the subject to the interests of humanity, and the credit of the country.
MR. KINNAIRDthanked the hon. Gentleman for having introduced the question, and asked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, whether any representations had been made to the American Government relating to a co-operation on the part of that country with the Government of England, by which the vessels of the United States might cruise in company with Her Majesty's ships. This joint action might make up for the defects in the law, and by the co-operation this iniquitous traffic might be put down.
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: Before I answer the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cave), I wish, in justice to the public servant who has been alluded to by the hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr.

205
Whiteside), to state my entire concurrence with the observations he has made in reference to Sir Justin Shiel. It is due to a public servant who has obtained great distinction, and who has now retired from active service, that his character should be retained unsullied.
As to the Question of the hon. Gentleman in regard to the slave trade, it is a subject that must always interest the House and the country. I can add nothing to the statement of the hon. Member for Shoreham as to the negotiations of Lord Malmesbury and the attempts that were made to excite the jealousy of the Americans on the right of search. It is unfortunately but too true that the slave trade is still extensively carried on by Cuba. I believe from 30,000 to 40,000 slaves are annually brought into that island from Africa, and it is perfectly true that this trade is carried on in contempt and violation of treaties between this country and Spain. The increase of the traffic arises from various causes; one is the jealousy of the American Government as to any interference with ships bearing the American flag; another cause is the imperfection of the American law on this subject. In the English Treaty there is an article called "the equipment article," by which vessels equipped for the slave trade can be seized by English cruisers; but there is no such provision and no such power given to the American cruisers by the American law. Therefore, vessels on the coast of Africa, though completely equipped for the traffic, and waiting off the harbours to embark a cargo of slaves, if they are seen under the American flag, cannot be interfered with by our cruisers; and if they are pointed out to an American cruiser it is also unable to interfere with the vessel, because, having no slaves on board, there is no provision in the American law to justify the seizure. There is another imperfection of the American law in regard to vessels carrying no flag or papers. A slaver off the coast of Cuba having no flag can be seized by an English cruiser; but if she destroys her flag and papers she cannot be seized by an American cruiser. Her Majesty's Government has proposed to the United States a plan of co-operation, by which English and American cruisers sailing together, one would be able to seize slavers bearing the American flag, while the other could take those slavers which showed no flag at all, so that in cither case it should be impossi-
206
ble for the suspected vessel to escape. That proposal is now under the consideration of the American Government, but we have never obtained from that Government a promise to amend their law in the particulars to which I have referred. I fear those statements are well founded, according to which it is not likely any proposition to make the laws against the slave trade more stringent would at present obtain the sanction of Congress, But the question has engaged the attention of Her Majesty's Government, and a despatch I propose to transmit to the different Powers, will explain the state of the law on the subject. It is certainly shocking and mortifying to reflect, that after all the efforts that we have made, and the solemn treaties that have been concluded with that view, we have not been able totally to destroy the slave trade. There is one point in which I do see a prospect of some good being effected. The hon. Member has made an allusion to China. No doubt the kidnapping Chinese by the most atrocious means, and removing them from their country, is to be equally condemned as the slave trade. But there is this distinction between this practice and the African slave traffic. Wherever the slave trade exists in Africa there have been previous wars, man hunting, horrible and constant destruction of villages, and the ruin of that degree of civilization which it is always the object of the British Government to promote. The case of the traffic from China is different. There the people are highly civilized, under the protection of severe laws, and the governors and persons in authority possess very sufficient powers if they choose to exercise them. It has been thought better to employ the agency and aid of the Chinese authorities, to put an end to this kidnapping, and to substitute for it a system of voluntary emigration, of which great numbers of persons in China are ready to avail themselves. In this direction, by acting together with other nations, I see some prospect of improvement. When we compare the state of things which now exists in the case of the slave trade with that which several years ago prevailed, and the diminution which the traffic has undergone, we are afforded the consolation that there is no just reason for abandoning the hope that it may be ultimately altogether abolished.
I may in conclusion say, in reply to the Question of the hon. Gentleman opposite, (Mr. S. FitzGerald) that we possess no

207
official information from the French Government with reference to the extension of the time for the conversion of ad valorem duties, although there is private information which induces me to think that further time will be required.
MR. DANBY SEYMOURhoped that as a very grave accusation had been made against him about an hour and a half before by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin, he might he allowed to take advantage of the present opportunity to make a reply to it. It was not his habit to bring charges in that House or elsewhere, more especially against public servants who had long performed their duty to their country, without sufficient grounds; but he had felt called upon to make the observations which he had offered to the House on Friday last because of the change of policy towards Persia which the retirement of Sir Henry Rawlinson from his position in that country was supposed to indicate. In speaking of the opposite policy, which he had characterized as "the bullying system" he had found it necessary to advert to the gentleman to whom the right hon. Member for the University of Dublin had referred, and he had stated that under the operation of that system British influence in Persia had been destroyed. Colonel Sheil had never, he might add, been able to procure the abolition of slavery in that country—the boon being refused so long as he was at the Embassy at Teheran, which he had only left the Embassy a few days when the Shah had conceded to Colonel Farrant that which had been previously denied. He might further state that Colonel Sheil was not only in the habit of flogging his own servants, but had insisted that the Government of Persia should flog the Persians generally—at least so far as he (Mr. D. Seymour) could understand the circumstances of the case from the despatch which had been sent out by the Foreign Office to put a stop to the system. Then, again, Colonel Sheil had, he believed, nothing to do with overthrowing the slave trade, which important concession was the work of Mr. Murray. With regard to the Convention of Herat he need do nothing more than refer to the words which had been used with respect to it by the present Secretary for Foreign Affairs, who described it as extremely loose and ill-drawn. Having made those remarks he could assure hon. Members that he had felt extreme reluctance in bringing forward the subject
208
which had led to them, and in being obliged to comment upon the acts of a gentleman whose private life was, he believed, most respectable, and who was the brother of one who had been among the greatest ornaments of that House. He did not, however, see how he could adequately explain the distinction between the two different policies which had prevailed in Persia, and point out the reasons why, in his opinion, the one had failed, and why the other should be adopted without introducing the name of Colonel Sheil, against whom he might add, he had no personal feeling whatever. He might be permitted to take the present opportunity of repeating his belief that, our influence in Persia must depend very much on our Minister in that country; and in support of that view he might mention the fact that, when the late Shah died, Colonel Farrant, who was at the time our Chargé d'Affaires at Teheran, had, by taking the charge of everything upon himself, and by sending letters to the various Governors, been enabled through his personal influence, to prevent the breaking out of those civil commotions which were usual on such occasions, and to procure the succession of the present Shah to the throne without difficulty. He sincerely hoped that the choice of a successor to Sir Henry Rawlinson which the Government had made would be equally advantageous, and that the eccentric habits which had to a certain extent been indulged in in Constantinople, would be laid aside in Persia. Nobody, he might add, wished better to the gentleman who was now about to go there than himself.

ENGLISH SHIPWRIGHTS IN FRENCH DOCKYARDS.
MR. H. B. JOHNSTONEsaid, he some weeks ago asked the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he was aware that at the end of the financial year several shipwrights had been discharged from Her Majesty's dockyards, nearly all of whom had obtained employment in the French dockyards. The noble Lord in reply said he knew nothing about the matter. On that day week there appeared in all the newspapers a report of an application made to one of the Metropolitan magistrates for a passport to France by one of our shipwrights who had been discharged from Portsmouth dockyard. The applicant stated that his object in asking for a passport was to obtain employment in the French dockyards. The magistrate thought

209
it was an extraordinary application, and asked him whether he could not get employment in this country. The applicant said he could not, and that 500 shipwrights who had been discharged from Her Majesty's dockyards were now employed in the French dockyards, that he believed hundreds more of our shipwrights intended to follow them, and that he was anxious to get employment in France. He (Mr. B. Johnstone) did not wish to cast any blame on the Government with respect to this matter, for he knew they were not to blame. His object in bringing this subject before the House and the country was to point out the great activity that at present prevailed in the French dockyards. From information he had received there was at this moment between 1,200 and 1,300 of our skilled artisans employed in the French dockyards. If the calamity of a war should happen between England and France, we might have the pleasure of taking the French ships built by those men; but it was a very grave matter that some of our best shipwrights should be employed in building French ships. Could not some mode be suggested for preventing our shipwrights going to France for employment? If the Admiralty would discharge more gradually the men whom they did not want, so much dissatisfaction and disgust would not be created amongst them, and they would be less disposed to enter into the service of foreign countries. He would conclude by asking the Secretary to the Admiralty, whether it is true, as stated in an application made to one of the Metropolitan magistrates, that upwards of 500 shipwrights, who had been suddenly discharged from Portsmouth dockyard, had gone to Cherbourg, and are now in the employment of the French Government?
MR. BERNAL OSBORNEbore testimony to the anxiety which prevailed on this subject. He wished to ask the noble Lord (Lord C. Paget) if he was able to contradict a statement that had been given as the reason for discharging those men from our dockyards. The reason given, as he understood, was that there was not two years' supply of timber in store. He also wished to ask the Secretary for Ireland what course he intended to take with regard to those Irish Bills which had been on the paper for so long a time? There was a Bill for the registration of births, marriages, and deaths, brought in by the Government, and he believed a Bill had been brought in on the same subject by
210
the noble Lord opposite (Lord Naas), which stood for that night also, and there were also two Landlord and Tenant Bills. He thought, therefore, it would be very convenient to hon. Gentlemen connected with Ireland, if the Secretary for Ireland would state what course he intended to take in respect to these Bills.
LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, he perfectly remembered the Question which the hon. Member had put to him some weeks ago with regard to the discharge of artificers from Her Majesty's dockyards, and who, it was stated, had gone to Cherbourg to enter the Imperial dockyard there. Now, that statement had caused a good deal of sensation, which was not confined entirely to this side of the water. The result was that our Consul at Cherbourg had written to our Government to state that there was no truth whatever in the report of any English workmen having got employment in the Imperial dockyard at Cherbourg. He stated, moreover, that it was contrary to the regulations that any foreign artificer should work in the French dockyards; he added also—which was a still more conclusive argument against the supposition of English workmen being so employed—that whereas both in private trade and under the system of the Royal dockyards in this country the men were earning about 6s. a day, in France the wages were about 4f. a day. It was not likely, therefore, English workmen, when there was plenty of work to be had all round the country, should go across the water to work for 4f. a day; and if any had gone, they would probably be glad to come back again. He did send, however, to Sir Richard Mayne to inquire whether any number of men had asked at the Police' courts for passports; and he (Sir Richard Mayne) found on making inquiries at the Southward Police-court that only one man, named James Bindon, a shipwright by trade, who had been employed in one of the dockyards but had been lately discharged with a great number of his fellow-workmen, had applied for a passport, and had proceeded to Cherbourg with several other men. That was according to the statement of that man, but he was the only individual who was known to have asked for a passport, and he was not refused one. It had been said that the Admiralty had discharged a great number of men, and he would state how the case stood in that respect. In the last winter, when the work was slack in the private yards, a number of extra work-

211
men were put on in the dockyards, because there was a good sum of money under the Dockyard Vote in hand. Those men were, as he said, employed in the winter months, but with the warning that they would be discharged at the end of the financial year. But the Admiralty were anxious that, to prevent distress to the workmen, in consequence of a large number being thrown out of employ at one time, those discharges should be very gradual, and at times when private employment was very plentiful. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would not think they were unduly stinted in the dockyards when he (Lord Clarence Paget) told him they were now working there with 17,556 men, the greatest number ever employed at any former period in the present century, the greatest number employed during the great war with France being only 14,754. The hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. B. Osborne) wanted to know whether the men who had been discharged were sent away in consequence of there not being a sufficient quantity of timber in store. [Mr. B. OSBORNE: That was the reason given.] That might be part of the reason, but it was to be hoped they were not going to keep that enormous mass of men permanently employed in the dockyards. If they were kept constantly at work, of course, the stock of timber would soon be exhausted; but according to the ordinary consumption, they had now two years' stock of timber in hand, and his hon. Friend would find that the interests of the country were not neglected in that respect.
MR. H. B. JOHNSTONEsaid, that he was perfectly satisfied with the explanations of the noble Lord.
LORD CLARENCE PAGETcontinued: The hon. and gallant Member for Brighton (Sir G. Pechell) had asked him whether it was the intention of the Admiralty to give the same extra pay and allowances to the naval forces now in China as to those in India. He was afraid of saying anything which might engender hopes which might be disappointed; but he could assure his hon. Friend that the Admiralty would act strictly according to precedent, whatever that might be, and would do justice to the naval forces employed; but he could not distinctly answer the question as to what the allowances would be.

POST-OFFICE ADMINISTRATION.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BOWYERsaid, that a great deal
  212
  of dissatisfaction existed among the persons employed by the Post Office, and a Committee had been appointed to inquire into their grievances. Owing, however, to some difficulty in regard to their powers, two of the Committee had resigned, and the remaining Members became paralysed in their functions. The Committee had since been reinforced by two gentlemen from the Treasury, and resumed its labours. For some reason or other, however, this Committee did not enjoy the confidence of the persons employed in the Post Office, many of whom had declined to carry their complaints before it. The appointment of the Committee, and the invitation addressed by the heads of departments to their subordinates to bring their complaints before it, must be regarded as an acknowledgment on the part of the Government that grievances did exist. A public meeting of Post Office employés was held a short time ago to petition Parliament with regard to some of the grievances under which they laboured, and he could not deny that the wording of some of the Resolutions and the language used by some of the speakers who supported them were somewhat stronger and less delicate than was desirable. Still these poor men had substantial hardships to complain of, and the Government ought not to criticise too closely the expressions which had fallen from some of them in the heat of the moment. He was informed that four persons in the employment of the Post Office had been suspended for the part which they took in the proceedings of the meeting. Now, this raised a grave question in a constitutional point of view. The right of petitioning Parliament belonged to every citizen of this country, and ought to be held sacred. The punishment of these men, therefore, for exercising a right which the constitution conferred on them was scarcely justifiable. He would be told, no doubt, that these men were not entitled to take the course they did because the Government had already appointed a Committee to consider their case; but he maintained that if the Committee did not possess their confidence they had a right to appeal to Parliament to redress their grievances. He wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether these men have really been suspended, and whether, if they have, the Government will not take their case into consideration with the view of reinstating them?
  MR. LAINGregretted that he could not

  213
  give as specific an answer to the question of the hon. Gentleman as it would have been his duty to do had he received notice of it. It was certainly true that considerable discontent had existed among a large number of the servants of the Post Office, especially in the letter-carriers' department. It was also true that a Committee of the superior officers of the Post Office was appointed some time ago to investigate the complaints of these men. In consequence of a difficulty which arose as to the instructions given to the Committee, and the resignation of some of the Members in consequence, their labours were suspended, and owing to Lord Elgin's departure for China some delay occurred in pursuing the inquiry. On the Duke of Argyll being appointed head of the Post Office the Committee of the superior officers was reconstituted as a Commission, with full powers to make ample inquiry into the grievances of the letter-carriers and others, and with the addition of an element independent of the Post Office, in the shape of Mr. Hamilton, Assistant Secretary to the Treasury, and Mr. Stephenson, the chief clerk of the department of the Treasury connected with the Post Office. The Commission so constituted had for the last fortnight been actively engaged in the investigation. They had taken great pains to make themselves acquainted with all the circumstances of the case, and had on one or two occasions visited the Post Office about four o'clock in the morning, in order to see how the work was conducted of which the men complained. Every opportunity had been given to the men to state their grievances, and there was no ground for the statement that the persons employed in the Post Office did not generally repose confidence in the Commission. On the contrary, he had reason to believe that the Committee of the superior officers of the office, as originally constituted, did command the confidence of the men, and that the discontent arose from the suspension of that Committee, and the apprehension that no investigation was to take place. The inquiry by the Commission would be thoroughly searching and impartial. In a large body of men, such as was employed at the Post Office, it was essential that discipline should be maintained. Among a large number of men there would always be a few disposed to be agitators, and if, after a Commission of this sort was appointed, a number of the men held a meeting to induce their fellow-servants not to go before the Commission to state their case
  214
  fairly and fully, it was necessary for the preservation of discipline that such conduct should be marked by suspension. He was not in possession of information which would enable him to state as a matter of fact that the men had been suspended, but he thought it extremely probable that they had been, and, from his own experience in the management of large bodies of men connected with railways, he thought that such a step could hardly be avoided. The Commission would shortly conclude their investigation, and their Report would, no doubt, be laid before the House. He trusted that such measures would then be taken as would remove all reasonable grounds of discontent among the servants of the Post Office.
  MR. BOWYERsaid, he did not complain that disapprobation had been expressed of a meeting the object of which was to induce the servants of the Post Office not to go before the Commission, but that men had been suspended for exercising the constitutional right which every subject possessed of petitioning Parliament.

INDIA.—DISARMING THE NATIVES.

  ADDRESS MOVED.
  MR. H. BAILLIE, in moving for an Address for Copies of all Correspondence with the several Governments of India, regarding the disarming of the Natives in Guzerat, together with any Minutes or Opinions recorded by Members of the late Court of Directors previously to the transfer of the Indian Government to Her Majesty, and subsequently of the Council of India, having reference to the same subject, said he wished to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for India to the proceedings of the Indian Government in regard to this matter. There was no mode of punishment, no disgrace, no humiliation, so great in the eyes of a proud and warlike people as being deprived of their arms. It was calculated to arouse the bitterest feelings of the people, and this mode of punishment if carried out without great judgment and discretion would create great evils. When the people of Oude and elsewhere took up arms against us, and were conquered in fair fight, and as a matter of course were obliged to submit to the penalty—that was not the disarming he complained of. What he complained of was, that the disarming should be carried on indiscriminately, and in those territories were the people had shown no hostility, where they

  215
  had not rebelled, but where, in spite of strong temptation to a different course, they had remained tranquil. To disarm in such a case was not only unnecessary, it was tyrannical and oppressive. Nevertheless, the Government of India had adopted this course, and with a severity altogether unjustifiable. He held in his hand an extract from a letter from an Indian officer of rank and position. It was dated in 1859. The writer stated,
  "My opinion now is that we are hated cordially; and the mode in which the disarming Act is carried out is in a great measure the cause of it. The arms were collected by the use of torture. The Natives were tied up, and flogged, and tortured to make them confess were their arms were concealed; and sometimes the flogging produced nothing. The men employed were chiefly youngsters, inexperienced, and likely to commit all sorts of folly."
  Well, this did not appear to be a very satisfactory mode of inaugurating Her Majesty's reign in India, nor of convincing the people of the great advantages they were likely to derive from subjection to British dominion. Some years ago a statement was made in the House of Commons that torture was employed in India by the Government. The statement was received with incredulity, and indignantly denied by those who had administered the affairs of India. But the House of Commons thought that inquiries should be made. Inquiries were made accordingly, and it turned out that torture was not only carried on, but that it was so common that it was used as the ordinary mode of collecting their revenue. Villages, too, had been burned down and razed to the ground in Guzerat, for no other reason than that the people were supposed to have concealed their arms. And this was in the territory of an independent Prince, an ally of the British Crown. The Indian Government had obtained the permission of that Prince to the disarmament of his subjects; but it was on that account the more to be regretted that the measure had been carried out with circumstances of such great severity. He trusted that there would be no objection to the production of the papers, for which he then begged leave, in conclusion, to move.
  COLONEL SYKES, in seconding the Motion, said he had from the first regarded the disarming of the Natives as a highly impolitic measure, because it would not only be ineffectual, inasmuch as we could not disarm the people of the independent Native States, but it would indicate a de-
  216
  gree of distrust unworthy of a strong Government. It would, moreover, expose the peaceful population of our own and the Native States where the disarming could be carried out to being made the victims of the predatory hordes who infested India. This disarmament was taking place not only among our own subjects, but was being attempted amongst the populations of the independent States of Gwalior, of the Guicowar, and the Rajpoot States. It should be remembered that the Pathan Mahomedans, the Rajpoots, and many other Native castes, looked at the bearing of arms as bound up with their personal honour; and consequently to disarm them could only excite in their minds a feeling more intense than resentment—of deep and bitter revenge—against the Government. When in the Court of Directors he had therefore protested against the measure as unworthy of us. He trusted, however, that the alarm which had existed with regard to the Native population was subsiding, and that we were beginning now to place a little more confidence in them. He had heard—but he hoped the report was not true—that in some of the Coolie villages in Goojrat the inhabitants had been removed by force from the districts in which they had been planted from time immemorial, and that to prevent their returning to their homes the sites of the villages had been literally turned up with ploughs drawn by asses, an indignity which would necessarily excite great exasperation. He was glad that the papers were to be produced, and the willingness of the right hon. Gentleman to grant them was an evidence that he did not participate in the feelings which dictated the orders that had been issued.
  Notice taken, that Forty Members were not present; House counted; and Forty Members being present—
  SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, that the measure referred to was taken before he was appointed to his present office. The disarming of the Natives was not a measure of punishment, but only one of prevention, and to be justified by the circumstances in which India was placed. The disarmament referred to had taken place with the consent of the Guicowar, and was the means of preventing serious mischief in his States. Tantia Topee went down into that country with a view of raising an insurrection, but he failed in his object, the people, who were otherwise willing enough to join him, being destitute of arms. He

  217
  had no objection to the production of the papers moved for.
  MR. H. BAILLIEthought it must be a gratuitous assumption on the part of his right hon. Friend to state that there would have been a rising in the States of the Guicowar if the people had had arms, because he understood that they could by no possibility disarm the people of India, and that when they were asked to deliver up their arms they merely surrendered the old and useless arms, reserving the good and useful ones. It was because the officers were aware of this fact that they resorted to such harsh measures.
  MR. VANSITTARTsaid, that the measure of disarming the Natives originated in the Legislative Council of Calcutta, where it was fully discussed and found to be absolutely necessary. It was, he thought, one of the most judicious measures that had ever emanated from an assembly of which, as he had frequently avowed, he had not a very exalted opinion. That precaution had had a great effect in keeping down the population in the Punjab. There was no doubt that the prompt disarming of the people of Scinde by Sir Charles Napier was of the greatest service to Mr. Frere in his administration of that province. Had the advice given by Mr. Coverly Jackson—who was sent to Oude by Lord Dalhousie—been accepted by that noble Lord, and the people then and there disarmed and some hundreds of mud forts dismantled, there was little doubt that the fearful siege of Lucknow and the Cawnpore and other massacres would have been wholly prevented or greatly mitigated. Therefore although isolated cases of hardship might have occurred in carrying out the disarmament, he was persuaded that it was a wise and politic measure.
  MR. J. B. SMITHsaid, that whatever might be said of the disarming of the people, the burning of their villages could not be considered as a measure of prevention.
  Motion agreed to.
  Address for "Copies of all Correspondence with the several Governments of India, regarding the disarming of the Natives in Guzerat; together with any Minutes or Opinions recorded by Members of the late Court of Directors previously to the transfer of the Indian Government to Her Majesty, and subsequently of the Council of India, having reference to the same subject."

ANCHORS AND CHAIN CABLES, MERCHANT SERVICE.—LEAVE.
SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONErose to move for leave to bring in a Bill to esta-
218
blish a test for anchors and chain cables for the merchant service, when
Notice taken, that Forty Members were not present; House counted; and Forty Members not being present,
House adjourned at Nine o'clock, till Monday next.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—2a Malicious Injuries to Property Act Amendment.
3a Sale of Gas Act Amendment.

SICILY—BOMBARDMENT OF PALERMO.

  QUESTION.
  LORD BROUGHAMsaid, he had a question to ask of his noble Friend the President of the Council, which he trusted his noble Friend would be able to answer in the negative. It was, Whether there was any foundation—he hoped there was none—for the accounts that had been spread in this and neighbouring countries of the bombardment of the town of Palermo? For the honour of human nature he hoped there was no foundation for the report of such an unexampled atrocity. He said unexampled, for even the most execrable tyrant of ancient times, whose name had become proverbial for tyranny—even Nero

  147
  was only charged with standing by in levity while Rome was burning; but he was never charged with the far more atrocious offence of having set fire to the city for the purpose of destroying among its hundreds of thousands of inhabitants those who were his enemies. He hoped and trusted that there was no ground for these rumours; because although the sacred principle of non-intervention ought to be scrupulously observed, whatever might happen in foreign countries between the different portions of their people—no interference was lawful, however gross the crimes committed on or by any portion of its people, still that sacred principle, if it should unhappily be proved that those accounts were true, would, he should say, in such an event, be tried to the uttermost. He hoped and trusted that it would survive the trial, and that the principle of non-intervention would still be held sacred—no interference by the Government of other countries being permitted, no interference by their diplomatic representatives, no interference by their fleets and armies. No, the principle was sacred and inviolable; but that principle did not, and could not extinguish in our bosoms the natural feelings of humanity, could not prevent us from hearing with indignation and with horror—if the question asked were not answered in the negative—of those crimes that had been committed at Palermo, and still less could it prevent us from wishing heartily for the speedy and entire liberation of the people of Sicily, even though it should be attended by the fall of all their tyrants.
  EARL GRANVILLEregretted to say that official accounts had been received of the bombardment of Palermo. In giving that answer to the noble and learned Lord he must observe that it was not usual nor convenient for the Government to reply to questions upon foreign policy without previous notice.
  LORD BROUGHAMadmitted that, according to the usual practice, he ought to have given notice of the question, but he had purposely abstained from doing so in order not by any possibility to commit his noble Friend (Earl Granville) and his Colleagues upon this subject.

COURT OF ROME.—DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS.

  MOTION FOR PAPER.
  EARL STANHOPE, in moving for a
  148
  copy or extract of the Despatch from the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, to regulate the diplomatic relations with the Court of Rome since the cessation of the legation at Florence, said that at a time when Central Italy was in a state of extreme agitation, and when alarm—and perhaps something more than alarm—existed there their Lordships could not expect to be called upon to give any opinion upon the political aspect of the matter to which he called their attention, and he did not wish to invite them to do so. His object was to call attention to the great inconvenience and disadvantages which had attended our recent system of diplomatic intercourse with Rome. Those inconveniences would be acknowledged by Her Majesty's Government and by any one conversant with the subject. Whether this was the exact time at which some better system should be adopted Her Majesty's Government would be the best judge; all that he intended to do was to move for the Return of which he had given notice, and to which he believed there would be no objection on the part of the Government; and any Peer would have the opportunity of expressing his views upon the subject. In the first place he felt it right to say that he had not the smallest complaint to make against the gentleman who now carried on our diplomatic business at Rome. The appointment of Mr. Odo Russell was, he believed, a very good one, which that gentleman had fully justified by the ability he had shown in the performance of his duties. In former times it was held that any diplomatic intercourse with Rome was to be avoided, that penal consequences would attach to any attempt to establish it, and that any Minister entering upon such intercourse would be liable to the penalties of a premunire. At the Peace of Paris the Ministers of the day had not the smallest desire of exposing themselves to the penalties of a premunire, but at the same time they perceived the necessity for the due protection of British subjects, of establishing some kind of diplomatic intercourse with the ruler of a state which comprises the seaports of Civita Vecchia and Ancona, and they resolved to do that indirectly which they dared not do directly. It was determined to send to Rome an Attaché of the Legation at Florence, with the rank only of an Attaché, to carry on our diplomatic business in that city. Great inconvenience was

  149
  found to result from that arrangement, and about twelve years since the Government and Parliament decided upon applying a remedy. In 1848 the Act the 11 & 12 Vict., cap. 108, was passed, enabling Her Majesty to establish and maintain diplomatic relations with the Sovereign of the Roman States. In the Bill originally there were only two clauses; but a third clause was introduced in that House upon the Motion of the Earl of Eglintoun, to the effect that it shall not be lawful for Her Majesty to receive
  "Any person who shall be in holy orders of the Church of Rome, or a Jesuit, or member of any other religious order of the Church of Rome."
  He thought that restriction was a reasonable one, and he did not seek to disturb it; because it did seem to him that in the present religious condition of Ireland it would be most undesirable to receive any person bearing the rank of Nuncio, or Legate, as Ambassador from Rome. He was not, therefore, in any way seeking to disturb that provision; he only wished to show how consistently with it we might establish a more direct diplomatic intercourse with the Court of Rome. At that time the Ministers of the Court of Rome took offence at this clause. They probably overlooked the precedents established in the cases of the Courts of Berlin and St. Petersburg, and declared that since an attempt was made to shackle their free discretion in the choice of their agents they would receive no Minister on the part of England. Up to this moment, therefore, the Act had remained a dead letter. He could not but think, however, that a favourable moment had now arrived for reviewing this question. Hitherto we had carried on diplomatic intercourse with Rome by means of an Attaché to the Legation at Florence. As their Lordships were aware, however, in consequence of recent and well-known events, that Legation had just ceased to exist, so that in any case there must be some modification of our mode of conducting our relations with the Roman Court. The analogous course would be to send to Rome an Attaché connected with the Legation at Turin or Naples. But there were plain objections to either of those courses. An Attaché sent from Turin to Rome would be at a very considerable distance from his proper post; and it must be remembered that between the Court of Turin and the Court of Rome at present no very cordial relations exist-
  150
  ed. If, on the other hand, our agent in Rome were attached to the Legation at Naples, he would be placed in this very inconvenient position, that he would either have to communicate direct with the Secretary in England without receiving communications from the head-quarters of his mission; or that he would have to receive or send his communications through a city which was further removed from England by a twenty-six hours' journey than the distance which separated us from Rome, either of which courses would be productive of inconvenience. Under these circumstances, though the Government might be able to adduce valid reasons to the contrary, he could not but think that on general grounds it was desirable to establish direct diplomatic intercourse with Rome. Another reason why present circumstances afforded a favourable opportunity for reviewing the subject was, that no difficulty need now be raised about the question of expense. The Legation at Florence had just ceased to exist, and the sum which it had cost would be exactly sufficient to meet the expenses of a Mission at Rome. It would also perhaps be found a fortunate circumstance that the present Ministers of the Pope wore not the men who had dissuaded the Pope from availing himself of the Act of 1848. We were not asking the Court of Rome to do us an act of favour; from whichever side it was made the overture was one which both parties might accept without loss of dignity. He believed he could appeal to very authoritative testimony for the purpose of showing the inconveniences and the disadvantages which had followed from the mode in which our relations with the Court of Rome had hitherto been conducted. He might appeal upon that point to a gentleman who had for many years been at the head of our Legation at Florence, and who had filled with great distinction other diplomatic posts—he meant Sir Hamilton Seymour; and he might further appeal to the noble Marquess near him (the Marquess of Normanby), who had also held the office of our Minister at Florence, and whose courtesy and hospitality in that post would not easily be forgotten by any person who had ever been brought within their influence. But what were the special disadvantages of our present position? In the first place, it deprived our representative at Rome of his due weight and dignity. It was impossible that a young man, who held no higher office than that of an Attaché, and who

  151
  perhaps lived, as Attachés usually did, up some three or four flights of stairs, could compete upon equal terms with the accredited Ministers of France and Austria and of other Powers. And if any noble Lord denied the proposition his argument might perhaps carry him further than he desired, for, if an Attaché with a slender salary was all that was required at Rome, it would he difficult to say why a more expensive diplomatic establishment was maintained at Paris or Vienna. Notwithstanding, therefore, the personal merits of the gentleman who now filled the post, there was a want of weight and dignity in our communications with the Court of Rome. The whole system, as it now existed, was neither more nor less than a system of make-believe. In law we pretended not to send a Minister to Rome; but in fact, we did send one. Now, in public as well as in private life, a system of make-believes was never so effectual as an open and a manly policy. This further disadvantage attended our present diplomatic relations with Rome. It was perfectly optional with the Pope or his Foreign Minister whether he would or would not receive our Attaché. An Ambassador had a right to demand an audience with the Sovereign of the country to which he was accredited. A Minister Plenipotentiary might ask for an interview with the Foreign Minister, but neither of those privileges pertained to an Attaché belonging to a different Mission. There had been times when the gentlemen so employed at Rome had experienced great difficulty in obtaining any interview either with the Pope or the Foreign Minister. He believed that Mr. Russell had perfect facilities in this way; but this was owing solely to the alarms of the times in Italy, and to the anxious feelings of the Ministers of the Holy See, and it was just the evil of the system that this privilege fluctuated according to times and circumstances. Admitting the ability both of Mr. Russell and his predecessor in office, and that they had discharged their duties in a most unexceptionable manner, still he said the Government had no right to expect, as a general rule, that they could attract the highest ability to such a post if it continued to be placed in the lowest diplomatic rank, and the smallest diplomatic stipend It was manifest that questions might at any time arise between the two courts, such as the enlistments in Ireland for the service of the Pope which
  152
  required to be dealt with by a very firm and prudent man; and it was important that we should have in Rome not an able man by accident, but an able man as a natural consequence of our diplomatic system. Look at what occurred with the Courts of Berlin and St. Petersburg. The Courts of Berlin and St. Petersburg were neither in communion with Rome, but each maintained a Minister there. An intimation proceeded some time back from St. Petersburg, and likewise from Berlin, to the effect that it would not be agreeable to receive an ecclesiastic as Envoy in those cities; but, as the Court of Rome desired to employ none but ecclesiastical agents, the result was that no Minister from Rome ever permanently resided at St. Petersburg or Berlin. The course adopted in the case of those two countries might also be adopted in the case of this country; and if it were not agreeable for the Court of Rome to employ any but ecclesiastical agents, then, as this country was by law prevented from receiving them, the natural course of proceeding seemed to be that this country, though it might not receive an ecclesiastical Minister from Rome in London, might entrust its diplomatic business in Rome to a regularly accredited Minister. Their Lordships would recollect that one of the Ministers of Prussia who had resided at Rome was that distinguished man the Chevalier Bunsen, and their Lordships all knew the great advantages of which his residence at Rome had been productive in the cause of literature and art. The mention of art reminded him that there was another point which he wished to impress on their Lordships' attention, and that was that the presence of an English mission at Rome would tend greatly to promote the interests of art in this country. Their Lordships were all aware of the very large number of students in painting, sculpture, and architecture, who resided at Rome. It was within his own recollection that the English students there were more numerous than the students from any other country, except France. It must be home in mind that a period of one or two years passed in Rome was almost indispensable for the full development of artistic genius. A remarkable testimony on this point had been furnished by Sir Joshua Reynolds, who in one of his lectures stated that though many of his friends had assured him even before his journey to Rome that he had obtained a full

  153
  knowledge of his profession, yet that—as Newton declared he felt before the endless ocean of science—he felt but as "a little child" in art when he stood in the presence of master-pieces of the great painters of Italy. He believed no person would deny the advantage to artists of a period of study at Rome; and an English mission there would supply a central point of union for English students. Their Lordships would, perhaps, be surprised when he stated that England was almost the only nation in the world that did nothing for its students at Rome. The Royal Academy did, indeed, send on the average one student in the year; but the English Government did nothing at all in this respect, and contrasted unfavourably with other Governments in this matter. Mr. John Gibson, that eminent English sculptor resident at Rome, whose genius in art did so much honour to his native country, and one of whose noblest works, a colossal statue of the Queen, adorned the apartment immediately adjoining to that House, had the goodness some time since, at his request, to draw up a paper upon this subject, in which he stated—
  "Here is a list of the nations whose Governments send pensioned students to Rome to study painting, sculpture, and architecture. France has an academy, Austria, Prussia, Saxony, Tuscany, Naples has an academy; Russia, Spain, Mexico, Denmark, Sweden, Belgium, France has at Rome five architects, five painters, five sculptors, two landscape painters, two engravers, two medal or die engravers. Each student is sent here for five years. As to Russia, each student is sent here for six years, with a pension of £160 a year each; for his journey £40, and for his return £40. The French academy and the Naples academy have professors to overlook the students. All other students are watched by their Ministers. In the year 1844 I visited England, after an absence of twenty-seven years. The late Sir Robert Peel sent for me. I waited upon him, and he said that the Government had some idea of sending students to Rome, and he wished me to give him what information I could upon such a subject from my long experience of the practice of foreign nations. With reference to his question as to the propriety of sending English students to Rome, I said that I was entirely ignorant of the state of sculpture in England, but since my arrival I had been examining the public monuments, and that I could see the defects of style which prevailed in them, likewise the absence of the grand principles of severe simplicity with that perfect execution imbibed at Rome. The English Government spend large sums to erect public monuments, but contribute nothing towards the training of their students. I had seen some who had natural powers, but wanted the advantages given to young sculptors of the Continent—that is, a Roman education for six years, I have visited England a few times since, and the above are still my sentiments. If the English Government were to follow the ex-
  154
  ample of other nations, they would in the course of time have public monuments that would be an honour to the nation."
  He would not weaken the force of that testimony, by adding one word of his own by way of comment; but he might mention that the Prince Consort, whose enlightened zeal in the cause of art was so well known, addressed a public letter to the late Earl of Ellesmere on the subject of the intended Art Exhibition at Manchester. In that letter, which bore date, July 3, 1856, were these words:—
  "No country invests a larger amount of capital in works of art of all kinds than England, and in none almost is so little done for art education."
  It might be objected, as it had been objected on similar subjects in another place, that, after all, questions of art were not matters of national importance. He did not anticipate that such an objection would proceed from the noble Earl the President of the Council, who, on all occasions, had shown himself not only conversant with but zealous for the interests of Art, or from the noble Earl near him (the Earl of Derby), whose attachment to art was well known, and who had not many weeks since presented two pictures of considerable value to the National Portrait Gallery. But if any such objection should be raised in any quarter, he believed he could meet the objection by showing that the cultivation of art by study might give to our manufacturers—the only thing wanted to them—that taste and elegance in design in which alone they were surpassed by the manufacturers of some other nations. It might be said that his argument applied rather to the foundation of an Academy at Rome than to the establishment of a mission, and as to the former he had sometimes thought of submitting to the House a Motion which should merely go the length of calling upon the Government through their diplomatic agents to collect some preliminary information on the subject. Both a Mission and an Academy were much needed; but, if England was so much poorer than Denmark or Mexico, or so much more unwilling to assist the arts, that she could not, or would not, provide for any paid studentships at Rome, than he said a Mission would be a most valuable substitute as far as it went. It would supply a central point, and be accepted as a very considerable boon by the English artists resident in Rome—a numerous, devoted, and able body of men, men to whom in future

  155
  years they would have to look for their fame in sculpture, architecture, and painting. He could conceive that in former years, under a different state of things, there might have been a prejudice against such a mission founded upon religious considerations; but he submitted that the Act of 1848 had settled that question, deciding as it did that upon certain conditions we were willing to enter into diplomatic intercourse with Rome. The desirableness of such an intercourse was no longer open to question. Such, then, were the considerations which had led him to mention this subject to their Lordships. He hoped he might receive an assurance that the Government were favourable to the ultimate object. The question was one of time and opportunity, and upon that point there might fairly be some difference of opinion. He was sure, at least, that he had not brought forward this subject in any party spirit, and that he had endeavoured to urge it in such a manner as should not give any ground of offence on party or on religious grounds to any of their Lordships. Glad indeed should he be if the Government, either now or hereafter, should find themselves enabled by one and the same Act to place our diplomatic relations with Rome on a sounder and better footing, and to confer a boon—a boon which would be warmly felt and acknowledged—on the cause of British art. The noble Earl concluded by moving—
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for Copy or Extract of the Despatch from the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to regulate the Diplomatic Relations with the Court of Rome since the Cessation of Her Majesty's Legation at Florence."
  LORD WODEHOUSEhoped his noble Friend would not think him indifferent to the cause of art, either here or abroad, if in replying to his observations he confined himself entirely to the diplomatic view of the subject. His noble Friend had correctly stated that the question was entirely one of time and opportunity, and he thought he could show their Lordships that the present was not a convenient time or opportunity for taking any step to produce the change which his noble Friend desired. He wished, however, at the outset to explain very shortly what was the exact condition of our relations at the present moment with the Court of Rome; for, although his noble Friend had correctly described our position in that respect, he
  156
  had made one or two statements to which he (Lord Wodehouse) must take exception. His noble Friend had accurately stated the circumstances which led to the passing of the Act of 1848 and the nature of that Act, including the most important clause of all, generally known as the Eglinton clause. After the Act of 1848 was passed communications were at different times exchanged with the Court of Rome on the subject of diplomatic relations between this country and the Pope; but he begged to inform his noble Friend that, so far from the Court of Rome regarding the position taken up by this country as the same as that which had been assumed by Prussia and Russia, they considered that there was an important distinction. The Court of Rome thought that the intimation which he believed had been given by the Prussian and Russian Governments that they should not wish to receive an ecclesiastic as Minister from Rome was very different from an intimation contained in an Act of Parliament, by which the prerogative of the Sovereign was limited as regarded diplomatic relations with one country in the world, and only one. They considered that it would not be consistent with the dignity of the Pope to receive a minister from this country while that limitation upon the prerogative of the Sovereign existed. He was not, of course, going to discuss the policy of the Eglinton clause, which nobody proposed at present to repeal; but, the circumstances being as he had stated, our relations had been carried on with Rome in the same manner as for a considerable time prior to the passing of the Act of 1848. His noble Friend had paid a just tribute to the ability of Mr. Odo Russell, who now occupied the position of Attaché at Rome, carrying on the diplomatic business of his Government there. Undoubtedly his noble Friend had some grounds for stating that the position of an Attaché never could be the same as that of a Minister or an Ambassador; but it was equally true that Mr. Russell, like his predecessors—for the Government had obtained the services of very able men in that capacity—had conducted our business in Rome very much to the satisfaction of the Government, and had placed our relations with that Court upon a satisfactory footing. Under these circumstances the Government had to consider whether the present would be a convenient opportunity for making some representation to the Court of Rome—for that was what his noble

  157
  Friend desired—with the view of inducing it to receive a Minister from this country without one being sent from Rome to England. He ought to mention here that the Court of Borne had expressed its willingness to receive, whenever necessary, a special mission; but he was afraid that if we were to express our desire to send a permanent representative to Rome, we should expose ourselves to a refusal and put the Court of Rome in an inconvenient and disagreeable position. It seemed to his noble Friend at the head of the Foreign Office that the present was by no means a convenient moment for taking such a step. Their Lordships knew the distracted condition of Italy, and the peculiar position in which the Papal States at present stood. It had been very erroneously supposed, both in this country and on the Continent, that Her Majesty's Government had taken a forward part in pressing upon the Sovereign of Rome changes in his Government. Upon that matter it was important that there should be no misunderstanding. It was, of course, perfectly true that Her Majesty's Government, in common with all the Governments in this country of late years, earnestly desired that the Sovereign of Rome should make changes in the administration of his dominions, which would make that administration more consistent with justice and with the well-being of those who were placed under his rule. They desired this both in the interest of humanity and in the interest of the peace of Europe, because it was palpable that the great difficulty in Italy had been for years the condition of the Papal States; but, at the same time, while desiring this it had always been properly thought that this country, being pre-eminently a Protestant State, should not take so forward a part in urging such reforms as the Catholic States of the Continent, which had naturally greater influence at Rome. Her Majesty's Government, therefore, had confined themselves to seconding the advice which had been at various times given by those Catholic States, especially by Prance, to the Pope to make reforms in the administration of his dominions. These representations had been received in a friendly manner by the Roman Government, although, he regretted to say, they had not produced any practical effect. Now, being in this position, strongly disapproving as they did of the present administration of the Papal States, and the relations of the Pope with the
  158
  other Powers of Italy being in a very un-unsatisfactory condition, and his position being so uncertain, as regarded parts of his own dominions, it was manifestly undesirable that Her Majesty's Government should at so inopportune a moment take the step of pressing the Pope to receive an English Minister at his Court. It would give to this country the air of interfering more closely and powerfully in his affairs than it had hitherto done; it would very probably be met with a refusal by the Pope, and would certainly not tend to improve our relations with the Court of Rome. He was not aware that his noble Friend had touched upon any other point. The matter was entirely one of time and opportunity. If at any time the Sovereign of Rome should express a wish that a Minister should be sent there, undoubtedly Her Majesty's Government would make no objection. Powers were given by the Act of 1848 to send a Minister, and there was no reason why we should not take advantage of such an intimation on the part of the Pope. But looking to all the circumstances Her Majesty's Government did not think that the present would be a convenient opportunity for making any change in the system which now existed. Before sitting down he must say that no inconvenience arose from Mr. Odo Russell being placed under the Legation at Naples, because, although he sent copies of his Despatches to that Mission, he corresponded directly with Her Majesty's Government in the same way that he did when he was connected with the Legation at Florence. There was no objection to the production of the document for which the noble Earl had moved.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURYthought their Lordships were much obliged to the noble Earl (Earl Stanhope) for bringing this subject before the House. He entirely agreed with the noble Earl upon the diplomatic part of the subject on which he had addressed them, and he did not distinctly see the force of saying that this was not the right time and opportunity for sending a Minister to Rome, because he thought the more serious the affairs of Italy and the Papal States the more this country required the whole weight which it could give to its diplomacy in that country. He should, however, be the very first man to declare that, whomsoever Her Majesty's Government should think proper to send, it would be impossible for him to act with greater zeal, judgment, and discretion

  159
  than Mr. Odo Russell had done since he had held this appointment. He (the Earl of Malmesbury) would say, from his own opportunities of judging, that Mr. Russell had been most successful in his intercourse not only with the Ministers of the Pope, but with the Pope himself, and this under the great disadvantage of not holding a high rank. This disadvantage was chiefly felt in contending with the Ministers of other nations. Nothing was more disadvantageous or more impolitic than for a gentleman in this position to be compelled to sit down in conference with Ministers who had much greater authority for urging their claims and advocating their cause than he had. A point of detail had been referred to with which he was not before acquainted, namely, that Mr. Odo Russell had been attached to the Court of Naples. This, of course, was a question for the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, but for his own part he was inclined to ask why this gentleman had not been attached to the Embassy at Turin? because it appeared to him that Mr. Russell's correspondence would be much more conveniently, rapidly, and safely sent from that part of Italy than from Naples, considering the great distance of the latter from London. This, however, was a point for the judgment of the noble Lord, and he only ventured to state his opinion. The noble Lord the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs had said that in the event of our sending a Minister to Rome, the Pope might not consent to his reeeption at this moment. But he (the Earl of Malmesbury) could not understand the inconvenience of the position, because, before we sent a Minister to Rome, we should be able to ascertain whether he would be received or not. And with regard to the compliment not being returned, instances had occurred in which that had not taken place; for until very lately Switzerland had sent no Minister to this country—very much, as he thought, to her own detriment,—for, if she had, very much of what had happened might have been prevented. The noble Lord (Lord Wodehouse) also said that the sending of a Minister to Rome at the present moment might be understood as indicating an intention on our part to interfere more actively with the internal affairs of Italy. He was glad to hear that the noble Lord was influenced by a desire to avoid such an appearance, and hoped that the whole policy of the Government with regard to the Italian States would be charac-
  160
  terized by similar caution. He could not too earnestly impress both upon the noble and learned Lord (Lord Brougham) who had called attention to the tragical events now occurring at Palermo, and other Members of their Lordships' House, how careful they ought to be as to the public expression of judgments upon Italian subjects and Italian sovereigns. When Her Majesty's Government blamed, and very naturally blamed, the slaughter and loss of life arising from the bombardment of Palermo by the Neapolitan ships, were they not precluded from any severity of comparison by history itself, and that very recent history? Those who now condemned the Neapolitan Government for bombarding Palermo should recollect that only in 1849, the King of Sardinia, Victor Emmanuel himself, bombarded Genoa, then invaded in the same manner and by the party of the self-same man, Garibaldi. God forbid that he (the Earl of Malmesbury) should justify either act. He only wished to impress upon their Lordships that when, either by our diplomacy or by rash condemnations made in that House, we interfered in the affairs of Italy, we exposed ourselves to very severe observations, and to difficulties of still greater importance than those observations.
  THE MARQUESS OF NORMANBYsaid, he had himself had practical experience for three years and a half of the inconvenient character of the present diplomatic arrangements in respect of the Court of Rome, and he was bound to say that he had received every possible assistance from the very eminent man who then filled the position of Attaché at Rome, and afterwards, on the appointment by Lord Clarendon, to the Secretary of Legation to the Tuscan Mission still continuing to reside unofficially at Rome. Lord Lyons was at that time in daily correspondence with him, consulting him on every point connected with the affairs of the Roman States and other matters. Lord Lyons had often expressed to him not only the inconvenience he felt in his personal communications with the Court of Rome and its Ministers, but had referred to the extremely disagreeable position in which an English agent without any recognized character was placed in treating not only with the Court of Rome, but with other diplomatic agents. Considering the great interests that were involved in our communications with Rome and the Italian States, he thought it was very desirable that our relations with the

  161
  Court of Rome should be placed on a more satisfactory footing. He approved the object of the clause in the Act of 1848 which had been referred to, but he thought it was unfortunate that the attainment of that object had not been sought by means of an intimation from the Executive Government that it would not be agreeable to them that an ecclesiastic should be appointed Ambassador at this Court, instead of it being made the subject of a legislative enactment. He fully recognized the advantage which would be experienced by British artists from the presence of an English Embassy in Rome, but at the same time he felt that there was some reason for the doubt which had been expressed by the noble Lord the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, as to whether this was precisely the moment at which any change should be made in our relations with the Papacy—whether indeed all that had passed within the last year will not just now indispose the Court of Borne to make what would be a concession on their part if they were expected to receive a British Minister whilst the clause in the Act of Parliament regulating Diplomatic Intercourse to which they had objected remained unrepealed. In all that had been said in praise of the personal qualifications of Mr. Odo Russell he entirely concurred.
  Motion agreed to.

ENGLISH SHIPWRIGHTS IN FRENCH DOCKYARDS.—QUESTION.
VISCOUNT DUNGANNONasked the First Lord of the Admiralty, Whether the Report that from Four Hundred to Five Hundred Workmen had been discharged from the Dockyard at Portsmouth, there being no Employment for them, and were now engaged as shipbuilders at Cherbourg and other ports of France, was correct? He anxiously hoped the answer of the noble Duke would be satisfactory, not only to himself, but to the country at large. It would seem that various persons had gone to the police magistrates, both in the Metropolis and in other parts of the country, with the view of obtaining passports to ports of France, and stating themselves to be among the number of about 400 or 500 shipwrights who had been discharged from Portsmouth dockyard, where there was no employment for them, and adding that they were anxious to follow their fellow-workmen who had obtained employ-
162
ment in France. It was well known that there was great activity in building ships of war at this moment in France; but whether the object was merely to put the country in a necessary state of defence, or whether there was some aggressive intention meditated, he did not presume to determine; but he could not help expressing his regret that the skill and labour of a class of workmen whose exertions might at this crisis be so usefully employed at home, should be actually devoted to the service of a Foreign Power. If, therefore, the noble Duke's answer should be that the report to which he had referred was wholly unfounded, that answer would doubtless be received by their Lordships with unfeigned satisfaction. On the other hand, if the rumour was correct, he could only hope the noble Duke would be able to hold out the assurance that every department of our navy was at present in such a state as to be capable of repelling any attempt to invade or land foreign troops on our shores. From the critical position of affairs from one end of the Continent to the other, it was impossible to predict what a few months or even weeks might bring forth. They had heard much of rendering effective the defences of the country, and they had heard much of Volunteer corps being raised in every part of the kingdom. Without throwing any disparagement upon the Volunteer movement, or the adoption of other measures of defence, he thought that unless we took care to maintain our wooden walls in a thoroughly efficient condition, all our other preparations must he comparatively futile. It was to those wooden walls that we were indebted for our safety in the most perilous period of our previous history; and if we should again have occasion to look for their protection, he trusted we might be justified in relying upon them with undiminished confidence.
THE DUKE OF SOMERSET: My Lords, in order to answer clearly the inquiry put to me by the noble Viscount, it is desirable that I should divide it into two parts. The first question is, whether 400 or 500 workmen have been discharged from the dockyard at Portsmouth; and the next whether those workmen have since been engaged as shipwrights at Cherbourg and other ports in France. To the first question my answer is that a good many men have been discharged since the commencement of the financial year, and I will state the reason. Indeed, I mentioned it in

163
this House on a previous occasion. When I acceded to my present office last year there was a programme of very extensive works before the Department, and when I, came to examine how far we should be able to perform it I came to the opinion myself, and was also advised by those who were competent to judge of the matter, that we had not money enough or workmen enough to complete that programme within the year. We, therefore, took a Vote of another £100,000, and added largely to the number of men in the dockyards. We could not obtain the men we wanted immediately in the summer, and consequently during the few closing months of the financial year we had in the dockyards a larger force than was ever employed in them at any other period during the present century. When the works had gone on some time, I was advised that if I continued operations at the same rate, the timber would be exhausted, and that it would be impossible that the other trades could keep up with the shipwrights. It was therefore necessary that the work of the shipwrights should proceed somewhat more slowly. I determined to make no alteration till the financial year had concluded, and not to dismiss any of the men in a hurry, but to pay off only a few every week of the inferior class, and retain the better workmen. By that means the number of hands in the dockyards had been reduced from 20,000 to 17,000 some odd hundreds, a number quite sufficient for the work to be performed during the year. With regard to the next part of the question—whether the men who had been dismissed from our dockyards had found employment in France—I can only say that, to the best of my belief, there is no foundation whatever for that report. I saw the report some weeks ago in the papers, when I made inquiry, and was informed that at Cherbourg they had more than a sufficient number of French shipwrights for the works going on there, the highest rate of wages being only 4 francs, while in our dockyards 6s. per day are the wages earned on task and job. It is not likely therefore that men would go there for the sake of such reduced wages. But I was also informed that so far from taking on our shipwrights, that 400 shipwrights have been dismissed from the dockyard at Cherbourg from motives of economy in the last six weeks. In the first place, then, we have not largely reduced the number of labourers, artificers, and shipwrights in our
164
dockyard; and, although they have been reduced to 17,000, that is a greater number than we had ever before working in the dockyards of the country—even in 1815—and far beyond any ordinary requirements. I therefore trust that, on the question of the number of men, the answer I have given to the question of the noble Lord will be satisfactory; and as to the men who have been dismissed from our yards being employed in the French dockyards, if at Cherbourg they have discharged some of their own workmen, and the rate of wages there is so much lower than in our dockyards, it appears very improbable that our artificers, who, I imagine, are quite able to look to their own interests, would resort to France in order to improve their condition. With regard to another point, the noble Lord has asked me whether I am satisfied with the position of the navy of this country. Of course, if I had complete satisfaction, the Government would not have proposed such large Estimates as they have done this year. It is because I wish to raise the navy to a more efficient state that we take such large Estimates, and on that ground I am actually employing the large number of men which I have stated in our dockyards.
THE EARL OF SHREWSBURY AND TALBOTwished to corroborate the statements which had been made by the noble Duke. From private information, on which he could rely, he had learned that only two English mechanics had been over at Cherbourg, and that in a very short time, being pretty nearly in a state of starvation, they applied to be sent home to this country. Five francs per day was the highest wages given to shipwrights there, not four francs, as stated by the noble Duke, and he thought it well this should be publicly stated lest any ship carpenters who happened to be discharged here should go to France endeavouring to procure employment in a country where they would find none so remunerative as at home, and thus expose themselves to great hardships and privations. He was glad the apprehensions of his noble Friend had been set at rest on the subject of these reports, and he hoped no such absurd reports would be allowed to prevail again.
VISCOUNT DUNGANNONsaid, he was perfectly satisfied with the information he had received, and he was sure what had fallen from the noble Duke, corroborated by the noble Earl, would afford very considerable satisfaction to the country.

REFRESHMENT HOUSES AND WINE LICENCES BILL.—COMMITTEE.
EARL GRANVILLE, in moving the Order of the Day for going into Committee on the Bill, observed that it had been opposed on very contradictory grounds, and he should reserve himself for any objections that might be urged against it. The Bill was a Supply Bill.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY: Before going into Committee, I wish to make a few preliminary observations; though it seems from what we have just heard that no opposition we can offer is to be of any avail at all; it appears this is to be considered as a Supply Bill; and that we are altogether to be precluded from making any Amendment in it whatsoever. In reading over the Bill, however, it struck me to be quite as much a Police Bill, and for interfering with the domestic arrangements of the people, as a Bill of Supply for Her Majesty. There are a great many police regulations and clauses of importance affecting magistrates, and much that interferes with the management and conduct of the existing refreshment houses. I do not speak of the Bill in any unfriendly spirit. Comparing it with what it was at first, it has been very considerably improved indeed; but, nevertheless, there are two or three things to which I should wish to call attention, although it appears we shall be precluded from altering them. There are three points to which I should have adverted at greater length, had we been allowed to touch this very sacred measure. In the first place, I think you are pressing the principle of your licences much too far in exacting a 10 s. 6d. licence from many of the smallest and poorest shopkeepers in the Metropolis. I do not know whether any of your Lordships have ever walked late at night through some of the bye-streets and deep recesses of London, where you might have seen sheep's-heads and fried fish exposed for sale; the whole contents of the shop, furniture included, would not, in many cases, be worth 10 s. 6d.; yet these are refreshment houses for working men, who have there a bit of sheep's-head or cooked fish for 1d. or 2d. The imposition of a tax of 10 s. 6d. on such shops will be felt as a grievous burden indeed. With respect to Clause 13, I should be very glad to ascertain to what extent the provisions of this clause are applicable. Perhaps your Lordships are not aware that a very large pro-
166
portion of the houses in this town are held under covenants in their leases not to take any licence whatever for the sale of refreshments, and many houses in which refreshments are already sold are held under covenants not to take licences as a public-house or for the sale of wine. I verily believe when this Act comes into operation some thousands of houses will be found, by the terms of their covenants, unable to avail themselves of its provisions. The leases under several of the largest estates, the Hope estate, the Ward estate, the Portland estate, the Portman estate, and others, have covenants of the nature to which I have referred. Almost every house under these vast estates, with the exception of public-houses themselves, is under a condition not to accept any licence for the sale of wines, &c. The third point to which I would advert is the very extreme power given by the 18th clause to the police. I was anxious to introduce words to the effect that the police should hare the power to visit even during the day such houses as are licensed to sell wine. The clause, as it now stands, makes it lawful for any constable when and so often as he may think proper, to enter all houses licensed as refreshment houses under the authority of this Act, entering every room, from the cellar to the garret. This may be done without any notice. Many of these refreshment-houses, confectioners'-shops, and coffeehouses, are exceedingly respectable, and visited by the most respectable people; yet there is not a confectioner's shop in the whole of London which, under this clause, may not be visited at any hour by any policeman, This is a state of things which I am sure will occasion the very greatest inconvenience, arising from an extension of police power far beyond the necessity of the case. So far as regards the houses selling wine, it may be desirable perhaps that the police should have full powers; but if wine and spirits are not sold, I cannot see what advantage can be gained from giving policemen power to enter all refreshment-houses. I wish to speak very highly of the Metropolitan police. I know well how they execute their duty; but the framers of this Bill do not entertain the same opinion of the Metropolitan police that I do, for the 39th clause contains a provision which I do not believe exists in any Act of Parliament whatever, imposing a heavy penalty on any person selling wine who shall harbour

167
or entertain a policeman during the time he is on duty. A suspicion seems to have existed that many of the police constables, under the influence of vintners or the keepers of public-houses, may be enticed into these houses and made drunk. Such is the estimate of the character of policemen formed by the framers of this Bill. But the circumstance that a police-constable may enter at pleasure into any coffee-shop or confectioner's shop has, I have reason to know, given rise to a great deal of apprehension. I hope some alteration will be made in this respect. I know that this measure has given rise to a great deal of apprehension and alarm as to its effects upon the morals of the people. I am not going to propose any alteration myself, as I understand the Bill is to be regarded as a Supply Bill. I must say, however, that I am not prepared to surrender what I consider to be the just rights and privileges of this House. I will abstain from making any Motion, reserving, so far as I am individually concerned, the right and privilege of the House, and yielding only to the circumstances of the moment, but declaring that I believe the abandonment of our rights and privileges would be a great detriment to the interests of the public.
THE EARL OF WICKLOWsaid, that he understood the principle of the Bill to be that it was to induce the people of this country to substitute a more wholesome beverage for those fiery spirituous beverages to which they were now accustomed. If so he was at a loss to understand why Ireland and Scotland were not included in the Bill; for if there were any portion of the empire to which this principle was most applicable it was to those two countries, where the manufacture of ardent spirits was principally carried on, and where, consequently, there was comparatively the greatest consumption. If they were to substitute wine for spirituous liquors, surely there was no portion of the empire that stood more in need of the benefits of this Bill. These two portions of the empire were, it seemed, to be deprived of the blessings of Parliamentary Reform, but he could not understand why they were also to be deprived of the benefits of beverage Reform.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid, he understood that this was to be treated as a Supply Bill, and he was very sorry to hear it, because the greater part of the Bill related to matters with regard to which that
168
House was in the habit of legislating. He agreed with the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury) that this was not a proper time to enter into a discussion of the privileges of the House of Lords, and, therefore, he should be very unwilling to introduce any Amendment; but there were certain clauses in the Bill to which he entertained a strong objection, and he would ask the noble Earl whether any Amendment of them would be an infringement of the privileges of the House of Commons? The whole of the licensing system under this Bill differed essentially from that under which the licensing victuallers now obtained their licences. The Bill proposed to introduce a number of other persons into the trade. Now he did not ask for the licensed victuallers any monopoly; he did not think the House would support any such monopoly; but at least they had a right to demand that the conditions under which they were placed should be the same as those under which other persons were placed who had the same privileges. Now, a licensed victualler had to apply to a magistrate, who had complete discretion as to whether he would or would not grant him a licence. He had to go to the magistrates to obtain a certificate for a licence, and then he went to the Excise, and upon that certificate the Excise granted the licence. But what was the course to be pursued under this Bill? The person who wished to obtain a licence did not go to the magistrates at all, but went at once to the Excise, and the Excise served a notice on the magistrates, and if the magistrates did not in a certain number of days enter a caveat the licence would be granted as a matter of course; and the magistrates, moreover, could not enter that caveat without stating the specific grounds on which they did so. Now, the licensed victuallers complained that this operated partially in favour of a class who would compete with them in their business. Their Lordships, at the same time that they would refuse to support the licensed victuallers' monopoly, would see the propriety of these wine-sellers being placed on the same footing with the publicans in the matter of licences; and for that purpose he would, if it were competent for him to do so, move to insert words in the 10th clause to the effect that no licence should be granted except on the production of the certificate of magistrates, in the same way as they granted licences to licensed victuallers. He should also move to insert words in the

169
13th clause. The noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Wicklow) asked the reason why Ireland and Scotland were not included in this Bill. He thought he could tell him. He believed that when the Bill was first introduced it was intended to include those two countries, but it met with such opposition from Members representing Ireland and Scotland that if it had not been restricted to England it would not have been carried. He thought the Bill would be a failure, and he was not sorry to see that the experimentum in corpore vili, instead of being on Ireland, would for the first time be tried on England.
THE EARL OF HARRINGTONsaid, that this was a mixed question, partly fiscal and partly otherwise. He did not object to the free-trade part of the Bill, but to the new licensing system that it proposed to enact. The sale of spirituous liquors under the existing system was one of the great causes of drunkenness, immorality, irreligion, and many other evils with which society was cursed; and he feared that one effect of this Bill would be to increase those crimes by placing wine more within the reach of the people of this country. He denied that the light wines of France were so innocent a beverage as they had been represented. According to the Bill itself, wines would be admitted into the country containing from 10 to 40 per cent of alcohol. Now, beer contained not more than 8 per cent of alcohol. Yet the operation of the Beer Act had been severely denounced and condemned by the House of Commons and by their Lordships. When that Act was introduced it was supported on grounds similar to those urged by the advocates of this measure. But successive inquiries by Committees of both Houses of Parliament had conclusively proved that intemperance and crime had largely increased in this country. If such had been the case when the liquor sold contained so small a percentage of alcohol, what might they not expect from the operation of this Bill when it came into full operation? In 1854 Mr. Gladstone himself deprecated the idea that any financial considerations should be allowed to stand in the way of any plan for the suppression of intemperance. The very name of the "Maine Liquor Law" was unpopular, and that was not what he desired to introduce; but instead of the present system of licensing he should have preferred what was called "the permissive system," by which the option of granting a licence
170
would be left to the decision of a majority of ratepayers. The public meetings that had been held all over the country, and the numerous petitions that had been presented to Parliament on the subject, showed that the plan was not unpopular. Complaints were now made against the number of beerhouses, and now Parliament was asked to double the number of drinking houses by licensing shops for the sale of stronger alcoholic drinks. He deeply deplored the evils which the people of this country inflicted upon themselves by their consumption of intoxicating drinks, and he deprecated and protested against any legislation which had in any way a tendency to encourage it. According to the Edinburgh Review, £50,000,000 might be annually saved to the people of this country if they were to give up the consumption of intoxicating drinks and tobacco, while Mr. Porter, of the Board of Trade, estimated the expenditure much higher; and if his estimate were right it followed that the working classes earning from 20 s. to 30 s. a week spent one-third or one-half of their wages in those drinking-houses, and left their families with scarcely enough to keep them from starvation. Two thousand medical men denounced this system in the strongest language, amongst whom it appeared that Mr. Gladstone was surprised to find the name of Dr. Ferguson. The Bill, which he considered to be injurious to public morals, could not have been carried without the eloquence of Mr. Gladstone; but what use was genius if it was not exerted for the promotion of public good and the improvement of public morals? No doubt the intention of the Bill was good; but that was a common excuse for anything that was wrong. Mr. Gladstone was a good and a religious man; but it did seem strange that such a man should invite Parliament to double the 42,000 drinking-houses now in existence. He (the Earl of Harrington) would not dwell longer upon the subject; but he had felt it his duty to express the views which he held, in common with a vast number of persons in this country.
EARL GRANVILLE: I congratulate the noble Earl upon his earnest advocacy of the temperance movement, but I think it would have been better if he had abstained from making these personal observations upon Mr. Gladstone. The question now is, not whether wine is a good or a bad thing, but whether this Bill will,

171
upon the whole, tend to limit or encourage drunkenness. I believe it will have the former effect, and therefore I think it will confer much advantage upon the working classes generally. The noble Earl takes an extreme view, and wishes for a legislative enactment permitting ratepayers to declare that in their districts the minority shall not drink even one glass of beer.
THE EARL OF HARRINGTON: No—not in public-houses.
EARL GRANVILLE: That is not a power which your Lordships might be inclined to confer; but I admit that in the case of those who have no power over themselves to make a proper use of wine or beer, or even spirits, and who cannot indulge without excess, it is an act of kindness to persuade them, if you can, to abstain altogether. But the object here has been to provide persons who make a moderate use of stimulants with reasonable facilities for obtaining the light wines of the Continent instead of any stronger liquors. It was with that intention that the right hon. Gentleman proposed his Bill, and that was the object which gained for it such general support in the other House. With regard to some of the objections which have been raised, they vanish altogether on a closer examination. The opinions of the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury) who spoke so indignantly about certain clauses of the Bill were evidently founded on no research of his own. He declared that the 39th clause of the Bill contained an extraordinary provision with regard to the police—one never heard of in any legislative enactment before. It is clear that he himself has not read the clause at all, because had he done so he would at once have seen from the margin that the clause was taken from the 10 & 11 Vict., chap. 89, sec. 34. I think, therefore, that the noble Earl has good ground to complain of those who gave him information of so unfounded a character. As to the licences, I do not think that in the instances in which it will apply the charge of 10 s. 6d. will be any hardship. The noble Earl complained of the extreme injustice of imposing such a licence in the case of houses, for example, where a condition in the lease forbids them to sell intoxicating liquors. I think, however, that when a Bill like this has been so long debated by the other House of Parliament we should certainly have heard complaints made as to the imposition of those licences if any good ground of complaint
172
existed. The third objection taken by the noble Earl referred to the powers given to the police of entering these houses. But here he labours under some mistake. He seemed to consider that every refreshment house would be subjected to these regulations. But the only persons to whom they apply are the keepers of what are called "night houses,"—those houses which are kept open from 9 P. M. to 5 in the morning. Now, I think your Lordships will feel that it is most necessary for the purpose of preserving order and tranquillity that the police should exercise some superintendence over houses of this character. It is quite true that the clause as it is now worded will empower the police to enter these houses in the daytime as well as at night, and it may be a question for the Government to consider whether this power is one which should be retained. As to the right of this House to alter any provisions of the Bill, I am not about to raise the constitutional question again. No doubt, the measure is partly of a fiscal character, and also raises questions of general policy with which your Lordships have always been in the habit of dealing. At the same time they could only deal with the Bill by altering the clauses, and he thought their Lordships would hardly do so in this instance, seeing that upon the alteration of any clauses in a Bill of this kind by your Lordships' House, the House of Commons invariably reject the Bill. No doubt the House of Commons would immediately introduce a new measure; but I submit to your Lordships that it would be hardly worth while to take any steps here which would necessitate such a course except for some very important reasons of general policy. If the objection of the noble Earl is found to be a sound one, it may probably be met in another way. The noble Lord opposite (the Earl of Donoughmore), wishes to give the magistrates the power of vetoing a licence without stating any reasons for doing so; in short, he would allow them the same powers as they now have in the case of public-houses. Now, one of the great objects of the Bill is to effect the very change to which the noble Earl objects. Under the existing system the magistrates have taken upon themselves to consider what number of houses is necessary in a district, and the result is a monopoly most injurious to the consumer, and not in the slightest degree favourable to the morality of the community. One main ob-

173
ject of the Bill is to avoid creating such monopolies in the case of refreshment houses, and the change desired by the noble Earl, therefore, would, if effected, destroy one of the most beneficial provisions in the Bill. In the other House any alteration of this kind would be as much objected to as it would be by Her Majesty's Government, and therefore I hope the noble Earl will not move any such Amendment. A complaint has been made by a noble Earl (the Earl of Wicklow) that Scotland and Ireland are excluded from this Bill, and it is urged that it is hard, if the measure be calculated to confer benefit on England, that Scotland and the sister country should not share it. My noble Friend (the Earl of Donoughmore) thereupon, in the most kind manner, volunteered to give an answer, and I might have been very glad to accept the answer if it had only possessed the slight recommendation of being founded in fact. My noble Friend said that Scotland and Ireland had been included in the Bill as first introduced, but that the opposition to it from the Members from those countries was so strong that the Government were obliged to withdraw it; and he added that he was very glad of this, because there would now he plenty of time to see how the experiment worked in England before they were called upon to consider the advisability of extending the measure to the whole of the United Kingdom. In all these points my noble Friend was entirely in error. Ireland and Scotland were not originally introduced in the Bill. In Ireland, I believe, a double feeling existed with regard to the measure, some being in its favour, and others opposed to its provisions; in Scotland, however, the Report of the Forbes Mackenzie Commission is strongly in favour of the provisions of the Bill. As respects the time which the noble Earl expects to have for watching the operation of the measure in England, and observing its advantages or disadvantages, he is mistaken here also, because as soon as this Bill has passed it is the intention of the Government to introduce a similar measure for Scotland and Ireland, with those modifications which the police regulations and other circumstances in those countries will render it necessary to adopt. I hope therefore, that that assurance will be satisfactory to the noble Earl.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: Will those Bills be introduced in the present Session?
EARL GRANVILLE: That will depend upon circumstances.
House in Committee.
THE EARL OF HARRINGTONdrew attention to the 13th clause, defining the new powers of the magistrates. He proposed to strike out from line 28 to line 41, the effect of which would be to give the magistrates the same power with regard to these wine licences that they now possessed with regard to other licences, by the Act of the 9th Geo. IV., cap. 61, see. 1.
EARL GRANVILLEremarked that he had already stated the reasons why he could not agree to this Amendment.
LORD DENMANwould not vote for the Amendment of the noble Earl, because if he did so and if it were carried it might lead to a conference or disagreement between the two Houses, but as the noble Lord not then in the House (Lord Brougham) had about two years ago in his place stated that for every 33rd man in the country there was a house of some sort for drink, and that every 33rd house was a house in some way licensed for the sale of liquor, he thought that existing accommodation was more than sufficient. In 1832 complaint had been made of the effect of beerhouse in Hampshire, by the father of the noble Earl Malmesbury, and Lord Brougham, then Chancellor, thought that the magistrates clung to power in retaining their only privilege of granting licences, and stated that beerhouses had done no harm in the North of England. He (Lord Denman) considered that in the county of Derby, in which he had the honour to reside, great evil had been done by them, and for himself he would sooner have half the rent for a private house than double rent for the same house as a place of resort for drinking. He thought that every right-minded man in the country would thank any noble Lord who would move that this Bill be read a third time that day six months.
Amendment, by leave of the Committee, withdrawn.
Bill reported, without Amendment, and to be read 3a on Monday next.
House adjourned at a Quarter before Eight o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.