Sitting of 2 March 1860

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—2° Duchy of Cornwall (Limitation of Actions),
3° Qualification for Offices Abolition Bill.

AENNXATION OF SAVOY AND NICE TO FRANCE.

  PAPERS BY COMMAND.
  LORD JOHN RUSSELLbrought up papers by command of Her Majesty containing the Correspondence respecting the proposed annexation of Savoy and Nice to France.
  SIR HARRY VERNEYwished to ask the noble Lord, Whether he has any information to communicate upon this subject. He wished to know whether the Emperor of the French did intend either by force or intrigue to obtain possession of Savoy and Nice, or whether he intends to submit the question to the four great Powers, and, if so, whether the fact of one or more of them dissenting from his view will prevent him carrying out his object?
  MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEsaid, before the noble Lord answered the question he wished to ask him whether he is prepared to fix a day for the discussion of the subject referred to in those papers?
  SIR JOHN WALSHsaid, that, before the noble Lord replied to those questions, he wished to ask, Whether he has any information to communicate as to the existence of any Treaty or arrangement between Sardinia and France in respect to the proposed annexation?
  LORD JOHN RUSSELL: Sir, I think the best course for me to pursue will be that of moving the Adjournment of the House until Monday; and in making that Motion, I will take the opportunity of replying to the questions that have been put to me. With respect to the last question asked me, as to whether there existed any treaty between France and Sardinia in relation to the annexation of Savoy, I can only say that we have no knowledge of any such treaty, nor do we believe in the existence of any such treaty. I stated on a former occasion that the Emperor of the French had said—and that fact will appear by the papers just produced—that he will net take any steps towards the annexation of Savoy without consulting the great Powers of Europe. I think it will be as well that I should read what the Emperor
  2144
  himself has said in His Speech—which I can only do from a newspaper—because we have no other knowledge than a telegram—and the Emperor of course must be the best interpreter of his own views on the subject. He first speaks of the contingency of Piedmont becoming a great country—and it is now a kingdom with more than 9,000,000 inhabitants—and he proceeds to say—
  "Looking to this transformation of Northern Italy which gives to a powerful State all the passes of the Alps, it was my duty, for the security of our frontiers, to claim the French slopes of the mountains. This re-assertion of a claim to a territory of small extent has nothing in it of a nature to alarm Europe and give a denial to the policy of disinterestedness which I have proclaimed more than once, for France does not wish to proceed to this aggrandizement, however small it may be, either by military occupation, or by provoked insurrection, or by underhand manœuvres, but by frankly explaining the question to the great Powers. They will doubtless understand in their equity, as France would certainly understand it for each of them under similar circumstances, that the important territorial re-arrangement which is about to take place gives us a right to a guarantee indicated by nature herself."
  Now, what I understand, and what appears by the correspondence that has taken place on this subject, is that it is the opinion of the Government of the Emperor of the French, and it appears to be the opinion, certainly, of a great portion of the French people, that the creation of a State in Northern and Central Italy, with a population of 9,000,000, and still more of 11,000,000 or 12,000,000, is a change for the worse in the situation of France; which, instead of having a small State on the frontiers towards the Alps, would have a considerable State. In case of war, supposing that Sardinia combined with other Powers she would have the means of placing considerable armaments on the frontiers, and of invading France by the side of Savoy as well as by the side of Nice. And it is asserted that in consequence of France having contributed by her arms in the war of last year in Italy to make the situation, which situation, the French contend, would be the worse for themselves—that under such circumstances it is but fair and equitable that she ask for a more secure frontier on this side of the Alps. This I believe I stated in substance upon a former occasion. But it appears that, upon entering into a conversation on the subject in Paris, the Emperor declared that he did not mean to proceed to any such annexation without consulting the

  2145
  great Powers of Europe. My hon. Friend now asks me whether that means that the Emperor will not proceed to carry out the annexation if all, or any portion of, the great Powers of Europe disapprove of it. It is obvious that I cannot precisely answer that question. I cannot go beyond what the Emperor and his Government have declared—namely, that they would not proceed in this course of annexation without consulting the great Powers of Europe. But I should infer myself—without the authority, of course, as to what the French Government will do—that if that opinion was general and unanimous among the great Powers of Europe, that France did not require that annexation for her security, and that such annexation would occasion alarm and disquietude to other Powers—if that were, I say, the unanimous opinion of the great Powers, I should infer that the Emperor would not proceed to that annexation. At all events, it is declared that it is a matter which will be discussed by the great Powers of Europe, and that France is not going—as some hon. Gentlemen seemed to suppose—to establish a military occupation of Savoy; but will rely upon what she calls the equitable consideration of the case by the great Powers of Europe. I do not know that I can give the House any further information on the subject. I can only repeat what I have said—that I understand—though only as a matter of personal belief —that, if the opinion is general on the part of the great Powers against that annexation, that that annexation will not take place. If, on the contrary, it is declared by them that the proposition on the part of France is a fair one, then France will proceed to annex Savoy. With regard to the views of Her Majesty's Government on the subject, they are contained in the papers I have just laid upon the table. An hon. Gentleman has asked me upon what day I propose to take the discussion upon those papers. I can only say that it is not usual, unless Government has some measure to bring forward in connection with it, to fix a day for mere discussion of papers. The hon. Gentleman will not suppose that I am going to invite a vote of censure upon the Government. On the other hand, I do not intend to ask for a vote of approbation. These papers will be distributed among Members; and if any Member should think it necessary to bring them under discussion, he may propose such a Motion, as he thinks it necessary; and it
  2146
  will be for him, and not for the Government who have no Motion to propose, to fix any day he may think proper.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the House at its rising do adjourn to Monday."

WINE LICENCES TO EATING-HOUSES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. EDWIN JAMESsaid, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will introduce the Bill in which he proposes to embody Resolution No. 15 of the Budget, and to regulate the system of the granting of Wine Licences to the Keepers of Eating-Houses and Refreshment Rooms?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERstated, that he hoped in a day or two to lay such a Bill on the Table.

THE INDIA OFFICE.
  QUESTION.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for India, Whether, as he proposes transferring temporarily the business of the India Office to apartments in the Victoria Hotel, Westminster, he will take into consideration the question of the purchase of the hotel, which contains accommodation for all the departments of the India Office, and the Museum and Library. The rental was, he understood, to be £6,000 a year. The cost of removal to Westminster and back again to the City would be enormous, and the loss would be very considerable.
REGIMENTS IN INDIA.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL HERBERTsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India what number of Her Majesty's Regiments of Infantry and Cavalry it is proposed to retain for service in the East Indies after the 1st of July, 1860?
  SIR CHARLES WOOD, in reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeen (Colonel Sykes), said, he did not consider a noisy street the most convenient site for a public office, but he should be better able to judge of the convenience of the situation when he had tried it. With regard to the question of the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Herbert) as to the regiments to be retained for service in India, he feared he could not give a more definite answer

  2147
  than he gave a week ago to the same question, when put by the hon. and gallant Member for Huntingdon (General Peel). The number of regiments retained on service must depend on what the Indian Government considered necessary for the safety of India. They could not be quite certain of the number of regiments that could be sent home at the end of five, six, or seven months. The 14th Dragoons, he knew, was on its way from Bombay. The Indian Government had general orders to send home whatever regiments it could spare. He would take that opportunity of stating the particular regiments that were ordered on service in China, which he had ascertained since he answered the question of the hon. and gallant Officer (General Peel). The 3rd and 67th were sent to China some time ago; he believed the 99th left early in February, and the second battalion of the 60th in the course of that month. The 31st and 44th were to follow; and if a seventh regiment were required, perhaps the 87th.

THE NEW PUBLIC OFFICES.
  QUESTION.
  MR. H. BAILLIEsaid, he would beg to ask the noble Lord at the head of the Government when the Battle of the Styles —in reference to the architecture of the Public Offices—will take place?
  ITALY.—ADDRESS OF THE IRISH CATHOLICS.—QUESTION.
  THE O'DONOGHUEsaid, he rose to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he has received and Address from certain Catholics in Ireland, calling upon him to interfere in the affairs of Italy, with a view to the full and complete restoration of the Pope's authority; and, if so, whether he has any objection to state the nature of his reply?
SIR JOHN FRANKLIN'S EXPEDITION.— CAPTAIN M'CLINTOCK.

  QUESTION.
  SIR FRANCIS BARINGasked the First Lord of the Treasury what were the intentions of the Government with respect to any reward to Captain M'Clintock and the crew of the discovery-ship Fox. It was right to say that the Question he had put had not been suggested to him by Captain
  2148
  M'Clintock or any other of the gallant officers who served in the expedition referred to. Indeed, if he were at liberty to state he the knew, he could satisfy the House that the last thing those distinguished officers had looked to was pecuniary reward for the services they had rendered. Every one, from the Sovereign herself to her humblest subject, had felt an interest in the result of that expedition; but he did not therefore press on the Government the claims of those by whom it was accomplished, he did not come there to say that those who had done their duty in the service of the country should therefore dip their hands into the public purse and expect a reward; but in this case some promises were held out by Her Majesty's Government to which he wished to call the attention of the House. He would state as plainly as possible the grounds of the application he was bringing before them. In 1850 a proclamation was issued by the Admiralty offering £20,000 to any one who should discover, and effectually relieve, the crews of Her Majesty's ships Erebus and Terror. There had had also been a second reward of £10,000 offered to any persons who should relieve the crews of Her Majesty's ships Terror and Erebus, or who should give such intelligence as might lead to their succour. In the case of those two rewards he need hardly say that no claimant for them had appeared. But another sum of £10,000 had been promised to "any person or persons who, in the judgment of the Board of Admiralty, might by virtue of his or their efforts first succeed in ascertaining the fate of those crews." It was to that last promise that he wished more especially to call the attention of the House. He might, perhaps, take this opportunity of removing any confusion which might exist in the minds of any person who had not looked into the question, as to the reward given to Captain M'Clure. Captain M'Clure had had a sum of money granted him for services of an entirely different nature. A reward had been offered by Parliament for the discovery of the Northwest Passage—and after an inquiry before a Committee of the House of Commons had taken place a sum had been granted to Sir P. M'Clure and his crew. That reward, therefore, had no reference to the question which he was about to bring under the notice of the House. In 1856, Dr. Rae had made a claim, and the Admiralty had awarded him the sum of £10,000, promised under the third condition of the Pro-

  2149
  clamation, and he (Sir F. Baring) for one was not disposed to offer any objection to the course which had been in that instance pursued. But when it was borne in mind that that which in Dr. Rae's case was, comparatively speaking, conjectural, had been rendered perfectly certain by the aid of the crew of the Fox, and when it was recollected how the gallant men of whom that crew was composed had fulfilled the letter of the conditions which were held out in the proposal to which he alluded—though, perhaps, their claim could not be argued as a legal claim—it could hardly, he thought, be denied that they had some claim on the good faith of the country. He did not, however, desire to rest that claim upon merely legal grounds. He preferred appealing to his noble Friend at the head of the Government to look upon it in that generous spirit in which he felt assured the nation at large was anxious to see it viewed, and not to turn a deaf ear to the wishes of the great body of the people. He hardly thought it necessary, even for one moment, to call the attention of the House to that which Captain M'Clintock and his officers and crew had effected. The whole country knew it. He had in a small ship, fitted out by private contributions, been enabled to satisfy the English public upon a question with respect to which they had felt the deepest anxiety—an object which large expeditions had year after year been sent out to accomplish, but without success. Nor should it, he thought, be regarded as matter of small satisfaction that the subject was one which had been finally set at rest, inasmuch as the sad fate of our poor countrymen had at length been but too clearly ascertained; and it was therefore likely to be the last time the subject would come before the House. Under these circumstances, he hoped his noble Friend would state to the House that he was not unwilling to confer on Captain M'Clintock that reward to which he was so justly entitled. Hon. Members would perhaps pardon him if he now proceeded to advert to another point which was connected with the subject with which he was dealing, and with respect to his intention to refer to which he had given his noble Friend notice in private. He did not know what the feelings of others might have been when perusing the narrative of Captain M'Clintock, but he must say for himself that when he had come to the conclusion of that simple story, he had been deeply pained at the
  2150
  recital which was there given of the expense by which the expedition had been attended, and at the mention of her by whom that expense had mainly been incurred. He had no authority to allude to the name of Lady Franklin; indeed, he believed that in doing so he was acting in opposition to her wishes; but it was not so much for her sake as for that of the country that he did not wish to see her bear the burden of the charges which she had so nobly defrayed. The subject was one which reminded him of a celebrated monument which had been raised to one of the most distinguished of the Austrian Generals in the Seven Years' War, and upon which, after the usual recital of his eminent services, the following words were inscribed —"Non Patria, non Imperator, Conjux posuit." It was not the country whose battles he had fought; it was not the Imperial master whom he had so long and so nobly served, but the money Order that had raised the monument to the memory of Laudohn. He trusted, however, that England would furnish no just ground for such a reproach, and that, instead of allowing the expense of the expedition to which he was referring to be borne by Lady Franklin, the country at large, as a token of the high estimation in which it held such a man as her lamented husband, would claim it as a right to defray that expense as a mark of respect to his memory. So far as Lady Franklin herself was concerned, she had her reward; and if perchance—as he understood was the case—the exertions which she had made to attain the object of her wishes, had diminished her means of subsistence, and deprived her of many comforts for the remainder of her life, everybody who knew her, knew she would rejoice in any sacrifice incurred in effecting what had been the great object of her life. It was on other and public grounds that he made the present appeal to his noble Friend at the head of the Government, and in making that appeal he might be allowed for a moment to remind the House who Sir John Franklin was, and how distinguished had been his career. He was no doubt first known as the great navigator of the Arctic Regions; but in his early life he was a gallant sailor who fought at Copenhagen and Trafalgar, and who had rendered himself eminent as a volunteer on board an East India ship in the celebrated defence which had been made under Captain Dance, in repulsing a French squadron commanded by Admiral Linois. He after-

  2151
  wards served his country in a civil capacity, and later in life, when he might fairly have claimed repose upon an honourable career, he did not shrink from dangers which he knew so well, and in encountering which he had found his grave. A man who died thus, reflected honour on his country as much as if he had fallen in the battle-field he was one to whom a grateful nation might not hesitate to erect a monument in that place where her greatest and best lay buried. He died in the strict execution of his duty, at the very moment of success—when he saw before him the North-west Passage, though it was not allowed that he should effect it, and had made the discovery for which he had been sent out by his country. In speaking of their chief, let him not forget the conduct of those who served under him—of Crozier and Fitzjames, and many other younger officers, who if their lives had been spared would have been ornaments to their profession. He believed that conduct such as this raised the character of England, and of that flag under which these men had served. He did not ask his noble Friend any specific question; he was anxious to leave the subject with him. Indeed, he did not know anybody in whose hands he would more readily leave a question of this kind. To his noble Friend's own generous and kind feelings he would intrust the entire case, with all the more confidence that it deeply affected one whose own nature was so extremely sensitive as Lady Franklin's. He was almost ashamed of having taken up so much of the time of the House; but the peculiar nature of the case which had been put into his hand would be his excuse for going so far out of the way in bringing before them what he felt satisfied, from the manner in which his observations had been received, did not run counter to the general feeling of the House.
  MR. WHITESIDEsaid, that before the noble Lord answered the question which had been put to him, he hoped the House would allow him to say a few words on the subject, in consequence of the interest he had always taken in it, and of his personal friendship with the gallant commander of the Fox. It would be in the recollection of the House that in June, 1857, his right hon. Friend Mr. Napier, at the earnest desire of Lady Franklin, brought forward a Motion that the Government of the day should fit out another expedition to endeavour to discover the fate of that brave sailor, Sir John Franklin, and his gallant
  2152
  companions. That Motion was refused, not from any indisposition to carry out the humane wish of Lady Franklin, but, as was then expressed by the head of the Admiralty, from the belief that the enterprize would be fruitless, perilous, and might cost a sacrifice of human life, and therefore the right hon. Baronet (Sir C. Wood) could not advise the Government to sanction it. After that Motion a number of persons contributed towards an expedition; but the greater portion of the expense of the last voyage of discovery was borne by Lady Franklin herself. Captain M'Clintock did not undertake the command in a spirit of reckless adventure; for he (Mr. Whiteside) happened to know from scientific men, who were now preparing a work on the results of his discoveries in geology and science, that Captain M'Clintock had studied carefully and clearly the whole question, and arrived at a firm conviction that if he was enabled to reach the Polar regions, he should certainly discover what had become of Sir John Franklin and his companions. In a ship, the smallest, he believed, that ever undertook a voyage of discovery, with a crew of twenty-two men and three officers, M'Clintock sailed in July. In September he was beset in a pack of ice, where he remained till the following month of April. He drifted 1,200 miles, and the day he was relieved, instead of thinking of returning to England, the intrepid sailor was only the more determined to prosecute his gallant enterprise. He agreed with the right hon. Baronet that the result of that voyage was told in simple words, and he must say a most romantic interest attached to the narrative. He had heard it said by a very eminent person that if Franklin had been better acquainted with the present mode of sledge travelling, he would most probably have survived; the incidents connected with this adventure formed, in fact, the most interesting part of the narrative. The last Arctic voyage, as had been truly said, had called forth qualities—and he excepted none of the twenty-five men who formed the crew of the Fox—a higher nature than were displayed even on the battle-field. The soldier had a quick death or a joyful victory; but there were a more enduring spirit, and a loftier resolution, and nobler qualities of mind and body required, successfully to conduct such an enterprise as this than were required for the field of battle. He happened

  2153
  to know Captain M'Clure, and when that officer mentioned to him (Mr. Whiteside) the subject of his own services, he (Mr. Whiteside) told that gallant Officer the best resort he could have was to the House of Commons. The House, and the noble Viscount at the head of the Government had behaved with the utmost generosity to M'Clure and his crew, and what he (Mr. Whiteside) had suggested, had been verified by the decision of the House. No assembly in the world was more ready to acknowledge and reward conspicuous merit than the House of Commons. With regard to Lady Franklin, it was quite correct that she declined to accept anything from the Government in the shape of pecuniary recompense. Her hope, her wish, was that in recognition of the services and name of her gallant husband, as the true discover or of the North-west Passage, which many men of science said he was, they might perhaps raise to him a public monument; while, in doing so, an act of justice might be also rendered to the living. He left the matter to the generous nature of the noble Viscount, and he could not help thanking him for the mark of distinction that had already been conferred on his gallant Friend.
  MR. CONINGHAMrose to remind the noble Viscount that Sir John Franklin had gone forth on no volunteer expedition; he was called on by his country to undertake the expedition in which he lost his life; and it was because the Government had not taken the proper measures to search for him and his gallant companions—because they had not adequately fulfilled their duties—that Lady Franklin had sacrificed almost her entire private resources. The search hitherto made had been chiefly conducted by sea, and he was told by Dr. Rae, no mean authority on questions of this kind, that the only real and effectual search for the remains and journals of the officers engaged in the expedition would be by land and during summer; and there would be no danger whatever, he understood, in such an expedition. The only danger would be if the expedition were compelled to pass the winter in those desert regions. Not only those who were interested in Polar discovery, but the great bulk of this nation and the civilized world were interested in obtaining all the information that could be collected as to the fate and history of Sir John Franklin's expedition; and he really thought the Government would be wanting in their duty
  2154
  to the relatives and memory of those whom they had sent out on such dangerous adventures if they did not take steps to recover what traces they could of their history and endurance.

THE BRITISH MUSEUM.

  QUESTION.
  MR. JOSEPH LOCKEsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, if it is in contemplation to remove the Natural History Collection from the British Museum; and, if so, to what place it is proposed to remove it?
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, I will first address myself to the question put to me by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Iverness-shire (Mr. H. Baillie), as to whether any decision has yet been arrived at with reference to the designs for the Public Offices. No decision has yet been come to with regard to those designs; but whenever a selection has been made, I may say, the design will be fitted up in some public place, so as to enable hon. Members to form an opinion respecting it. With regard to the question put to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Locke), there have been two meetings of the Trustees of the British Museum, at which the question was considered whether the existing buildings wore sufficient in point of space to accommodate not only the existing, but the annually increasing collection of interesting objects to be found there; and, if not, whether it was desirable to increase the space by adding to the buildings of the Museum on the spot, or would be better to remove to some other place a portion of the collection. The opinion of the Trustees was that it was better to remove a portion to some other place, where a building could be obtained at a comparatively moderate expense, than incur the charge of purchasing land immediately adjoining the Museum, in order to erect on it buildings adequate to the purpose. They were further of opinion that if any portion of the collection was to be removed, the Natural History department was that which could be most easily and advantageously removed. No decision was taken as to the particular spot to be chosen; it was agreed to defer the selection of the place and the manner in which the Natural History collection should be removed. The matter therefore stands at present thus:—The Trustees have agreed that the antiquities, books, and articles of

  2155
  that kind should remain, and that the lighter things should be removed elsewhere. The hon. Member for Tipperary (The O'Donoghue), has asked me whether I had received a memorial from certain Peers and Commoners in Ireland, calling on the Government to interfere in the affairs of Italy with a view to the full and complete restoration of the Pope's authority in his temporal dominions. Sir, I did receive a memorial to that effect very numerously and respectably signed. The only answer I could give was to acknowledge the receipt, and remit it to the consideration of the Government. If I had gone into any answer, I am afraid my opinion would not have been found quite to agree with that of the memorialists, and I thought it better to avoid making any reply. It is well known that the policy of Her Majesty's Government in this matter is to leave the Italian people to settle their own affairs, and therefore that no interference of the British Government should be exerted either in the one way or the other in regard to any arrangements that might be made in Italy. Our only wish is that the Italians should take their own affairs in their own hands, and, free from any foreign intervention or control, should arrange them in the manner most consonant with their own feelings. With respect to the subject to which my hon. Friend (Sir Francis Baring) has adverted, and which I am sure engages the sympathies not of this House only, but of the whole country, it is impossible to speak too highly of the courage, the perseverance, and devotion displayed by Sir Leopold M'Clintock and his brave companions in the expedition which they undertook in search of the remains of Sir John Franklin. It is quite true, as the hon, and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Whiteside) has stated, that the duties which brave men perform in so distinguished a manner are not less honourable than those performed on the field of battle, and that throughout his perilous enterprise all the great qualities which adorn the soldier or the sailor were most conspicuously exhibited by the man who was enabled to discover the fate and bring back some vestiges of the Franklin expedition. At the same time it is but fair to say that there were others who went out at an earlier date, and who, although not equally successful with those who followed them in the object of their search, nevertheless displayed all those high qualities which so eminently distinguished the last
  2156
  expedition. It is right that the names of these men should not be forgotten while we are doing honour to those who voluntarily set out in search of the remains of Sir John Franklin and his party. It is true that the Motion referred to by the hon. and learned Gentleman was made in this House to induce Her Majesty's Government to send out at the public expense an expedition to ascertain the fate of Sir John Franklin. And I must confess that I never acted more at variance with my own personal feelings than when, from higher considerations, we declined to undertake such an enterprise at the public charge. At the same time we did think that it would not be justifiable in Her Majesty's Government, at the cost of the country, to send out men on a search which at that period appeared very hopeless, and to be attended with dangers to which we should not have been warranted in exposing them. Fortunately, however, Sir Leopold M'Clintock succeeded, with, I believe, scarcely any loss, or no loss at all, of human life, in accomplishing the object which that noble lady who sent him out had so long and so frequently attempted to effect. Now, Sir, there was a reward of £10,000 offered to anybody who should ascertain the fate of Sir John Franklin and bring back any vestiges of his expedition. The whole of that sum was awarded to Dr. Rae and the associates of his adventure. Therefore there does not now remain any portion of the votes of Parliament applicable to the rewarding Sir Leopold M'Clintock and his companions. Nevertheless, I am ready to say, that if it should appear to be the opinion of Parliament that this is a fit occasion on which to make within moderate limits a grant over and above the amount already sanctioned, Her Majesty's Government certainly would not be disposed to stand in the way of the generosity of the House of Commons. With respect to the other topic which he mentioned, undoubtedly it would not be right to follow the example of such a monument as my right hon. Friend has described—namely, a monument that should record that it was not by the country, that it was not by the Sovereign, but by the widow, that the memory of a great and gallant man had been perpetuated. I think, on the contrary, it would be fitting that there should be a monument to show that the country, the Sovereign, and the widow had all united to erect an enduring memorial of the distinguished services of Sir John Franklin.

  2157
  The expense this would involve would not be considerable in comparison with the gratification which I am sure it would afford to the whole nation, and I think to Lady Franklin, who as the hon. and learned Gentleman says, disclaims all desire for any re-imbursement of the great outlay she has so nobly incurred in endeavouring to ascertain the fate of her husband. But, no doubt, it would be highly satisfactory to her feelings if Her Majesty's Government and the Parliament were to concur in handing down to posterity some memorial of her deceased husband. I believe in this case one may say that the husband and the wife were worthy of each other; and I am persuaded that it would be grateful to the feelings of the country if, with the consent of Parliament, some monument were erected which should recognize, not only the services of the husband, but the devotion of the wife.
  MR. DISRAELI:—Sir, I am convinced that the announcement just made by the noble Viscount on the part of Her Majesty's Government will be most gratifying to the country, as it evidently is most gratifying to this House. No one can have read the narrative of Sir Leopold M'Clintock, or marked the progress of his singular expedition, without feeling that their adventure will form a memorable chapter in the heroic annals of the mariners of this country. With regard to that noble Lady through whose energy and inspiration that expedition was so gallantly undertaken and so successfully accomplished, I feel, as I am sure we all must feel, the liveliest admiration and the warmest sympathy for the rare intelligence, the indomitable perseverance, the womanly, the high and enduring spirit, with which Lady Franklin urged on the prosecution of the search for her brave husband —they will make her name illustrious among the daughters of England. I repeat that I am sure the resolution at which the Government have arrived, and which the noble Viscount has communicated to us in so sympathetic a spirit, will afford the utmost gratification to all Her Majesty's subjects.
  Afterwards—
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTON, in putting a question to the Secretary of the Admiralty respecting the Channel Fleet, said, that before making that inquiry he could not refrain from saying how warmly he concurred in all that had been said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Portsmouth, with respect to Sir Leopold M'Clintock and Lady Franklin. The right
  2158
  hon. Gentleman had alluded in the most delicate manner to the reimbursement of Lady Franklin herself, and he could not help adverting to what had fallen from the noble Viscount on that part of the subject. All who were acquainted with the views of Lady Franklin knew that her feelings upon that matter were of the same noble and generous nature as those which induced her to make such efforts to discover the remains of her lost husband; but he quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that the House and the Government ought rather to consider what was due upon public grounds to the memory of Sir John Franklin, and to the noble efforts of his widow, than to pay too rigid a regard to the delicate feelings by which Lady Franklin was actuated. He hoped that the noble Viscount would allow him to remind him that in the statement which he had made to the House he did not advert to what fell from the right hon. Gentleman and from his noble and learned Friend upon this part of the subject. He hoped the noble Viscount, in whose hands he for one was perfectly content to leave the matter, would not forget it; but he felt that, considering the efforts which Lady Franklin had made, something beyond what the noble Viscount had mentioned was due as a tribute to that noble Lady.

THE BRITISH MUSEUM.
  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. GREGORYtrusted that before the Government proceeded to remove the Natural History collections from the British Museum, they would take some means of consulting the general feeling of the public, and also of scientific men, upon the subject. The proposed removal would be very unpopular with those who were in the habit of visiting those collections; and the dissatisfaction it would produce would not be lessened by the fact that the step had been decided upon, as he believed, by a mere majority of one—that bare majority having, moreover, only been obtained through the attendance of a number of ex officio trustees, who were not usually present at the ordinary meetings of the Board. There was obviously the greatest advantage in having these Natural History collections under the same roof as the splendid library of reference which the British Museum now boasted; but that advantage would be wholly sacrificed if the contemplated removal were persisted in.
ACCIDENTS TO THE CHANNEL FLEET.

  QUESTION.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, that he wished to put a question to the Secretary of the Admiralty respecting some accidents reported to have occurred to the ships of the Channel squadron. The Times of that morning contained the following paragraph:—
  "A letter dated Torbay, Tuesday, received at Plymouth, from one of the officers of the Channel squadron, says that off the Lizard the ships were taken all aback, and could not again form a line. The Edgar, Queen, and Donegal remained out. Besides the casualties to the Queen, Diadem, Algiers, and Mersey, already reported in The Times, the letter states that the Aboukir lost her cross-jack yard and starboard quarter-boats, the Royal Albert pitched her jib-boom under at times, and the Trafalgar lost her jib-boom; she will probably call at Plymouth before proceeding to the Tagus."
  He wished to know whether the Admiralty had received any account of this dispersion, as he might call it, of the fleet off the Lizard, and whether the damage which had been caused was to be considered as the inevitable result of the late gale, or whether there was reason to attribute any blame to the officers in command of the squadron. A much more important question, however, and one upon which he was still more anxious for an explanation, arose with reference to the casualties to the Queen, Diadem, Algiers, and Mersey. Was he right in believing that these casualties had arisen from these magnificent ships having on three recent occasions come into collision with each other in the open Channel? He understood that on one occasion the Diadem and Queen ran foul of each other, and that on another, the Algiers and Mersey came into collision; the fact of these great and splendid ships coming into collision in the open Channel, while sailing in open order of battle, was one of serious import, to which the attention of the Government ought to be directed, It was impossible that these collisions should take place without great danger and serious public loss. He understood from the report that in both cases the collisions occurred when the ships were sailing in two lines, and were tacking in succession. If that were the case it was impossible to escape one or two inferences—either that the sailing order under which the manœuvres were executed must be of a defective and unsafe character, or there must be a want of seamanship among the officers
  2160
  who were in command of those ships. He therefore asked his noble Friend to give some account of these circumstances, and he trusted that it would be in his power to give such an explanation as would remove the unpleasant feeling on the part of the public, to which the statements contained in this paragraph had given rise.

CASE OF MR. TARRANT.

  OBSERVATION.
  MR. EDWIN JAMEScalled the attention of the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies to the case of Mr. Tarrant, the editor of the Friend of China, who, after conviction for a libel had been sentenced to be imprisoned in the felons' gaol in Hong Kong for the period of twelve calendar months. Mr. Tarrant was convicted in September last of a libel on Colonel Kane, who held an official position at Hong Kong. Mr. Tarrant was a gentleman and a scholar. He had himself held a position in the colony, and had afterwards become the editor of the newspaper called the Friend of China and he wrote some able articles exposing the system of corruption which beyond all question was practised in Hong Kong, for Sir John Bowring had stated before a Committee that he was bound to confess that there was a system of corruption among the officials there which he had in vain endeavoured to suppress. Mr. Tarrant was tried on the 29th of September, and was sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment on the criminal side of the gaol. He was tried, in the absence of the Chief Justice, by Mr. Adams, the former Member for Boston; and it was due to Mr. Adams, so far as his humanity was concerned, to state that he had recently arrived at Hong Kong, and was not aware of the severity of the punishment, the character of criminals Mr. Tarrant would have to associate with, or the wretched accommodation of the prison. Mr. Adams went himself and saw the gaol, and joined in a memorial to the Government, with the whole of the jury who had tried the case, for a remission of the sentence and Mr. Tarrant's removal from the criminal side of the gaol to the place allotted to misdemeanants, as would have been the case in England. This was refused: and Mr. Tarrant endured the greatest possible privation and misery. He suffered so much in his health from the association with criminals, from the heat of the wretched place—for the gaol was constructed for

  2161
  Chinese prisoners—that he was, after a time, removed to an hospital, whence, however, he was subsequently again sent back to the gaol. The punishment was altogether most severe, and not warranted by the circumstances of the case. He had thought it his duty to call the attention of the Under Secretary of State to this matter, and he hoped that Mr. Tarrant would receive some consideration and some alleviation of his sufferings.
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, that his information on this subject did not quite coincide with that of the hon. and learned Gentleman. According to a private letter from the then acting Attorney General, from the first Mr. Tarrant was treated with as much leniency as the gaol regulations permitted; and in November last the visiting justices revised and altered the rules of the goal so as to permit Mr. Tarrant to be placed apart from the other criminals, and accorded as much accommodation as the gaol allowed. At the same time it was to be admitted that a gaol in the climate of China was different from a gaol here, and the gaol at Hong Kong was one which urgently required enlargement and improvement. This operation was in the course of being carried out, and a large sum of money expended for the purpose. But with respect to Mr. Tarrant himself, the case was only a question as to the discretion of the Government in carrying out the sentence of a court of justice; and he must say that the exercise of that discretion was not quite so easy a matter as some gentlemen thought; the fact being that these libels, personal libels in the newspapers of Hong Kong, had gone on for many years past to such an extent as to render it necessary that no excessive lenity should be shown to a person who had so conducted himself. Perhaps, however, he could best answer the hon. Gentleman's question by reading an extract from a despatch addressed in December last by the noble Duke now at the head of the Colonial Office to the Governor of Hong Kong, and which would have reached him by this time. The direction given to the Governor in that despatch was, that if, on its re ceipt, Mr. Tarrant's health had suffered, or was in danger of suffering, be was to be at once removed from the criminal side of the prison to the debtors' side; that whether his health suffered or not, at the end of six months from the date of his imprisonment he was at all events to be removed to the debtors' side of the gaol. And the
  2162
  despatch ended, "it has been urged"—it was written by the Duke of Newcastle—
  "It has been urged upon me by some who disavow the slightest sympathy with Mr. Tarrant's writings that the latter half of the sentence should be altogether remitted, and that he should be discharged from prison. I must leave to your judgment how far such an act of leniency should be resorted to."
  No answer had yet been received to this despatch. When it did arrive he would be happy to give his hon. and learned Friend the information which it contained. But he must say that he had every confidence in the good sense and judgment of Sir Hercules Robinson, who had just gone to the colony, and who was perfectly free from all the local and personal quarrels that agitated society there, and he had little doubt that before this time the punishment of this gentleman was ended.
  Before he sat down he trusted the House would forgive him if he said one word with regard to the gallant men whose deeds had formed the subject of discussion. It so happened that the Irish Members could claim both the first and second officers in command of the late expedition as their countrymen. He had himself had the additional honour and pleasure of claiming Captain M'Clintock as a member of a distinguished family in his county; and the second in command of the Fox, Commander Hobson was a relation of his own. He had not the honour of Captain M'Clintock's acquaintance, but that gallant officer was related to a gentleman who represented his county in the last Parliament; and if, in the chances of politics that Gentleman had now been in the House, he would have more right to return thanks for Captain M'Clintock than he could possibly pretend to have. He begged, however, to thank the House for the generous manner in which it had recognized the services of those distinguished officers.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGEThoped that before answering the Question of the right hon. Baronet, he might be permitted, on the part of his brother officers, to thank the right hon. Baronet the Member for Portsmouth for the handsome way in which he had mentioned the services of Captain M'Clintock and others connected with Arctic exploration and discovery. All belonging to the navy felt that a great debt was due to those gallant Polar officers, and, without desiring in the slightest degree to deprive Captain M'Clintock and his brave band of any portion of the credit to which they were

  2163
  justly entitled, he was bound to say that there were other officers who, although they had not been so successful, had equally deserved success. It would be in the recollection of the House that Captain Inglefield penetrated into the Arctic regions in the Isabel —a vessel very similar to the Fox, and succeeded in discovering some relics of the Franklin expedition. There were various other officers, whose names unfortunately he could not recall at that moment, but he was sure the House would permit him to call attention to their services on the present interesting occasion. In reply to the question of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich, he would admit that undoubtedly there had been two collisions in the Channel, one of which had been of a very serious nature, inasmuch as it had resulted in the loss of the bowsprit of the Diadem. He was disposed to think, however, that the right hon. Baronet was rather inclined to listen to what he must call midshipmen's yarns. The statement which had appeared in The Times of that morning had evidently been prepared by the youngest midshipman in the fleet. He had looked over it very carefully, and he confessed that neither he nor any of his brother officers at the Admiralty had been able to make head or tail of it. The fleet started from Portland on Thursday, and proceeded with a moderate breeze down the Channel, until it arrived off the Lizard. There, during the night, the squadron being in two lines, a signal was made to tack in succession. The Diadem was the stern ship of the weather line, and the Queen fell foul of her in stays and carried away her bowsprit. A very detailed report had been received from the captain of the Diadem, but the Admiralty had not yet obtained a very distinct report from the captain of the Queen. They had, however, ordered an inquiry into the circumstances. The other collision took place between the Algiers and the Mersey. The only information which the Admiralty had received was contained in a letter from the Mersey, which had put into port for some slight repairs; and in this case also a minute investigation would be instituted. The right hon. Baronet had expressed opinions with respect to the conduct of the Channel squadron, which, if they had not come from a person intimately acquainted with the navy, he should have regarded as undeserving of notice.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: I expressed
  2164
  no opinions, but merely asked for information.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETappealed to the House whether the right hon. Baronet had not talked of extreme mismanagement in the conduct of the fleet —or words to that effect. There could be no doubt that when two vessels came into collision a certain amount of blame attached to one party or the other,—generally, indeed, to both; but he could not at that moment state whether any, and, if any, what degree of censure had been incurred in the late collisions in the Channel. He could perfectly understand, considering the terrific gale experienced by the squadron during their cruize, that there should be a loss of spars, a pitching away of jib-booms, and various accidents of that nature; but the Admiralty had at present no reason to suppose that there had been any mismanagement whatever. Accidents might always be expected, especially in the night time, when a squadron, with young inexperienced officers of watches, and manned by raw crews, put to sea for the first time. But that only showed the importance of keeping our squadrons at sea. He believed the right hon. Baronet would find that our Channel fleet, notwithstanding the recent collisions, was well commanded and officered, and that the accidents which had occurred at starting would be followed by complete success.
  SIR CHARLES NAPIERsaid, he was very glad that the right hon. Gentleman had brought this subject before the House. He thought if there was blame at all, it was in sending a young squadron to sea, totally inexperienced, to face the equinoctial gales. When that was the case, they must expect to meet with accidents. But he could not agree with the Secretary to the Admiralty that these collisions had been caused by weather. It was said that the sails were taken aback, and that orders were given to tack. Now, there was a stringent order which all Bailors knew, that when a squadron tacked, the vessels in the port line were to give way to the vessels on the starboard line. He thought, therefore, blame must attach to the captain of the ship on the port tack. But then, if the Admiralty would not send the fleet to sea in fine weather, when circumstances compelled them to go to sea in bad weather, accidents were sure to occur, because it could not be expected that young officers would be familiar with all the rules and regulations connected with the conduct of

  2165
  a squadron at sea. He believed there was not an officer in the Channel fleet who had ever sailed in a fleet before. How could they expect but that accidents would happen when officers who had had no previous experience of sailing their ships with the stern of one at the stem of another were sent to sea in dark nights to face the equinoctial gales? He thought great blame attached to somebody in not having years ago maintained a squadron at sea; and the Admiralty were to blame in not having sent them to sea sooner. If they had gone last year from June to September, they would have been got into proper order before the equinoctial gales came on.

ST. GEORGE'S-IN-THE-EAST.

  QUESTION.
  MR. LYGONsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements has been made by the Police for the preservation of order at St. George's Church on Sunday next. He put this question because Sunday was now near at hand, and from all the information he could collect, there appeared to be a want of harmony between the Police and the Rector and the Churchwardens on former occasions. He thought it would tend to the preservation of order if the Rector were informed by the police what the law was, and how far they intended to aid him in carrying it out. For want of a common understanding, the Police seemed to have gone one way, and the Rector and Churchwardens another; whereas, if there was a previous understanding, the danger of a collision might be avoided.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, the Government would undertake a very difficult task if they were to make themselves responsible for maintaining a good understanding between the rector of St. George's-in-the-East, and either the churchwardens, the police, or any portion of his parishioners. It was the business of the police, and of those who instructed them, to take measures for the maintenance of the public peace during the celebration of Divine service in the church. He must say, however, that he did not consider it to be one of the ordinary duties of the police to mount guard during the performance of Divine service in any church. If such a state of things were to become common, it would be necessary that there should be a change in the law, so as to make it somewhat analogous to that which existed in
  2166
  Ireland, by which, when a district was disturbed, it was possible to impose a fine upon it for the maintenance of an addiditional body of police. In answer to the question, all he had to say was, that such instructions had been given to the police as would, he hoped, prevent any disturbance which might be offensive to public decorum during the performance of Divine service.

ANNEXATION OF SAVOY TO FRANCE.

  QUESTION.
  SIR ROBERT PEEL: I wish to put a question to Her Majesty's Government which, I think, the House will agree with me is one of considerable importance. I am afraid I shall not be able to elicit a reply from my noble Friend at the Foreign Office or my noble Friend the Prime Minister, as both of them have already addressed the House; but perhaps the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who took considerable interest in the question the other night, or the Chancellor of the Exchequer, may reply to it. Perhaps, indeed, the Chancellor of the Exchequer may be the more proper person, for it is, as the House will see, a question of great subtlety and nicety. I am sure the House must be far from satisfied with the reply which we have received to-night from the noble Lord the Minister for Foreign Affairs. The reply which he gave is far from satisfactory, and I do but interpret the opinion of every Gentleman in this House when I say that we have all read the official announcement contained in the recent Speech of the Emperor of the French with the deepest emotion and concern, because it is now evident that the Emperor of the French is determined, in spite of this Government and in spite of Europe, to avail himself of the opportunity which the existing state of affairs presents, and to take by force Savoy. It would be unfitting to enter upon any discussion now; only I hope that an opportunity will soon be afforded, for it is one of the very greatest importance. I have been told that the discussion which took place here the other night, and especially the statement of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, has had considerable effect in Paris; and it is reported that the Emperor of the French says that after all the sacrifices he has made to England, both politically and commercially, he finds he has gained nothing whatever, except the support of his hon. friend, Monsieur Milnes. The question, Sir, which I have to put refers to

  2167
  a reading in the Speech of the Emperor of the French. The House will not have failed to remark that that Speech is given differently in The Times and The Daily News from what it is in The Morning Post. Now, The Morning Post, it is currently reported, represents not only the opinions of a portion of Her Majesty's Government, hut the general bearings of the policy of the Tuileries. The sentence to which I refer reads in The Times and The Daily News as follows:—"En présence de cette transformation deI 'Italie du Nord, qui donne â un état puissant tous les passages des Alpes, il était de mon devoir, pour la sureté de nos frontieres, de re-clamer les versants Francais," &c. His Majesty goes on—"Cette revendication d'un territoire de peu d'étendue," &c. But in The Morning Post the words are "Cette reclamation," &c. Now, the difference between these two terms is most important, and I call on Her Majesty's Government to state to Parliament and the country what is the proper interpretation to be put upon those phrases of the Emperor of the French. In 1792 the French took possession of Savoy. Now, according to the one phrase France claims—revendique—that is, it asserts a claim to that which it pretends it has a right to have. I hope I make myself understood by the House. While, according to the other, France only hopes to obtain a frontier which she thinks is essential to her security. I, therefore, call the attention of the Government to this question, and I say that not one day should be allowed to pass—if the sense of the House coincides with the opinion which I entertain—without our having an opportunity of discussing this question of Savoy, which involves the handing over the liberties of many thousands of people like so many slaves to the will and pleasure of the Emperor of the French, and against the popular sentiment of the people themselves. Something of the kind was done at the end of the last century, in the partition of Poland; but I hope this will not be the case with Savoy. I know that the universal feeling in Savoy is opposed to the annexation—they look with pride and pleasure to their connection with Piedmont; but if that connection must be severed then—as it is a curious fact, however it may be accounted for, that all mountainous and secluded people have a tendency towards republicanism—they naturally desire not to be tied to the discipline of tyranny and despotism, but their desire is to join the free, liberal, and glorious
  2168
  country of Switzerland, their neighbour. I do not throw out this as my opinion alone, and I regret that the noble Lord was so quick in his reply to former questions, as to prevent him from giving any expression of opinions now in explanation; but I hope the House will allow him to reply. It is most important for the House to know whether France is "claiming back" what she once had in 1792, and which Europe took from her in 1815, or whether she is submitting to Europe that the formation of an immense State, containing 9,000,000 of people in Northern Italy united under one dynasty, does not make it necessary for her "to obtain possession" of a property which will give her command of the"versants" of the Alps towards France?
  MR. BRIGHT: Before any Member of the Government answers this question, I should like to put a question to the hon. Baronet himself, and that is, what is it he proposes to do in this case? because it is merely idling away our time—not only idling away our time, but creating greater complications in a matter of this nature, if there be no policy which the House and the Government can take upon it, or which the hon. Baronet can recommend. We are not the Parliament of France—we are not the Parliament of Savoy—we are not the Parliament of Europe—but we are the Parliament of England; and, unless it can be shown that there is any direct and obvious interest which this country has in some of these foreign questions which are constantly brought before us, what an absurd spectacle do we offer to Europe and the world with these repeated discussions! What can be more extravagant than the language in which the hon. Baronet has addressed us on this question? One would suppose that, not only Europe, but England itself, was on fire; and I am afraid the hon. Baronet's language would not extinguish it, but make it more extensive, and, if possible, hotter. Let us examine the question a little. It is not a matter which we ought to view with passion. Perhaps we are all agreed that it would be much better that every State in Europe should remain content—if its condition would permit—and that there should be no attempt on the part of anybody to disturb the boundaries of any of the existing States. But that is not the state of things, nor can we expect it. At this very moment we know that our own Government, with the approbation probably of a large majority of our fellow countrymen, are consenting

  2169
  parties to alterations of the boundaries of several States in Italy; and it is quite possible to imagine that the right hon. Member for Bucks and his colleagues, if they had been on these benches, would have had to consent to changes which, if no disturbances had occurred, they would not at first have recommended. But hon. Gentlemen seem to suppose that because things were settled in 1815—a settlement which was merely an unsettlement of everything—that, therefore, we, as a Conservative nation, are to stand by that settlement, and resist any disturbance of it; and that after having been consenting parties to the separation of Holland from Belgium, and to that which is now going on in Italy, we are to rouse ourselves to some new exhibition of virtue on behalf of Savoy, and are to charge the Emperor of the French with some grievous treason to Europe, because he does not regard the Treaty of Vienna as the Government and the governing classes of this country do. What is the Treaty of Vienna to him but a great compact which signed for the moment the overthrow, if not the degradation, of his family. He must regard with pleasure—any man in his place must—the crumbling into ruin of a fabric which never should have been erected, and which never, by any possibility, could for a long time have subsisted. I agree with the hon. Gentleman in regretting not only that this question has been raised here, but that it should have been raised in Paris. I say that this step will produce no accession of power and no advantage to France. [Oh!] Well, if France can become more powerful by the addition of the scanty population of a mountainous region, it is more than I can exactly calculate or appreciate. I do not believe that Sardinia will be sensibly weakened or changed if the transfer takes place. I doubt extremely whether any disadvantageous circumstances will arise to the people of Savoy. But let us for one moment suppose that Franco and Sardinia are agreed —I know not if they are—but let us sup-pose they have determined to apply to the people of Savoy the principle which the Governments are now willing should be applied to the people of Central Italy. The hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth argued on the assumption that the people of Savoy are about to be transferred by some great force from a state of blissful freedom to a state of degradation and servitude. Well, that is certainly not very
  2170
  complimentary to the French people, who may be quite as well pleased with their institutions as we are with ours, and who may feel satisfied with the social liberty which we have not, and may even prefer it to the political liberty which we have, I do not pretend to know more than the hon. Baronet, but I have heard from persons of high authority that the inhabitants of Savoy have not only no objection to the transfer, but would prefer to be annexed to France. We may all be sorry that it is so; but I will tell the House the reason. The best authority that I have been able to consult in this matter has assured me that the annexation of Savoy to France would go far to double the value of all the landed property in that country. I would not give much for the loyalty of other persons besides the people of Savoy, if I could promise them to Jouble the value of all the landed property in the kingdom. I am told further that the intelligent portion of the labouring classes of that province are well aware that the annexation would add greatly to the value of labour in the district. Lyons is not more than from two to three hours journey, if so much, from Chamberry; the manufacturers of Lyons, with their capital, their looms, and their industry, would instantly spread through the valleys of that province, and an immediate addition would be made to the value of everything which now exists in Savoy. Now, I don't want the Government to give the slightest countenance to this transference; I do not want them, on the other hand, to give the slightest opposition to it. The opposition, if you give it, must be futile; you cannot prevent the transference of Savoy, but you may, if you like, embroil Europe and bring England into collision with Fiance. I say, perish Savoy—though Savoy, I believe, will not perish and will not suffer—rather than we, the representatives of the people of England, should involve the Government of this country with the people and the Government of France on a matter in which we have really no interest whatever. But Savoy would not perish nor even suffer. I find, unfortunately, that the more remote a foreign question appears to be from our own interests, the more it appears to absorb the sympathies of certain Members of the House. Have we not for generations past endeavoured to settle the map of Europe? Have we not—as if it were not worth a thought—spent blood and treasure for the purpose of fixing certain boundaries, and de-

  2171
  claring that certain provinces and kingdoms should belong to certain families; and have we not utterly and ignominiously failed in every attempt that we have made? Let us, then, in the name of common sense, and of the interests of the people of England, judge, if we can, this question calmly and dispassionately, as a matter which really concerns only the kingdom of France, the kingdom of Sardinia, and the people of Savoy. And if these two kingdoms have agreed on the transfer, and the people of Savoy themselves are favourable to it, I say it is contrary to the interests of England, and to the honour of the English Government, to pretend to interpose against a transaction which, though I would never have recommended or promoted it, is yet, I am sure, not worth the imposition of a single tax on Englishmen, or the expenditure of a single drop of blood, for one moment to prevent.
  LORD JOHN MANNERS: I was glad to hear from the hon. Gentleman that this is the Parliament of England, and not of France. But I think we at least have made this discovery from the speech of the hon. Gentleman, that if this be the Parliament of England, and not of France, at any rate France is not unrepresented in our body. Suspicions may have been previously entertained throughout England as to the reasons which have induced the hon. Gentleman to show such marked attachment and to profess such unwonted affection for certain treaties and engagements which have recently formed the subject of discussion in this House; but we now know that there is no price which the hon. Gentleman is not willing to pay rather than these objects, to which he attaches so much importance, should fail of being carried into effect. The hon. Gentleman, I hope, does not speak the sentiments of Her Majesty's Government on this question. Certain I am that he does not speak the sentiments of the people of England. We now know the measure and bounds of the loyalty of the hon. Gentleman—if he gets fourpence where he used to get twopence he does not hesitate to tell us that transfers his loyalty and his allegiance. For great as is the opinion which the hon. Gentleman undoubtedly entertains of himself, I do not attribute to him such overweening vanity as to suppose that when he said there were great classes who would not hesitate to trausfer their loyalty if their incomes were doubled; he meant that he himself was above such considerations. He spoke, I doubt not, from
  2172
  an intimate knowledge of his own heart and sentiments; and there I leave the hon. Gentleman. But I trust the Government do not sympathize with the statement which we have heard from his lips. "Perish Savoy," says the hon. Gentleman; perish the freedom of the Press; perish Constitutional Government; perish everything which stands in the way of the realization of our treaty with France! But the hon. Gentleman went so far as to say it mattered nothing whether France annexed this or that country; for the statement which he made was general. Annex Savoy! it is natural that it should be annexed; he has received information—he does not tell us from what quarter—that the people of Savoy wish it. Annex Belgium! The hon. Gentleman, no doubt, will be able, at the proper moment to inform the House of Commons he has information in his pocket that the people of Belgium wish to be annexed. Annex the Rhenish provinces of Prussia! We shall have a similar statement from the hon. Gentleman. But, I ask, is this the language of an English Member of Parliament? Does this language represent the feelings of the people of England? Is the determination of the hon. Gentleman the determination of this House and of those who sent us here? I believe, nay, I am confident, the hon. Member stands alone in the expression of those opinions. I wish now to ask one further question of the noble Lord the Member for the City of London, which I trust he will be good enough to answer. The noble Lord, at the outset of this somewhat irregular discussion, stated very correctly that a short time ago he informed the House that he was told by the French Government the Emperor of France would not proceed to annex Savoy without consulting the great Powers of Europe. This afternoon the noble Lord read a statement of the Emperor of the French made in Paris yesterday, of which the language is as follows:—"France does not wish to proceed to this aggradizement, however small it may be, either by military occupation or provoked insurrection, or by underhand manœuvres, but by frankly explaining the question to the great Powers." The question I wish to ask is, whether, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, there is any divergence from the language held a fortnight ago in that which is now employed, or whether Her Majesty's Government are of opinion that when the Emperor of the French says he intends to "ex-

  2173
  plain" the question to the great Powers, he is still inclined to "consult" them previous to the annexation; for the House will at once see there is an important difference. If you consult a person, you may be fairly presumed to be willing to act upon the advice which you receive; but if you merely explain the motives for an act, it is not so apparent that any opportunity for advice will be given, or if it be given that it is at all likely to be followed. Therefore, I should like the noble Lord to tell us, if he can, what construction Her Majesty's Government put on the more recent language as compared with that of a fortnight ago on the same subject.
  MR. MONCKTON MILNESsaid, that this was a question of much gravity, and he would entreat the House to approach its consideration neither wholly in the spirit of the hon. Baronet the Member for Tain-worth, nor in that of his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham. On a question of great European interest of this kind the House would not be doing justice to themselves or to their country by any personal recriminations, or by representing that any Member really had at heart any other desire than that the peace of Europe should not be disturbed. He trusted that when they came to the consideration of this question they would remember there were two elements which had been strangely left out of sight;—namely, the relation of this question to the general arrangement of Italian affairs, and the re-establishment of that great nation to which they were all looking forward with impatient and interested eyes. The question of Sardinia only came before them incidentally in relation to the great question of the nationality of Italy, and was no way essential as an Italian people to the re-establishment of an Italian nation in Europe; and he did not think any one would say that the liberation of three millions of people in Lombardy from the yoke of centuries, and their transference to a constitutional government, was not well worth the prize now sought for. In his opinion the people of Savoy had always represented the opinions of the Government of France, and had been opposed to every principle of civil and religious liberty in the Piedmontese Parliament. They had very little sympathy with the struggles in which the people of Italy were engaged, and his belief was that they would prefer to join a country which was more in accordance with their notions of religion and politics. This certainly could he done without in any
  2174
  degree disturbing the peace of Europe; and, supposing all other circumstances to be satisfactory, the annexation of Savoy would be no unjust compensation to France for the 50,000 lives she bad sacrificed and the millions of money she had expended in the cause of Italy. What had we done for Italy which could for a moment compare with what France had done for her? He had not approached this question as a Member representing the interests of France. He trusted none of them were representatives either of Sardinia or France, but that they only represented English interests and English honour.
  LORD JOHN RUSSELL: I cannot allow this discussion to close without answering the question of the noble Lord (Lord John Manners), and making some observations on what has occurred in the House just now. The noble Lord asks whether I understand that the Emperor of the French means merely to explain his case for the annexation of Savoy, or whether he means to consult the Powers of Europe. Upon reading the speech of the Emperor of the French, and on hearing the explanation which the Ambassador of France has given mo to-day, I can have no doubt that it is the intention of the Emperor of the French to consult the great Powers of Europe with respect to the annexation of Savoy. And now, if the noble Lord will permit it, let us a little consider what is the position of the Emperor of the French with respect to this question. This is not a question relating solely to his own power and position, but it is a question relating to the position of France and her security in Europe. It is alleged by a great portion of the French people, and certainly alleged by statesmen attached to very different dynasties from the Emperor's, that the aggrandizement of power beyond the Alps and the addition to the kingdom of Sardinia of a considerable territory would make France worse as regards her security, and would enable the King of Sardinia, in case of war, and being engaged on the side of other Powers, so to threaten the French frontier as to make it necessary for the Sovereign of France to keep two armies, one on the side of Savoy the other on the side of Nice in order to guard against the danger of invasion. Wishing, therefore, as he and his Government state, to maintain the same security as they hitherto have had, and thinking that that security would be impaired by the

  2175
  creation of such a kingdom as I have mentioned, the Emperor of the French says that it is hut due to the security of France, if the consent of the people of Savoy can be obtained, to annex that country to France; but he has also stated some time ago, and I understand he states it now—and this in my opinion is the meaning of the speech which has just been pronounced —that he wishes to consult the great Powers of Europe on that very annexation. I beg the House to consider that it cannot be a matter of indifference to any ruler of France what is the opinion of Europe generally, and of the great Powers, upon his position. In this very Speech the Emperor of the French states that he is not going to annex Savoy by way of military conquest. What does that mean? It means that he is not ready to encounter the general disapprobation and distrust of Europe, but that he believes that his Government can lay such statements before the different Powers of Europe as would enable him, without reproach and with their consent, to make this annexation of Savoy. I differ from the Government of France in these sentiments. I, as belonging to one of the Powers of Europe concerned, not being in the situation of either France or Sardinia, conceive that the annexation of Savoy and the occupation of the passes of the Alps would be more threatening to Italy than the present situation of affairs is threatening to France. At the same time, I must beg to impress on the House this further consideration. The Powers of Europe are to be consulted; —but England is a Power which does not merely consist of the executive Government, but also of the Crown and the Parliament of the United Kingdom; therefore, I should be far from wishing that on this matter the Parliament of England should not hold and pronounce its opinion; but there is this to be said, that if we are to raise, as I think the hon. Member for Tamworth seemed disposed to do, angry discussions on this subject,—if we are to take mere assertions in the place of truth, and to suppose bad motives on the part of a friendly Sovereign,—I say the only effect of debates carried on in such a temper would be to excite angry feelings, not only between the executive Government of France and the Government of England, but between the people of France and the people of England; and I cannot conceive, however much the noble Lord opposite may vaunt his own patriotism
  2176
  as opposed to that of the hon. Member for Birmingham, that a man could render a worse service to England than endeavour to raise feelings which would necessarily lead to sentiments of suspicion and hostility on the part of both countries. It is from such feelings that ruptures arise. I have already said that I think that the Emperor of the French is wrong on this subject, and that he has proposed an annexation which he was not justified in asking for; but I say that this is a question to be fairly considered, and there can be no advantage to this country or to Europe in making it a question of anger, and not of calm consideration in respect to all the reasons that can be alleged on the one side and on the other. I have stated that the Emperor of the French had declared that after consulting with the great Powers of Europe, and obtaining likewise the consent of the people of Savoy, he wished to make this addition to his dominions,—I say "with the consent of the people of Savoy," because our Ambassador at Paris has pointedly asked that question of M. Thouvenel. M.Thouvenel being so applied to, in consequence of the Emperor's speech not mentioning the consent of the people of Savoy, with the view of its being ascertained whether the Emperor of the French had changed his determination on this point, gave the assurance that no change had taken place in that respect, and that the Emperor was as determined as before not to attempt the annexation without the consent of the people of Savoy. I must say that I heard with concern the speech of the hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, and I should not be conveying my impression of the discussion if I did not add that I also heard with great concern the speech of the hon. Member for Birmingham. I believe that these questions are mixed up with the general relations of the Powers of Europe to each other; that they have an important bearing on the confidence which one State is disposed to place in another; and that the independence of the different States does constitute that security in Europe without which neither trade nor commerce nor social intercourse can subsist. A great change has been brought about in Italy. That change, while it will be, I trust, for the benefit of the people of Italy, breaks off old relations, establishes new ties, and cannot be accomplished without the risk of further disturbance and of further collision between Powers which ore now to

  2177
  be separated by new boundaries, and which, at the same time, are animated by old hatreds and by old animosities. Sir, it appears to me that it is the duty of the English Government, and, I will add, it is the duty of the English Parliament to consider in this state of affairs how best the peace of Europe can be maintained and consolidated, to give no reason for an increase of suspicion and animosity towards us on the part of other Powers, and above all, not by premature discussion, while the papers on this subject are yet unread, come to conclusions which may be unwarranted, and to form judgments upon the conduct of foreign Sovereigns, which afterwards, when the full evidence is before you, you may find to be inconsistent with the position of this country and unfair towards the ruler of a country like France, with whom it is our interest to keep on terms of friendship and alliance.
  SIR ROBERT PEELassured the House that nothing was further from his intention than to raise angry discussions as regarded the relative positions of this country with France. He was a warm adherent of the alliance with France, and he would be the last man to sow seeds of dissensions which would endanger its further continuance. As regarded the observations of the hon. Member for Birmingham, he could only assure him that when he (Sir R. Peel) endeavoured to advocate the interests of Savoy, he had reason to believe that he was representing the opinions of a very large number of the inhabitants of that country.
  LORD JOHN RUSSELL: I omitted to notice the question asked by the hon. Baronet as to the versions of the Emperor's speech which appear in different newspapers. We have only got a telegram, which may be incorrect, and I do not think the House can judge which is the correct version of the speech until it appears in the Moniteur, which I think will not have taken place until this morning.

THE BRITISH MUSEUM.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. DANBY SEYMOURwished to revert for a few moments to a subject respecting which the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Locke) had already asked a question. It appeared that the decision of the Trustees of the British Museum in favour of the removal of the Natural History collection had been carried by the casting vote
  2178
  of the noble Lord at the head of the Government. The House would recollect that a Select Committee of that House had reported against building a National Gallery at Kensington, on the ground that that locality was too far removed from the great mass of the inhabitants of the metropolis, and that to place it there would be to consult the interests of the rich alone. The same argument applied with increased force to the removal of the collection of Natural History from the British Museum. The noble Lord had not given a full and satisfactory answer to the hon. Member for Honiton. The noble Lord said the Trustees had determined to remove the collection, but that they had not determined to what place. He (Mr. Danby Seymour) found that at the meeting at which that decision was come to, and which was called in a very extraordinary manner, two questions were raised—first, whether the collection should be removed, and next, whether it should go to Kensington; and a committee of Trustees was appointed to ascertain what would be the difference in the cost of buying five acres of land at Kensington and five acres near the British Museum. It therefore appeared that the removal to Kensington was nearly determined upon. But he really thought that before it was, contrary as it virtually would be to the decision of the Select Committee, the whole subject should be brought before another committee. It was said that the Commissioners of the Great Exhibition would sell the land required at a low rate, and that the gain which would result from fixing the site at Kensington instead of in the neighbourhood of the Museum would be £212,000. But it must be remembered that if the collection were taken to Kensington, a most expensive museum would be required. But even supposing there was a gain of £100,000 by the transaction, that would not counterbalance the objection to removing the collection to a portion of the town entirely inhabited by the rich and luxurious. To take away the Natural History collection was to destroy one of the most attractive portions of the British Museum, which was largely resorted to by the working classes. Surely before a determination was taken, which virtually ignored the decision of a Committee of that House, the subject should be brought under the notice of Parliament. He believed that some underhand means were used by certain
  influential persons in this country to remove the National Col-

  2179
  lections to the west-end of London, in spite of the popular branch of the Legislature. He said "underhand means," because, while no attempt was made to popularize the other national collections, large sums were being spent at Kensington in giving lectures, in lighting with gas the buildings erected there, in registering day by day the number of visitors, in establishing schools, opening the galleries at night, giving conversaziones, and sending out cards of invitation to all whose support might be valuable hereafter. Everything, in fact, was done to popularize the Exhibition at Kensington, with the ultimate view, he believed, of removing the natural collection to that end of the town. The British Museum was now accessible to the mass of the population, and for all purposes was far better in its present position. With regard to the new building which would become necessary, it was certain that if the present system of nepotism continued, and the Smirke family was employed from father to son to make the estimates, the public money would be wasted in the future as it had been in the past. Mr. Smirke was not a proper person to call in for the purpose of making these estimates. For nearly a century the Smirke family, from father to son, had received pay from the nation; it was time that talent should be called forth from some other source. The trustees of the British Museum, on which large sums of public money were yearly spent, ought not to be allowed to take so important a step by such a bare majority as the vote of the noble Lord the head of the Government.

CUSTOMS' ESTABLISHMENTS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. MAGUIREsaid, he wished to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, with a view to the interests of the public service, the Treasury contemplates, in the revision of the Customs Department which must necessarily take place consequent upon the alterations in the Tariff, placing those Officers on the Superannuation or Redundant List who have hitherto been found unworthy of reward or unfit for promotion; and further, whether any provision will be made for the purpose of bringing forward those Officers, without regard to the mere routine system of promotion, who, from their knowledge of commercial matters, and possessing the confidence of the
  2180
  mercantile world, are more likely to carry out the new arrangement to the satisfaction of the public.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERentirely sympathised with the spirit in which the hon. Member had put his Question. He was probably aware that for many years promotion in the Revenue Department had not been in the hands of the political advisers of the Crown, but had been left to the heads of that Department. That was a very wise arrangement, made originally by Lord Liverpool, and it had worked very well. The promotion which would take place in consequence of these changes would be made by the Treasury, and he certainly thought the hon. Member had given a just description of the principles on which it ought to proceed—namely, that advantage ought to be taken of the opportunity to place on the superannuation list, or even on the redundant list, if necessary, such persons as are of inferior or declining efficiency, on account of age or ill health, and that the consequent promotions ought not to be made in the spirit of routine, but with a view to further improvements in the administration of what he believed was, on the whole, a well-governed service. He hoped the House would not consider it necessary to continue the discussion of the removal of any part of the collections of the British Museum. There were other questions more urgent as to time. It was very inconvenient to keep the commercial interests of London and other places in a state of anxiety and uncertainty. Hon. Gentlemen who had Motions on the British Museum might rest assured that nothing would be done to fetter the free discretion of the House without the fullest discussion of the subject.
  Motion agreed to.
  House at rising to adjourn till Monday next.

CUSTOMS ACTS.—REPORT.
Resolution —
"That the Duties of Customs chargeable upon the Goods, Wares, and Merchandise hereinafter mentioned, imported into Great Britain and Ireland, shall cease and determine," &c.
Resolution reported.
MR. NEWDEGATErose to move as an Amendment to the Resolution, "that the present duties on silk mannfactures imported into the United Kingdom be retained until October 1,1861." He thought

2181
the House would agree with him that there was a certain extreme school in that House whose attachment to a system of free imports was so great that it made them forget their attachment to free institutions; and that he was justified in as sertiag this, from what had fallen from the hon. Member for Birmingham, when he said, "Perish Savoy. Let Savoy perish."
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must not refer to what has passed in a former debate.
MR. NEWDEGATEbelieved, however, that he might say that what had passed in that House justified him in the assertion that there was a certain extreme school in that House that overlooked the value of free institutions in their attachment to the system of free imports. He could only say of that hon. Member—"Fatetur Reus." He trusted that the House would not be actuated by so blind a spirit, but that in considering the Motion which he now submitted, they would extend to those who were engaged in the manufacture of silks the same justice that it was proposed should be extended to those engaged in the manufacture of gloves and of corks, and that they would, notwithstanding all that might be said against the late Sir Robert Peel and his tariff, carry out his policy. That great statesman was not to be less valued for the consideration of the interests of his country than for his other qualities. He might be told that delay would be extremely inconvenient to the importers of goods who were speculating on an immediate change, with their were houses full of French goods, which they expected would be admitted immediately dutyfree; he might be told that it was not in the interest of the master manufacturers that such a change should be delayed. But the casual interest of the importer ought not to be supreme, and he had been present at meetings of master manufacturers, where he found the great majority of them decidedly of opinion that there was too great a suddenness in the change now proposed, and that it was to their interest that the same means of mitigating its effects should be adopted that were adopted by Sir Robert Peel on his changes of tariff, and which are pursued by the Government of France with reference to similar reductions of duty which the Emperor contemplated in his tariff. The difference in the action of this Treaty upon the manufacturers and operatives of France and England respectively could not be more clearly indicated than
2182
in the terms of the Treaty itself. The 14th and 15th Articles of the Treaty set forth:—
"ARTICLE XIV.
"Further, Her Britannic Majesty reserves to herself the power of retaining, upon special grounds, and by way of exception, during a period not exceeding two years, dating from the 1st of April, 1860, half of the duties on those articles the free admission of which is stipulated by the present Treaty.
"This reserve, however, does not apply to articles of silk manufacture."
He (Mr. Newdegate) could not understand why this exception against the English silk trade was made; why this trade was specified as one which should be especially excluded from the sympathy which Her Majesty was authorized to exhibit towards other branches of industry. But the contrast between this treatment of the English silk trade by the English Government and that of French interests by the Government of France was still more striking:—
"ARTICLE XV.
"The engagements contracted by His Majesty the Emperor of the French shall be fulfilled, and the tariffs previously indicated as payable on British goods and manufactures shall be applied, within the following periods:—

"1. For coal and coke, from the 1st July, 1860.

"2. For bar and pig iron, and for steel of the kinds which are not subject to prohibition, from the 1st October, 1860.

"3. For worked metals, machines, tools, and mechanical instruments of all sorts, within a period which shall not exceed the 31st December, 1860.

"4 For yarns and manufactures in flax and hemp, from the 1st June, 1861.

"5. And for all other articles from the 1st October, 1861."

It would be seen from this, that there was a special exemption against any delay in bringing the proposed change into operation with reference to the silk manufacture. The reservations in these Articles were the reservations of the French Government, (and how ample were they) in order to prepare the interests of that country for the change. The Emperor of the French, in his Speech said:—
"I have, therefore, taken resolutely upon myself the responsibility of this great measure. A very simple reflection proves its advantages for both countries. Neither the one nor the other assuredly would have failed within a few years to take, each in its own interest, the initiative of the measures proposed; but then, the lowering of tariffs not being simultaneous, they would have taken place on one side and on the other without immediate compensation. The Treaty has done nothing more, then, than to anticipate the period of salutary modifications, and to give to indispensable

2183
reforms the character of reciprocal concessions, destined to strengthen the alliance of two great peoples."
Such were the opinions, such the cautious progress of the Emperor of the French with reference to the reductions of duties, and the removal of restrictions upon the importation into France, and he was a wise governor. Sir Robert Peel was not wanting in the same consideration for the interests that his policy affected, and especially for the labourers engaged in them; he trusted, therefore, that the House would accept these high authorities in favour of the proposition before the House with reference to the industry employed in the silk trade. They were told that the Government were negotiating a Supplementary Treaty; and, if so, he could conceive no more proper subject for negotiation than placing the silk trade on a fair and equal footing with others. It might be urged that delay would injure the large manufacturers. He, however, received the best information possible on the subject, that it would be most advantageous to that class. But he submitted to the House the interests of the labouring classes, which were much more deeply involved in the proposed arrangement. Those classes would at all events for some time be exposed to great distress by the contemplated change. No one had ventured to deny that fact. It was true that the Chancellor of the Exchequer disposed of this consideration by saying that trade would ultimately revive. But was it of no account that the suddenness of this change should aggravate the distress. He (Mr. Newdegate) would remind the right hon. Gentleman of the distress that was occasioned by Mr. Hus-kisson's changes and the changes that took place in 1846. The question was, how they could mitigate the evil which was inevitable. He did not ask the right hon. Gentleman to give up his scheme or to abandon his project. He merely urged upon him a simple means of breaking the force of the shock which the Government were about to inflict, that the duties upon ribbons and other silk articles exceeded the value of the labour expended upon the commodity. So great was the comparative value of the raw material. This showed the importance of the change as it affected the industry employed in the manufacture. Was it without reason that the late Sir Robert Peel left this protection? He had before stated that although the total imports of silk goods had trebled, the exports
2184
from this country had doubled since 1846. But how stood the trade with France? He held in his hand an account of the imports and exports of silk goods between this country and France during five years ending with the year 1858. They were as follows: —

IMPORTS AND EXPORTS OF SILK MANUFACTURES.

Imports from France.

Exports to France.

1854

£1,712,872

£49,635

1855

1,546,001

50,444

1856

1,747,641

55,501

1857

1,358,741

52,881

1858

1,549,231

42,166

£7,914,486

£250,627

He thought he need do no more to show the House that by the proposed arrangement the trade of this country would be sacrificed for the period of eighteen months, at all events, during which France would continue a system of virtual prohibition against the manufactures of this kingdom, while French goods were to be imported into this country at once free of duty. The pressure would be felt severely by the industrious classes from the sudden abandonment of our duties upon silk goods. He did not wish to detain the House longer. He was yesterday charged by the Chancellor of the Exchequer with having made a long speech, and with being moderate in the expression of his opinions. He believed that it was that very moderation which made the right hon. Gentleman think his speech long. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that he did not mean to abandon that element of length when urging what he knew was the opinion of the master manufacturers in his district and the interests of the operatives. He (Mr. Newdegate) thought it was clear that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer had to deal with English interests as the Emperor of the French dealt with French interests, he would delay until the period he had named the abolition of those duties. That was the substance of his proposal. He could not think that the House would be guided by the headlong doctrines of the hon. Member for Birmingham; but that they would exercise their privileges as an independent Legislature, truly representing English interests—that they would consequently extend to those men who humbly approached them that measure of consideration which the late Sir Robert Peel had never failed to afford, which the example of France justified, and which he believed was in accordance with the judgment of

2185
the highest intellects in Europe. The hon. Member was about to move his Resolution, when—
MR. SPEAKERsaid, that it would be more in accordance with the rules of the House to make the Motion when the article to which it related was named by the Clerk at the table in the order in which it stood in the Report.
Resolution read 2°, and agreed to, down to "Clocks, as denominated in the Tariff."
"Corks, ready made, and squared for rounding, the produce or manufacture of, or imported from, France or Algeria, after 31st March, 1862."
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERmoved that the words "and squared for rounding" be struck out.
MR. VANCEsaid, he had that day received a communication from the cork-cutting trade of Dublin, in which it was stated that the proposed alteration in the tariff regarding that article, would totally destroy their trade. He entreated the right hon. Gentleman to take their situation into consideration, with a view of devising some means by which the impending evil might be averted. Perhaps the Government might use its influence with the Government of Spain to obtain an abolition of the export duty on cork.
MR. BLAKEsaid, he had received a similar communication from a portion of his constituents. He also urged the justice of their application to the generosity and forbearance of the right hon. Gentleman—at any rate to extend the time for six months. He had hitherto supported the Government in the alterations they proposed in the tariff; but seeing the distress and difficulty which this change would occasion to a large class of industrious people, he could not vote with them in favour of the proposition. He asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he could hold out any hope that the raw material could be had from the British possessions.
MR. BENTINCKhad also received various communications from his constituency upon this question. It appeared to him that the hon. Gentleman who had just addressed the House had unconsciously shown them the precise cause of the weakness of all the interests assailed by the new tariff. The hon. Gentleman said, he supported every detail of the Budget except that which attacked the interest which closely affected a portion of his constituency. Now that was precisely what had happened in regard to every article affected by the
2186
propositions of the right hon. Gentleman. Each interest was left to defend itself; there was no union of opposition. It was inconceivable folly for each interest to fight for itself, because being disunited the Chancellor of the Exchequer was enabled to massacre them all in detail. He heard an hon. Gentleman the other evening say he was a Conservative, and in commenting upon the manner in which those various industrious classes allowed themselves to be the dupes of the Free-trade schemers of 1846, remarked that the hour had now come for inflicting upon those various interests a just retribution. Now, he (Mr. Bentinck) could not accord in those sentiments. As a Conservative Member of that House he felt it was his duty to lend his support to the interests that were attacked, with out reference to any political circumstances of past years. He had heard another speech from an hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Ayrton), who spoke in a manner that did honour to his head and heart. The hon. Gentlemen represented a large constituency, a portion of whom were likely to be serious sufferers from the proposed abolition of those duties. But how was the hon. Gentleman's speech received? He was taunted with having relinquished free trade and adopted protection as his principles. He (Mr. Bentinck) was one of those who had never varied from his principles, and he should hail with pleasure so great a convert.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not in order in referring to past debates, and in replying to speeches that have been made in a past debate.
MR. BENTINCKsaid, he thought he had kept within order by referring to an indefinite time. He was not discussing the principles of Protection or Free-trade, but arguing a particular case, involving the interests of an industrious class of operatives. Whenever an appeal of such a kind was made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that right hon. Gentleman immediately fled off at a tangent, and made one of those brilliant speeches which were more calculated to charm the ear than to convince the understanding. Such speeches, however eloquent, contained nothing but Free-trade claptraps. The late Sir Robert Peel never contended for Free-trade in the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman did. That great statesman always attended to the interests and the welfare of the labouring classes, with but one memorable exception. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer passed by all such vulgar considerations,

2187
and urged forward his Free-trade principles, utterly regardless of the interests he was sacrificing. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to him (Mr. Bentinck) to be the advocate not of the rational principles of Free-trade, but of Free-trade gone mad. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer persevered in carrying out his opinions to the utmost, he could only do so at the coat of great suffering, and possibly of the lives of thousands of the most helpless and dependent of our fellow-countrymen. The right hon. Gentleman had never yet ventured to grapple with that part of the subject, or how he meant to avert the disastrous consequences of his policy. He would by his measures, without any rational object whatever, reduce to possible starvation hundreds, if not thousands of those who were solely de-pendent upon their industry for their subsistence. He knew that those arguments could make no impression on the right hon. Gentleman, but when the time came for him to witness the sufferings he had occasioned, he (Mr. Bentinck) would not envy the feelings of the right hon. Gentleman on beholding the results of his legislation.
MR. DODSONsaid, he could understand several menaced interests huddling together, like a flock of frightened sheep, for the general safety; but he could not understand why the representatives of the agricultural interest, which was no longer protected, should fight the Budget inch by inch. What had they to lose by free trade? If the meat, wool, and dairy produce of the English farmer were exposed to unrestricted competition in the market of the world, surely he had a right to claim that the paper on which he wrote, or with which he hung his rooms, as well as the silks, bonnets, and artificial flowers which any member of his family might choose to wear, should not be artificially enhanced by legislative protection. If they were to have free trade on one side let it be fully and fairly carried out. The dismal vaticinations of the hon. Member for Norfolk had been resorted to every time during the last fourteen years that any protective duty was to be removed from the tariff; and he felt confident if this measure were crrried out, as he trusted it would be, with regard to silk, in a very few years that trade, instead of being depressed, would be in a more flourishing and healthy state than it was at present.
MR. SPEAKERreminded the House that they were now discussing the subject
2188
Of "corks, ready made, and squared for rounding."
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he would not only confine himself to "corks," but to "corks squared for rounding." What he had now to propose was in order to meet a wish expressed by the hon. Member for Finsbury—namely, that "corks squared for rounding" should be admitted duty free, in order, as far as possible, to meet the claim of the workmen and manufacturers to what was much more in the nature of a raw material than a manufactured article, although it had undergone a certain extent of manufacture.
SIR MORTON PETOinquired whether the Government had any proposal now to make with regard to the cork-wood from Catalonia?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the Article referred strictly to "the produce or manufacture of or imported from France or Algeria." The subject to which reference had just been made was beyond the scope of the Commercial Treaty with France. But he would be prepared to make a proposal on that part of the subject when they came to the next Resolution. With respect to another suggestion that had been made, that his noble Friend at the head of the Foreign Office should use the influence of the Government with Spain to procure a repeal of the prohibition to export cork wood from Catalonia, he was quite sure there would be every disposition to do so; at the same time, as the question had been raised, he wished to disabuse the minds of hon. Gentlemen of the belief that the removal of that prohibition would be of any great consequence to the cork-cutters of this country. In the first place, it was quite a mistake to suppose that the prohibition had been imposed subsequent to, or in consequence of, our alterations in the Tariff of 1842. It existed when there was a protective duty in this country, and was directed against export to France, not to England. Between France and Spain, both being capable of producing cork-wood, and both having workmen who were very clever in the trade, there was a natural rivalry. In Girona, a town of Catalonia, there was a population of cork-cutters. The cork-cutters of Catalonia were subject to very much the same depressions as the cork-cutters in England, and, although there was no Spanish law on the subject prohibiting exportation, yet there was a municipal restriction enforced by the local

2189
Governments, under a violent apprehension lest they should be robbed of their raw material and means of livelihood:—just as if the words used that night by the hon. Member for Norfolk were translated into Spanish. This prohibition was of no importance to the British cork trade, and the reason was, that the Catalonians, from long usage, and from the nature of their social organization, were very superior cork-cutters to the British. They cut the cork with less waste than the English; and the price of cork in Catalonia was higher than any one could afford to give for it to send to this country. So far from a displacement having taking place in the cork trade in consequence of previous remissions, the number of cork-cutters had greatly increased in this country owing to the measures which were taken for liberating the trade. Before 1842 the cork-cutters did not amount to 1,200; they were now estimated at nearly 2,000; yet such was the demand for this labour that it could not be supplied, and various masters in the trade were absolutely at this moment importing Spanish and French workmen. Perhaps the hon. Member for Norfolk would place a duty of £1 or £5 a-head on these men coming into this country. The Catalonian cork-cutters were receiving in this country higher wages than the British cork-cutters, because the trade was a domestic or native one which they understood better than our workmen did. A Catalonian cut corks with less waste of the material, got a greater number of corks out of the same quantity of cork wood, and made better corks than the British cork-cutter. He held in his hand two corks; one of them was a specimen of the Catalonian trade and the other of English manufacture, and they bore a different price in the market in consequence of the superiority of the Catalonian workmanship. The Catalonian cork was a perfect cylinder, the British-made cork would be found to have corners all round it. He agreed with his right hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth and the hon. Member for Finsbury that nothing could be more creditable than the demeanour of the workmen who represented the cork trade; but he must add that the real cause of the difficulty in the trade here arose from some of the rules of the societies to which, unhappily, many of the workmen belonged, requiring the same price to be paid for coarse as fine work. By the rules of the society a workman was bound to take not less for cutting a gross
2190
of sodawater corks, which were very inferior, than for cutting wine corks, which were of the finest quality. When the hon. Member for Norfolk spoke of this business being carried on by women and children he little knew how entirely the reverse was the case. One of the rules of the society was that no master should employ more than a certain number of apprentices to a given number of men. In Catalonia the cork-cutter worked in the cottage of his ancestors, with his family around him. His wife and children were employed in the inferior sort of work while he was doing the better sort, and thus acquired training in the art. But in our own country the cork-cutters absolutely deprived themselves of the services of their families in consequence of the rule of the societies he had mentioned. The result of this was that there were a few masters who employed boys because the society's men, who formed the bulk of the trade, were not permitted to work for them; and these boys of eighteen or nineteen years of age were earning from 20 s. to 25 s. a week. That was the state of the case at this moment. In 1842, no doubt, a great deal of alarm prevailed because there was then a transition from absolute monopoly to comparative freedom of trade, though still under the limitation of a somewhat high duty. The consequence of that alarm was that in 1843 wages were reduced by 10 per cent; but as soon as that alarm was dissipated, and as soon as they found out that the trade was not going to dwindle away, but to grow, wages were raised in 1844 to the old point. From that time forward the trade had gone on satisfactorily, and this important difference was perceptible in the condition of the men—while the monopoly was in full force almost every winter there was a very considerable number of journeymen out of work and de-pendent on the workhouse; but now, since the change had been made, neither in winter nor summer could the masters find men enough to do the work they had in hand. He assured the hon. Member for Norfolk if he had had a tenth part of his experience on this subject, if he had heard as often as he had done in 1842 and in every subsequent year, without exception, the same doleful, dismal, lugubrious prophecies repeated in every case, with an equal absence of reason and with a total contradiction afforded by subsequent experience, he would not have exhibited the credulity he had done. In 1853 the duty on corks stood at 8d. per lb., and the pro-

2191
posal which he made on behalf of Lord Aberdeen's Government was to reduce the duty from 8d. to 4d. Such strong remonstrance, however, was made by the journeymen of the trade as unfortunately induced him to modify that proposal, and raise it to 6d. instead of 4d. The consequence of that was an immediate strike for an increase of wages, which lasted for ten months; and in almost every instance the increase demanded was obtained. Such a movement, of course, could only last for a time. Some of the masters held out against the strike, and took boys into their employment, who had shown themselves perfectly fit for the work; and by degrees it died away. The enormous evil of a prolonged struggle was thus inflicted on the trade in consequence of the reliance placed on a high protective duty. He would next show the House the inconvenient working of the existing system, by which the free importation of corks was prevented. There was an immense demand for cork in Australia; but the space it occupied rendered the freight very costly. The consequence was that almost all commodities sent to Australia that had the power of containing anything had their interstices filled up with cork. Hats, carriages, pieces of furniture, everything that admitted of it, was filled with cork when exported to Australia; and the effect of the high duty was to compel the use of the inferior corks of English workmanship, instead of the superior corks from abroad, upon which the exporters from this country could not afford to pay the duty. These facts showed, he thought, in this particular case almost more than any other he had ever known, that the influence of perfect freedom of trade was absolutely required for the benefit not only of the public but likewise of the workmen themselves. His right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade stated the other night that a great impulse would be given to the cork trade by the reduction of the wine duty; and so far from exciting the incredulity it did on the part of some Members, that observation, if liable to any criticism whatever, was liable to the remark that it was little more than a truism. There could be no doubt that the demand for cork would be greatly increased by the reduction of the wine duty, and with that enlarged demand it was exceedingly desirable there should be also the further advantage of an open trade, without any restrictions upon the employment of apprentices, and without
2192
those strikes and suspensions of labour for months together by which the journeymen, imagining they had got possession of some talisman which gave them the command of the market, were induced to inflict the severest injuries on themselves. If there had been an error in the proposal at all, it had been in postponing to too distant a date the final abolition of the duty; but he knew the House liked to lean to the side of indulgence in these cases, and perhaps on that ground the delay might be justified in a transition of such importance. He wished the House to know that, in point of fact, that portion of his Resolution which was required by the Treaty of France, if adopted, constituted the material portion of it, and the only point they would probably think worth contending about. We imported from France three-fourths of the consumption of corks, and from Portugal and Spain together only about a seventh. The imports from France might be said to absorb the whole of the imports to this country. In 1859 the total import was 452,0001bs., of which 409,0001bs. came from France. A very large part of that was, no doubt, Spanish cork; but he put it to them whether it was possible to make a distinction. It was contrary to the genius of our legislation, and he thought they would not think it either necessary or desirable. As he said on a former occasion, he wished the proposition to be considered on its own merits, and not merely as part of the Treaty.
MR. T. DUNCOMBEthought they had sufficient elements of discord in the House already without the right hon. Gentleman being at the trouble to introduce the various subjects he had referred to in regard to this trade. He denied many of the right hon. Gentleman's assertions altogether, for he had evidently been misinformed. The cork-cutters were not that exclusive body he had tried to make them out. What they wanted was not protection. They were quite ready to enter into competition with the whole world; but they demanded that if the Government reduced the duty they should take care to secure to them a supply of the raw material by the manufacture of which they gained their livelihood. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that the difficulties of the trade had been caused by trades' unions, and that some of the masters had sent to Catalonia to obtain a supply of labour. He (Mr. Duncombe) should like to know who these masters were; for he felt assured

2193
that such immigrants could do no good in England unless they could obtain a sufficient supply of the raw material, especially when Estramadura and Portugal were preparing to deprive us entirely of the supply of the raw material. The right hon. Gentleman had produced two corks, one of Spanish and the other of English manufacture; but why had he not asked the cork interest in this country to produce a cork of their manufacture? The right hon. Gentleman said that three-fourths of the corks imported into this country came from France; but they really came from Spain through France; they paid no duty into France, and all that France gained was the carriage and transit. He was, however, satisfied with the concession which the right hon. Gentleman was going to make. The cork-cutters thought it was better than nothing. There had been, they thought, a gross blunder on the part of the Government, and he left the working classes and the Government to settle this blunder between them. He had heard from the hon. Member for Birmingham that the cork-cutters were in a trade's union, and five minutes afterwards he heard the same thing from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Accordingly he went out and asked these persons whether the fact had been correctly stated. The men admitted that they had formed themselves into a trade's union for their own protection, and they added that there was not a place in England which could say that one of their men was ever thrown upon the parish.
COLONEL SYKESsaid, he had received a memorial from the cork-cutters of Aberdeen, who complained that the original proposition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer would operate almost entirely to the advantage of the Spanish and French manufacturers.
MR. POTTSstated that information had been forwarded to him from the constituency which he represented (Barnstaple), to the effect that the trade would be ruined if the duties were abolished. He was unable, however, to explain the special grounds for that conclusion.
MR. CLAYthought that no rule could be of so cast-iron a character as to be incapable of bending to circumstances; and in cases of this kind he would ask, first, what would be the result to our own trade, and then the effect upon the consumer. He believed that the original proposal of the Government, coupled with the prohibition of the exportation of cork wood from
2194
Spain, would be ruin to the trade at home, while the injury to the consumer from a departure from the usual rule would be but trifling. In such a case, he thought, they might depart from the general rule. He believed that if the duty on Spanish corks were retained the Foreign Secretary's representations to the Spanish Government might lead to reciprocal advantages and concessions. The noble Lord might direct the British Minister in Spain to say, "See the temper of the House of Commons. Remove your obnoxious prohibition of the exportation of cork wood, or do not be too sure that they will not take the same course with regard to Spanish wines that they have taken on corks." He did not know whether they would have another opportunity of voting on this particular question, but if they had not, he should not regret that no opportunity had been lost of doing justice to an interest that he expected would suffer very materially, if it were not entirely extinguished.
Amendment agreed to.
Resolution amended accordingly.
Resolution agreed to, a s far as "Quinine, sulphate of."
"Silk, Millinery, or Manufactures of Silk, and any other material, as denominated in the Tariff."
Amendment proposed after the word "Tariff," to insert the words "after the 1st day of October, 1861."
MR. ELLICE(Coventry) said, that, although he was sensible of the exertions which the hon. Member for North Warwickshire had made for what he believed to be the interest of the silk manufacturers in the county of Warwick and the city of Coventry, and the labourers employed by them, he did not think that the proposition which he had now submitted to the House would be for their benefit. If the duty was to be abolished, the only effect of agreeing to that proposition would be to continue for an indefinite period the panic and suspense which had followed the declaration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer with respect to the Treaty with France. He (Mr. Ellice) had on the strength of the declarations made last year by Members of Her Majesty's Government, stated to his constituents that there would be no treaty with France, and that he should therefore vote for the abolition of all duties upon French silk manufactures, in the confidence that the manufactures of his constituents would be admitted on an equal footing into France. He wished, therefore, to set him-

2195
self right as regarded his seeming deviation in this instance from the advocacy of free trade. He was one of a deputation who accompanied the late Mr. Tooke to wait upon Mr. Huskisson and Lord Wallace for the purpose of promoting free trade. In the discussion of Mr. Huskisson's measures subsequently, he certainly maintained the interest of the silk weavers of Coventry, because he considered that it would he unfair to make them the first subjects of the experiment; and he demanded the reduction of the duty on corn as an equivalent. He denied, therefore, that he was inconsistent, and he said the late Sir Robert Peel had always stated that he referred in vain to his (Mr. Ellice's) speeches to find an argument in favour of protection. Since then all restrictions had disappeared. He (Mr. Ellice) had voted for a repeal of the corn laws in 1828 long before that repeal took place. In consequence the silk trade had emerged from the state of misery and periodical ruin in which it was plunged while the system of protection prevailed; and he was not now afraid with a little time the panic would cease, and the silk trade become righted. He would not be a party to raising a panic with regard to the ability of English artisans to compete with those of any country in the world. All he asked was that in making treaties of commerce, the Government should satisfy those who were affected by them that in dealing for equivalents they had been treated with fairness and justice. If these duties had been reduced upon principles of trade or revenue, the Coventry people would have had no right to complain; but they had a right to demand that their interests should not be sacrificed for political objects. He hoped that in the convention which was to follow the confirmation of this Treaty the Chancellor of the Exchequer would induce the French Government to abolish the duties on silk manufactures imported from this country. If that were done the silk trade would not have so much reason to complain. Nothing could be so great a mistake as to say that the silk duty acted as a protection; that it did not do so was proved by the fact that under the present system we exported annually £2,000,000 worth of silk. An additional argument was to be found in the memorial of the silk manufacturers of St. Etienne, who stated that they were not opposed to the abolition of the protection. He thought that, in the present state of the measure, they should be very careful
2196
how they remitted duties that fell on articles of luxury.
MR. ROLTsaid, he had always thought that the less legislation there was on the subject of trade the better, and that it was impossible to have too great freedom of trade with a view to the accumulation and distribution of wealth by the employment of capital on labour. In other words, he thought that trade for those purposes should be perfectly free. At the same time, it also appeared to him that the accumulation and distribution of wealth were not the only objects they had to take into their consideration. They were bound to see whether that principle, as applied to any particular case, was or was not affected by moral, political, for fiscal considerations. Admitting the principle to be correct, one of the first things they were bound to do, when they came to apply it, was to ask what changes it was likely to produce in the channels of trade, and what the probable effect of those changes would be. If there was a sudden change in the channel of any particular trade, the great probability was that there would be loss and suffering; capital employed in one direction could not find immediate employment elsewhere, and a year or more might elapse before the trade could right itself. These were considerations which they ought to apply to the case before them. It was argued on the Ministerial side of the House that it was far from clear that in the case of silk there would be any change in the channel of trade; that the Bilk manufacturers would go on just as before, only stimulated to greater exertions by the necessity for increased and improved production; and former reductions of duty were pointed to as proving these assertions. But any former case in which a reduction of duty had been made furnished no precedent for what was likely to occur when the duty was wholly abolish' ed. They could not refer to former cases to prove, to anything like reasonable certainty, what would happen now—all they could arrive at was probability. Now, no wise man would propose to act on a probability without considering what were the chances of things turning out contrary to his expectation, and whether without any great sacrifice provision might not be made for the contingency. When it was considered that probable anticipations might fail—that they might find themselves deceived—that a change in the channel of the silk trade might take place, and capital go elsewhere,

2197
leaving thousands of suffering workmen behind—the least they could do was to take precautions for providing, as far as they could, against such an event. He would admit, looking only to the principles of free trade, that it would be wise to sweep away those duties; but then there arose not only questions as to revenue, but also the consideration that results of a most serious kind might follow—that the change might be attended with suffering and misery, compared with which the losses sustained in the most severe campaigns in the field would be as nothing. In the face of such contingencies he asked if it was not prudent to guard, as far as possible, against them? Was the delay of a few months unreasonable? Might not this delay prevent these serious consequences, and in any view of the case could it be seriously prejudicial. The right hon. Member for Coventry (Mr. Ellice), said he was informed by manufacturers of Coventry that delay would be of no use, and the hon. Member for North Warwickshire was told by the same class of manufacturers that delay would be of great consequence to them. It appeared to him, however, that this matter hardly required evidence. The danger apprehended was possible—nay probable. The contrary had not been and could not be proved. The silk manufacturers ought to be allowed time to turn round, and to see how, if that became necessary, they could employ their capital elsewhere. He asked why silk had been specially excepted from the operation of the 14th article of the Treaty, in which Her Majesty reserved to herself the power of retaining, on special grounds, for a limited period half of the duties on articles the free admission of which was stipulated by the Treaty? The people engaged in the silk trade could not more readily than those engaged in other trades all at once turn to other employments for a subsistence; their numbers were as large and their prospects of misery as great as were those of persons employed in branches of industry in respect to which the power of exception reserved by that 14th Article might be exercised. Even now, if the matter were brought under the consideration of the French Government, they could scarcely hesitate to modify the Treaty so as to postpone its operation for a given time with respect to silk. Such a postponement would have no serious effect on the general operation of the Treaty, while it would
2198
afford time to some 200,000 of our fellow-countrymen to adapt themselves to the altered circumstances in which their industry would be placed.
MR. BASSsaid, he could not see the equity of immediately remitting the duties on French goods, while the reduction on those of English origin imported into France was to be postponed some fifteen months. The silk manufacturers complained that a very considerable portion of their manufactures would be replaced in that
interval by French goods, and they asked, as he thought very reasonably, for time to adapt themselves to their new position. Delay had been conceded in the case of gloves and various other articles, and why should it not be granted in that of silk? It was not a question of free trade or protection, but one of wisdom and prudence in carrying out an important arrangement. He trusted the Government would take the matter into consideration.
MR. BROCKLEHURSTsaid, that the point at issue was a very simple point. Those engaged in the silk trade made, he thought, a very fair and equitable request —they asked that their goods in France should be received upon the same terms as French goods were received here. They had taken alarm at the position of inequality in which they would be placed in the competition they would have to wage with the French manufacturers, and they naturally looked to a House of Commons composed of English gentlemen to interpose to protect them from that injustice. If the Government would give them an assurance that in any convention that might be entered into they would do their best to see that their industry had fair play they would be satisfied.
MR. BARROWsaid, the advocates of free trade were now driving their train at something more than express speed, and this was just one of those cases in which they might slacken their pace in order to avoid injuring those who, in being shunted, stood in such danger of violent collision. His common sense told him that the artisans in this branch of manufacture would want time to transfer the industry of themselves and their families to new fields, if they should find it necessary to do so; and it was only fair and right that a reasonable interval should be allowed them for that purpose. It had been insinuated that a Member representing agricultural interests had no right to interest himself in

2199
this question. He certainly represented an agricultural constituency, but he came there to consult with a view to the benefit of the whole nation; and when he believed that the interests of an important body of the labouring population were likely to be seriously prejudiced by hasty legislation, he held himself bound to interfere in their behalf, and to vote for what he believed would conduce to their benefit, regardless of the circumstance that they did not form part of the agricultural community. Therefore, believing that the Amendment would afford some relief to a large industrial interest he should give it his support.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he was bound to say that his right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, and the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Brocklehurst) had treated this question in a liberal manner, showing what great progress had been made in appreciating its whole scope and bearing. His right hon. Friend and other hon. Members had asked no more than for an engagement on the part of the Government to do all that they could to liberate English silks imported into France from the payment of duty. He thought he might say, on behalf of his noble Friend the Foreign Secretary, that it would give him great pleasure to labour for such an end; but he could not presume to predict the degree of success his noble Friend might be able to attain in any particular case. When, however, once a country like France had taken so great a step as was involved in the engagements of the present Treaty, and had performed a double process—on the one hand opening to her producers, the great mass of the people, the English market; and, on the other hand, depriving her great protected interests of that description and degree of protection which they had hitherto had, and putting them in a position essentially different from that in which they heretofore stood, he must say, after such a change as that had been effected, all that remained to be done would be comparatively easy. We should stand, after this engagement had been once contracted, in a very different position in relation to France, from that in which we had stood heretofore. Hitherto there had been an idea, whenever we had asked for any relaxation of Customs laws, that we had some selfish object in view—that, in fact, free trade was a system through which we hoped to enrich ourselves and rob the rest of the world. Until we got rid of that fundamental fallacy, there
2200
was very little chance of making any progress; but he thought that fallacy would be effectually exploded by the Treaty we had concluded with the Government of France. There would, for the future, he not only the interest of the consumers working in the direction of free trade, but the classes who had been deprived of protection, who having for the most part learnt that it had been a fictitious and unreal advantage, would be disposed to require the universal and impartial application of the new system. The hon. and learned Member for Gloucestershire (Mr. Rolt) had said that the abolition of duty had been postponed in other cases, and he seemed to complain that silk had been made an exception. The reason why silk had been made an exception in the Treaty was, that the Government felt they should look at the silk trade as a whole; and so regarding it, they came to the conclusion that it should be dealt with immediately. He thought they had been supported in a marked manner by the testimony of those Gentlemen who were most intimately acquainted with the wishes of the silk trade. For example, his right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, a very high authority, had told the House that in the interests of the silk trade, of which he had always been a faithful and hardy champion, he deprecated entirely the Motion made by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire. Considering that the testimony from so experienced and enlightened a guardian of the special interests of the silk trade, considering also that the commercial world in general deprecated delay, and that, according to the hon. and learned Member for Gloucestershire himself, there was a high probability that there would be no distress, no displacement of labour, and no change in the channels of trade, he thought nothing more was required to induce the House to confirm the Resolution at which the Committee arrived last night, and to reject the Motion of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire.
MR. FRANK CROSSLEYsaid, he had known the hon. Member for North Warwickshire as a prophet for many years; but fortunately for the country he had been a false and not a true prophet; and now very little reliance should be placed on his predictions of the ruin of the silk trade. The hon. Member said that within the last few years we had doubled our exports of silk manufactured goods:—Now, could we have exported these goods if they were dearer

2201
here than abroad? The hon. Member had given us one reason for affording protection to the British silk manufacturer, that in France the dyes were superior to those of this country. On this point he begged leave to join issue with the hon. Gentleman. He believed that our dyes, both from vegetable and animal substances, were in many instances superior to those of France; and he knew that not only had articles containing a mixture of materials been sent from France to Bradford to be dyed, but Bradford dyers had been induced by the offer of high wages to go to France, on account of their superior skill and the excellence of their colours. So also with regard to "taste" in design. Superiority in taste was not the peculiarity of any particular country; but even admitting that France excelled us in that matter, we could no doubt prevail upon French artists to come here, just as Bradford dyers had been persuaded to go to France. If he were engaged in the silk trade he should have no objection whatever to the removal of protection to-morrow, because in spite of the prophecies of Gentlemen opposite, he had never known a trade that was injured by the withdrawal of an artificial protection. The great advantage of there being no import duty was that the goods made there would be as cheap or cheaper than in any other country, consequently manufacturers would have the world for their market rather than be shut up to the island on which they lived.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, the hon. Member for the West Riding evidently did not understand the silk trade. He seemed to wonder how a protected country could extend its export trade. Why, France and Belgium, in both of which countries protection was the rule, had increased their export trade in a much greater ratio than this country within the last few years, and so had the United States. It was stated a short time since by the Duke of Brabant in the Senate of Belgium, that since 1842 the trade of England had increased by 124 per cent, but the trade of France had increased 159 per cent, and the trade of Belgium 204 per cent; France and Belgium maintained protective tariffs. The hon. Member could not account for these facts according to his system, for he seemed to think that trade extends only by means of free imports. It was also a fact that large quantities of silk were sent from the West Riding to be dyed
2202
in France, and the French Government charged a very heavy export duty upon them on their return. All the silk trade wanted was an assurance from the Government that they would in earnest negotiate for the removal of the prohibition in France which excluded the great bulk of the silk goods manufactured in the Coventry districts, before we were asked to admit, duty free, all the products of France, and that the change in the terms of importation should take place at the same time in England as in France. Surely, a more reasonable request could not be made to any English Administration.
COLONEL DICKSONsaid, it was with reluctance he rose to add a few words to the debate at this late hour, but he had failed on former occasions to catch the Speaker's eye, and therefore he had contented himself with giving a silent vote in the minority in each division, though he must add that to that minority he was proud to belong. The discussion had been confined, for the most part, to those who were older in debate than he was; and he felt that the question which had been put from his side of the House had not drawn forth those answers from the Ministerial bench which he and every lover of his country had a right to expect. If he had doubts before, those doubts were greatly increased by the contradictory arguments in favour of the silk manufacturers, which were used on the different sides of the House. The arguments of his hon. Friend the Member for Warwickshire, and the arguments of the right hon. Member for Coventry, though both were in favour of the silk manufacturers, were so different that he would have been puzzled how to decide between them if be had not observed that his hon. Friend the Member for Warwickshire backed out his opinions by his vote, while the right hon. Member for Coventry spoke one way while he voted the other. If there was another reason to induce him to oppose the Budget, it was the speech he had heard from the hon. Member for Birmingham last night.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman is out of order in referring to a speech made in a past debate.
COLONEL DICKSONapologized for his involuntary breach of the rules of the House, but he must say that the whole debate appeared to him to be characterized by an undue reference to the influence of France. He was himself most anxious for an amity with France, and he was for

2203
peace at any price except that of national honour; but he could not agree to remove these duties in the hurried manner that was proposed.
SIR JOSEPH PAXTONsaid, that the remarks of the last speaker with respect to himself and his colleague were entirely unwarranted. On the part of his constituents there was no wish for delay; both the merchants and the weavers wished this matter to be settled, one way or the other, as soon as possible. To continue the existing state of things another year would only keep up the agitation, and the interests of those concerned would suffer in the meantime.
Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
The House divided: —Ayes 51; Noes 179: Majority 128.
Resolution, as amended, agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. MASSEY, MR. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, and Mr. LAING.

CUSTOMS ACTS.—COMMITTEE.
House in Committee, according to order. Mr. MASSEY in the Chair.
(In the Committee.)
Resolution 4, That the Duties of Customs chargeable upon the Goods, Wares, and Merchandise hereinafter mentioned, imported into Great Britain and Ireland, shall cease and determine, namely,—
Goods, being either in part or wholly manufactured, and not being enumerated or described, nor otherwise charged with Duty, and not prohibited to be imported into or used in Great Britain or Ireland; but if any such Goods shall be composed of any Article liable to Duty, as a part or ingredient thereof, then such Goods shall be chargeable with the full duty payable on such Article, or if composed of more than one Article liable to Duty, then with the full Duty payable on the Article charged with the highest rate of Duty.
5. Cork Duties.
Resolved,
"That the Duties of Customs charged upon Corks, ready made, shall cease and determine after the 31st March, 1862.
6. Resolution Reducing the Duty on Corks, Hats, and Gloves (Under Treaty).
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, with regard to gloves he believed there was a general desire for an earlier abolition of duty. The object of fixing the date as it stood in the Resolution was to secure the present season, but that terminated on the 1st of August; and if nothing occurred to alter his deter-
2204
mination he should substitute at a subsequent opportunity the date of August 1, 1860, for the date of February 1, 1861.
Resolved,
"That, in lieu of the Duties of Customs now chargeable on the under-mentioned Articles on their Importation into Great Britain and Ireland, the following Duties shall be charged until the days hereinafter mentioned, and that from and after those days the Duties shall cease and determine, namely,—

Until the 31st day of March 1862, inclusive.

s.

d.

Corks, namely, ready made the lb.

0

3

Until the 31st day of March 1861, inclusive.

Hats or Bonnets, namely,

Of chip the lb.

1

3

Of Bast, Cane, or Horsehair the lb.

1

3

Of Straw the lb.

1

3

Until the 1st day of February, 1861, inclusive.

Leather Manufactures, namely, Gloves of Leather.

Habit Mitts the dozen pairs

1

2

—Gloves, the dozen pairs

1

9

Men's Gloves the dozen pairs

1

9

Women's Gloves or Mitts, the dozen pairs

2

3

Agreed to.
7. Paper Hangings to be reduced (Under Treaty).
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he should not attempt to prejudge the important question of the paper duties now leviable under the Excise. He hoped, however, that the Committee would agree to this Resolution, so that there might be no delay, on the understanding that the subject should be revived in case the House should decide against the remission of the paper duties generally. A report had within the last few days been addressed to the Treasury by the Board of Inland Revenue on this subject, and as it contained some useful information he proposed to lay it before the House.
SIR FITZROY KELLYasked when the general question of the paper duties would be considered?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERhad addressed a letter to the hon. Member for Somersetshire (Sir W. Miles) stating that the regular form of raising the question would be when the Bill for abolishing the paper duties should be introduced. It would be for the hon. Member to decide in what stage of the Bill he would take the sense of the House as to the proposed abolition of the paper duties.
MR. BRIGHTsaid, that it would be very convenient if the day could be at once fixed. Could the Chancellor of the Exchequer say Monday?
SIR FITZROY KELLYobjected to so early a day as Monday; but said ample notice would be given with respect to the proposed Amendment.
In reply to Mr. PULLER,
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he hoped that the Committee would go through the Resolutions to-night, in which case the Address in approval of the Treaty would be moved on Monday.
MR. LIDDELLasked whether a drawback would be allowed on the stocks held by the paper manufacturers? He was told that those stocks were very large, and he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman, in spite of his inexorable mood during the last few days, would consider their claims to a drawback.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he had been in communication with the parties on this subject, and begged it would be understood that he had not refused the concession of the drawback. He hoped to be able to announce the intentions of the Government in the course of a few days.
SIR FITZROY KELLYwished, with reference to the drawback upon wines, to ask what time, and in what form, this question of construction would be submitted to the House, as the decision very much depended upon the will of the Government.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman must be aware that it was impossible for him to enter into that question. He was not prepared to submit the question to the House, but he would take care that upon as early a day as possible an opportunity should be given to hon. Members of expressing their views on the subject.
SIR FITZROY KELLYgave notice, that, if no substantive Motion were submitted to the House, whenever a Bill was brought forward, he should take that opportunity of raising the direct question.
LORD WILLIAM GRAHAMwished to ask whether the duty on paper would be immediately lowered, or whether the reduction would be postponed till the decision of the House on the general question was arrived at.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERstated that he was in communication with certain parties relative to the drawback to be allowed on paper, but no decision had yet been arrived at on the subject. He would take care to submit to the Committee at as early a date as possible the decisions of the Government. As to wines,
2206
the duties would be immediately lowered, a bond being taken from the importers to abide by the decision of the House on the whole question of the Excise duties.
Resolved,
"That, in lieu of the Duties of Customs now chargeable on the under mentioned articles on their importation into Great Britain and Ireland, the following Duties shall be charged until the 15th day of August 1860, inclusive; and that from and after that date the Duties shall be the same as the Excise Duties for time being on Paper of British manufacture."

Paper, namely,—

s.

d.

Printed, Painted, or Stained Paper

Hangings, or Flock Paper, the cwt.

14

0

Pasteboard the cwt.

15

0

Afterwards,
SIR WILLIAM MILESsaid, he understood it had been asked whether he intended to proceed with his Motion on the paper duty. He did intend to proceed with it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was kind enough to say he would consult his convenience. His convenience was the public convenience. Having had some conversation with the right hon. Gentleman, it was his intention to move the Amendment on the second reading of the Bill, and he understood that the Bill would be brought in at the early part of the week, and that the second reading would be taken on Friday.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The Bill will be brought in early on Monday evening, and on that evening we shall be able finally to fix on the day for the second reading.
Resolution proposed—
"That Spirits or Strong Waters not being sweetened or mixed with any article so that the degree of strength thereof cannot be ascertained by Sykes' Hydrometer, pay for every gallon of the strength or proof by such Hydrometer, and so in proportion for any greater or less strength than the strength of proof, and for any greater or less quantity than a gallon, 8s. 6d.
8. Spirit Duties.
MR. T. DUNCOMBEmoved an Amendment, "That the duty on Foreign Spirits be 9s., instead of 8s. 6d. a gallon." He thought that an error had been made in the calculation. He said that, unless this change was made, strong foreign spirits would be smuggled into this country under the name of cheap wine, at a great loss to the revenue, and also to the British distiller. He found by the instructions sent by the noble Lord to the negotiators, it was proposed that the import duty should be 10 s.

2207
If he had been correctly informed, the present suggestion had come as a surpise upon the Commissioners of Excise. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: No!] If the right hon. Gentleman contradicted this, how was it that the duty was raised to 8s. 6d., and even then the Excise officers were not satisfied? The Excise officers would tell them that the duty of 8s. 6d. was not sufficient to enable the British distiller to compete with the foreigner. At present the British distiller was taxed at no less than 450 per cent, while the foreigner was taxed only 150. The British distiller, too, was subject to all sorts of regulations and restrictions which impede him in his operations. It should be remembered that the foreign distiller had no Excisemen about him. He had been informed by one of his constituents that under the terms of this Resolution his plant, worth £30,000, would be reduced one-half in value, but if the rise to 9s. were agreed to, he would just be enabled to cover his outlay. In the British manufactures there were two distinct processes. There was first the corn distiller who produced what might be called the raw material. Then the raw material was kept in hand until the distiller required it. A duty of 8s. had to be paid before the rectifying distiller could touch it. Nor could he touch it in bond, he was obliged to carry it away in order that no fraud might be committed on the revenue. If they allowed the British distiller to take the spirit in this state free, he would not want a 6d. of duty on foreign spirits. Then besides that the subsequent rectifying was a very expensive process. Having read some further extracts from the correspondence, the hon. Member concluded by moving his Amendment.
Amendment proposed to leave out "8s. 6d." and insert"9s."
MR. HORSFALLsaid, the hon. Member, in reducing the scale proposed by the Amendment from 10 s. to 9s., had followed in the steps of the negotiators at Paris, whose conduct in this particular he condemned. The rate if fixed at 10 s. would have tended towards an equalization of the spirit duties, which would yield an additional revenue of £2,000,000 to the Exchequer, without, he believed, any proportionate danger from smuggling. He should like to know the reason that had induced the negotiators at Paris to deviate from the instructions originally given to them on this subject.
MR. T. DUNCOMBEexplained that he had reduced the amount of duty proposed by his Amendment, with the view of meeting the Chancellor of the Exchequer half way, and he thought he ought now in his turn to make the very slight advance which was required.
MR. CRAWFORDsaid, that the proposed scale of the Chancellor of the Exchequer entirely met with the approval of those in the City he had been in communication with, and that he was instructed to oppose the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman. They said that the difference between 8s. 2d. and 8s. 6d. was sufficient to cover them against the charges imposed on them by the necessity of the Excise supervision, and to enable them to compete with the French distillers.
MR. CRAUFURDwished to know whether, in the allowances made with regard to the 1s. duty on foreign grain, the distillers were to have a drawback on the grain used in distilling, in the same way as on molasses. He wished also to know why French rums should be placed on a different footing.
SIR MORTON PETOapproved the Amendment of the hon. Member for Fins-bury.
MR.WHITESIDEobserved that M'Cul-loch, in discussing the reduction of the duty on brandy, showed how the consumption was increased, and that the same result followed the policy of Sir Robert Peel. His argument was this—that if the superior article were produced by the foreigner and the inferior one at home—if the same duty be levied upon both—it would practically amount to a differential duty in favour of the foreigner. He believed the reduction of the duty would be injurious to the Irish distiller, and should support the Amendment.
MR. BEAMISHfelt he would not be justified in voting against the proposition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
MR. BASSsaid, that the duty proposed by the Resolution was not adequate, considering the embarrassment caused to the distillers by the Excise. He believed, however, that the question was one not so much between the British and the foreign distillers, as one that concerned the rectifier, whose business, he was informed, would be destroyed. The history of the duly on French brandy was a curious one. In 1845, Sir Robert Peel reduced it from 22 s. 6d. to 15 s. per gallon, and the result was, that while in 1844 the import was

2209
1,073,000 gallons, yielding a revenue of £1,225,000, the import in 1848 only reached 1,107,000 gallons, and the duty fell off to £830,000. He (Mr. Bass) was apprehensive that similar results might arise from this further reduction. It might be said that the great increase in price, namely, from 4s. 6d. in 1845 to 11 s. at the present time, was owing to the vine disease; but he was assured that the vineyards which produced the wine used for distilling had been but slightly affected, though it was quite true that the wine might have been used to some extent in lieu of other wines.
SIR EDWARD GROGANsaid, that as he had received no communication from his constituents after the supplemental Treaty was published as to the duty fixed for foreign spirits, he was bound to conclude that they were satisfied. He wished, however, to know whether any steps would he taken to procure the admission of British spirits into France at a reduced duty?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he was not aware that there were any very strong reasons why we should enter into a communication with France with respect to the duties which she levied on the importation of spirits. There wore, however, no good grounds why France should refuse to admit British spirits on liberal terms—inasmuch as she exported that article herself to a very considerable extent. In answer to the hon. and learned Member for Ayr (Mr. Craufurd), he might observe that no plan had been organized for the purpose of allowing a drawback upon foreign grain in distilleries. He wished, at the same time, to add that the matter was open to consideration, although it was a point with respect to which he was prepared to give no positive assurance. In reference to the arrangement which was proposed by the Government in the case of the duty under discussion, he could only say that it was one which had been adopted after very careful examination, and after the holding of repeated communications with members of the spirit trade who, he was bound to say, were gentlemen characterized by much intelligence as well as much moderation in the advocacy of their claims. He might here take the opportunity of observing that the statement of his hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury, to the effect that somebody had been despatched by the Government to Paris immediately after he had given notice of his Amendment, was only of value so far as
2210
that both circumstances had taken place. The truth was that the Government, owing to communications which had been made to them by the distillers of the three kingdoms, stating that they would labour under a disadvantage under the operation of the Excise laws which had not been calculated upon, and which, under minute examination, it was found would be likely to arise—had deemed it right to send an intelligent gentleman to Paris with the view of effecting certain arrangements in consequence; and it was, perhaps, not unnatural that the hon. Gentleman should attribute that circumstance to alarm on the part of the Government as the probable result of his Amendment. Now, the hon. Gentleman had gone on to contend that the original duty of 8s. 2d. a gallon had been fixed upon foreign spirits without consultation with the Customs and Excise; but he could assure his hon. Friend that the contrary was the fact; and that he had taken no step in this direction without consulting the officers of Inland Revenue, who differed entirely from the hon. Member. In answer to the question why the proposal of a 10 s. duty had not been adopted he might state that, after due consideration, it had been deemed inadequate to meet the circumstances of the case. The operation of a 22 s. and a 15 s. duty on brandy had been to exclude from any competition with British spirits all but the finest qualities of French brandy; so that the argument with respect to levying a higher duty on brandy in consequence of its greater value was not so strong as it appeared to be at the first blush. Another reason why a 10 s. duty had not been adopted was that it was found necessary to provide not only for the importation of French brandy, but also for that of other descriptions of spirits manufactured in France from corn and beet root as well as the spirit made in Holland, and more especially the cheap spirit manufactured in Germany, on which it would be impossible to justify the imposition of a The basis upon which negotiations had been entered into with France on the question 10 s. duty by any reference to their value, was that of perfect freedom of trade, so far as regarded the abandonment of differential duties; so that the Government had, in the first instance, been very naturally led to impose the same rate of duty as had, for a series of years, been fixed on colonial spirits. When, however, the statement of the distillers and rectifiers had been submitted to the consideration of the

2211
Government, it was found that the matter stood in a different position from that which they had supposed. It was the general opinion of the distillers that the surcharge of 5d. would be sufficient; and with the exception of some of the rectifiers, he believed there was a general disposition to recognize this as an arrangement which ought to be satisfactory. The article of rum, he admitted, stood in a position altogether anomalous. He did not think it possible to increase the rates of duty on rum, as the disadvantages of the Excise laws would not admit of it. But rum was a limited production, proceeding from the tropics, and therefore it was an article in which the distiller at home did not very much fear competition. It was quite necessary, however, to afford the same advantage to the rum of foreign countries as to rum from our own colonies. The article of tafia from any colony of France looked rather suspicious; but as regarded Martinique there was a bonâ fide trade in that kind of spirit, and it was a well-known commodity. This was a general answer to the questions which had been put, and this was the arrangement which, upon the authority of the best practical officers and the heads of the Board of Inland Revenue, he thought well suited to meet difficulties which, he admitted, were complicated and to solve them in the fairest manner of which they were susceptible.
MR. T. DUNCOMBEsaid, that by the Supplemental Treaty the Government had confessed their ignorance and their error. If they had consulted the Excise, how came it they had originally fixed the duty at 8s. 2d.? The differential duty was not sufficient, even as arranged by the amended article. That duty was in favour of foreign brandy. It was not the gin-distiller, but the distiller of brandy in this country who would be ruined by the arrangement.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the hon. Gentleman was not justified in the contradiction which he had offered to him. The hon. Gentleman ought to have known that it had never been the practice for Chancellors of the Exchequer to send for whole Boards and enter into consultation with them as to any proposed changes. What he did was to send for the head of a Board, and upon all occasions his communications to the Board were made to the head. Who was the hon. Gentleman's informant on the subject he knew not, but this he could tell him, that with regard to the frequent alterations in
2212
these duties the head of the Board of Excise was fully informed from the first.
Question put, "That '8s. 6d.' stand part of the proposed Resolution."
The Committee divided: —Ayes 191; Noes 48: Majority 143.
LORD CLAUD HAMILTONasked, Whether there had been any correspondence with the French Government to obtain the same remission of the amount of duties payable on rum from the British Colonies admitted into France.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, there had been no negotiation as to British spirits imported into France, and he was not prepared to state accurately what was the precise difference between the import duty in France levied on British colonial spirits and the duties of excise levied on spirits in France. He thought, however, that the changes made by France under this Treaty were much larger than those made by England, if measured by the relative position of the two countries.
MR. E. CRAUFURDsaid, he hoped the British distillers would be allowed to supply the Navy. He wished also to ask, whether the allowance for wastage in bond would be made according to the actual quantity wasted?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the question had been brought under his notice during this discussion for the first time, and he would consider it.
Resolution agreed to.
Resolved,
"That in lieu of the Duties of Customs now charged on the articles undermentioned, the following Duties shall be charged thereon, on importation into Great Britain and Ireland, namely,—

s.

d.

Spirits or Strong Waters, not being sweetened or mixed with any article so that the degree of strength thereof cannot be ascertained by Syke's Hydrometer, for every gallon of the strength of proof by such Hydrometer, and so in proportion for any greater or less strength than the strength of proof, and for any greater or less quantity than a gallon the gallon

8

6

Of and from a British Possession in America or the Island of Mauritius, and Rum of and from any British Possessions within the limits of the East India Company's Charter, in regard to which the conditions of the Act 4 Vic. c. 8, have or shall have been fulfilled the gallon

8

3

Rum Shrub, Liqueurs, and Cordials of and from a British Possession in America or the Island of Mauritius,

Resolutions to be reported.
To report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.
House resumed.
Resolutions to be reported on Monday next.
Committee report Progress; to sit again ON Monday next.

MR. JOHN POPE HENNESSY.
Mr. JOHN POPE HENNESSY, being in his place pursuant to the Order of the House of the 28th day of February, expressed his regret that having, through inadvertence, neglected to sign the Declaration required by the Standing Orders, and forgetting his summons to attend the Committee on Group 1 of Railway Bills, he had started for Ireland, whence he had immediately returned on being served with the Order of the House; and then he withdrew.
COLONEL WILSON PATTEN, as he was the Member who moved the issue of the order for the hon. Member's attendance, wished to say that it was with the deepest regret that the Committee of Selection had felt it to be their duty to report his absence. Nothing but the extreme inconvenience which that absence had caused would have induced them to take the step, particularly as there was reason to believe that the hon. Member acted in forget fulness. But he was sure that the hon. Member was totally unacquainted with the extreme inconvenience be bad caused to the parties appearing
2214
before the Committee. That inconvenience bad been not only one of delay, but one of very great expense to the parties—not only to the railway company, but to private individuals, who had been put to expense in having to retain counsel for another day. But as he (Colonel W. Patten) understood, from the expressions of the hon. Member, that he regretted the inconvenience he had caused, his duty would probably be performed if he now moved that the hon. Member be directed to attend the Committee on Monday next, at twelve o'clock.
Ordered, That Mr. JOHN POPE HEN-NESSY do attend the Committee on Monday next, at Twelve of the clock.

THE FRENCH TREATY.

  NOTICE.
  MR. BYNGgave notice that on Monday after the report of the Resolutions, it was his intention to move that a humble address be presented to Her Majesty expressing the concurrence and approval of the House in regard to the Commercial treaty between Her Majesty and the Emperor of the French.
  Mr. AYRTONsaid, the hon. Member for Sunderland, having given notice of an Amendment on the Address, was anxious that the terms of it should be put in writing in order that he might know how to meet it.
  MR. BYNGpromised that the hon. Member for Sunderland should be in possession of the terms of the Address on Monday morning.
  MR. BLACKBURNasked the noble Lord at the head of the Government whether it was their intention to move that the Motion of the hon, Member for Middlesex (Mr. Byng) with reference to the French Treaty should have precedence of the other orders on Monday.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON:—It is in. tended to move the Address in question after the Resolutions of the Committee have been reported. I apprehend it will be competent for the House to allow the Motion to come on then.
  MR. BLACKBURN: Does the Government intend to move that the Motion shall have precedence of the orders of the day?
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Care will be taken to do only what is regular.
  House adjourned at half after Twelve o'clock till Monday next.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILL.—3°Probate and Administration (India).
BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER.

  PETITIONS.
  VISCOUNT DUNGANNON presented a Petition from the Clergy of the Western Rural Deanery of Chester-le-Street, Durham, and from the Clergy and Laity of Prestbury against any Alteration of the Book of Common Prayer. He regretted to find that his noble Friend (Lord Ebury) did not intend to bring forward his Motion until after Easter in order to meet the convenience of the Episcopal Bench. The question was one of very serious importance, and he hoped that the deepest consideration would he given to it. In dealing with this question they were treading on very delicate and very slippery ground. He regretted that the matter had been
  2134
  brought forward at all; but he trusted it would be dealt with cautiously, and that there would be a full attendance of their Lordships when his noble Friend (Lord Ebury) brought forward his Motion. He hoped that the noble Lord would give as early notice as possible of the terms of his Motion,
  LORD EBURYsaid, he did not concur in the alarm of the petitioners as to the unity of the Church being destroyed by a revision of the Litany.

THE YEOMANRY.—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF POWISsaid, he was very much surprised to find that no Vote had been proposed this year, in the Army Estimates, for the annual training of the Yeomanry. The omission to call that force together for drill and exercise was of very-rare occurrence—indeed, he believed the only year in which they had not been assembled for that purpose since 1815, was the year 1857. Even at the time of the Reform Bill, when politics ran high, and when the Government, it might be supposed, had no particular affection for the Yeomanry as an agriculutral body, their annual gathering for exercise had not been dispensed with. It was certainly very remarkable that at a time like this, when the Government were exerting themselves so strenuously in various ways to form an available reserve of troops at home, this valuable and old-established force should be neglected. If it were susceptible of
improvement or re-organization, let the necessary measures be carried out; but he did not think the Government should bestow all their patronage on the infantry Volunteers, to the exclusion of the Yeomanry. In 1857 the excuse made for not calling them out was that they were so efficient that they did not require it; but the opinion of all persons of experience in such matters was that it was impossible for them to be in a state of proper efficiency unless called out every year for exercise and training. Another point to be considered was that the horses of Yeomen were entitled to exemption from the horse-tax if they had performed a certain number of clays' exercise; and he hoped that, if the Government persisted in their intention not to call out the Yeomanry this year, they would follow the precedent of 1857, and grant exemption from the horse-tax to all horses that had been out for service in the preceding year. He did not wish to disparage the Volunteer

2135
Force, but was it reasonable, when they were assisting a new force, that they should neglect and render inefficient an organization which already existed? It was impossible to keep up the esprit de corps among a body of men when it was a matter of accident whether they would be called out or not; nor was it worth while, for the sake of a trumpery saving of £35,000, to diminish the efficiency of the Yeomanry, when, at the same moment, they were taking a Vote of £15,000 for the pay of adjutants for Volunteer Rifle Corps. It was all very well to say that the Yeomanry were so efficient that it was unnecessary to call them out. They would not believe that this was the true reason, and he trusted that their Lordships would not see a repetition of the policy of 1857, when the Yeomanry were treated with similar neglect, but that they would be allowed to assemble for duty, so that they might be enabled to serve their country in case of need with credit and efficiency. He wished to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is intended to assemble the Yeomanry either for permanent Duty or for Training and Exercise during the present Year?
EARL DE GREY AND RIPONsaid, that it was not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to call out the Yeomanry during the present year, either for permanent duty or for training or exercise. He could not help thinking that the noble Earl's mind was haunted by the apprehension that there was some hostility to the Yeomanry force on the part of Her Majesty's Government, or some design fatal to their existence. But he could assure the noble Earl that nothing was further from the intention of Her Majesty's Government, or of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War. The noble Earl had alluded to the large amount of the Army Estimates for the present year. Those Estimates for the Army and Militia alone amounted to more than £15,000,000. Under these circumstances the Government thought it their duty to reduce the expenditure upon all points were reduction was possible. There could be no doubt that some of the causes which rendered this high expenditure necessary were of a temporary nature. The noble Earl said the Yeomanry would not believe that they were not called out because they were already so efficient; but the Government had given this reason in perfect good faith. The reports relative to the Yeomanry last year were remarkably satisfactory. Only two
2136
years before the Yeomanry were not called out, and the same course was pursued as in the present year. The noble Earl, if he did not mistake, then made the same prophecy, that the Yeomanry would become inefficient. So far, however, from their efficiency having decreased, the reports of last year showed that it was as high as ever it was. He could assure the noble Earl that the Secretary of State for War, who was himself a Yeomanry officer in a distinguished corps, entertained a high appreciation of the services rendered by the Yeomanry whenever they were called out. In determining that it was not desirable they should be called out during the present year his right hon. Friend had acted from no desire to impair the efficiency of this force, but simply from the wish to keep down, as much as possible, the amount of the Army Estimates. Here was, no doubt, an old-established force of high reputation and proved efficiency, and his right hon. Friend (Mr. S. Herbert) thought he might call upon the patriotism of the officers, in consideration of the demands upon the finances of the year, to forego the advantage of being called out during the present year. The noble Earl had instituted a kind of comparison between the Volunteer corps and the Yeomanry. Such comparisons were, he thought, to be deprecated; but, when the noble Earl complained that the Government were giving assistance to the Volunteer corps, he must remind him that while the Volunteer force, numbering from 70,000 to 80,000 men, would not cost the Government more than £15,000, the expense of the Yeomanry corps was £88,000 for about 14,000 men. He had no doubt that, although the Yeomanry might not be now called out, they would be found when they were assembled next year, in an efficient condition, and that two years hence the reports would show that the Yeomanry were in the highest state of efficiency. His right hon. Friend had only been induced by a sense of public duty and by a desire to reduce the expenditure to defer calling out the Yeomanry for the present year, and had pursued that course with great regret and under the pressure of necessity.
THE EARL OF CORKsaid, he was glad the noble Earl who had just spoken on the part of the Government had borne testimony to the efficiency of the Yeomanry. If, however, they were in an efficient state it was desirable to keep them so, and that could not be done without training and exercise. If they were not called out, the

2137
feeling that they were not properly trained and made efficient would spread, and they would begin to think of dissolving themselves. In 1857, when they were not called out, great doubts existed among them whether the Yeomanry force was not speedily coming to an end. When they now saw the Government assisting another force with £15,000 they could not understand why they should not be called out. He trusted that when the Yeomanry were again called out the Government would supply them with a better carbine. He did not believe there could be a much more useless weapon. The Yeomanry were almost ashamed to use it, and there was the greatest difficulty in prevailing upon them to practice with a weapon that hardly ever hit the mark.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, he agreed with the noble Earl (Earl Powis) that the Government had been guilty of a very serious mistake in not calling out the Yeomanry force, and he quite agreed with what had fallen from the noble Earl opposite with regard to their arms. But that was only one of the first consequences of what he must call the extraordinary courage which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had displayed, in dashing at everything which could contribute to make up his financial scheme. Owing to the courtesy of the other House of Parliament, he (the Earl of Malmesbury) had been present during the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech, and had then heard one of the most eloquent statements that perhaps had ever been made in that House. In that speech he spoke of two sources of revenue which he had cut off by the reduction and abolition of duties, and one of which he called his great chasm, and the other his little chasm. This little chasm he created by sponging off a number of small articles that in the aggregate brought a large sum of money to the revenue. Among these were nuts, liquorice, and eggs, each yielding a considerable amount; and he (the Earl of Malmesbury) ventured to say, that if these three articles which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had determined to sponge off had been retained, they would have given him a sum large enough to pay the expenses of calling out the Yeomanry Cavalry. He was truly sorry that the Yeomanry were not to be called out this year, for considering that when they were out they had only eight days' training in the year, and that from this time two days had usually to be deducted for travelling, &c,
2138
the force could not be expected to become very efficient, especially if the ordinary yearly training was interrupted.
THE EARL OF DARNLEYthought the Government had taken a most unwise and unfortunate course in not calling out the Yeomanry. That force was by no means so perfect in discipline as to warrant the Government in dispensing with the usual training—they equally required improvement in their arms and in their discipline.
THE EARL OF WARWICKwas under-stood to say that it would be impossible for the Yeomanry to retain their efficiency unless a more effective system of training were resorted to.
VISCOUNT DUNGANNONsaid, he had heard with deep regret the determination of the Government, because he felt sure that the efficiency of the Yeomanry corps must greatly suffer if a year elapsed without their being called out for training. It was a strange argument that because the Yeomanry force was last year in an efficient condition it was unnecessary to assemble them as usual; it certainly did not seem to be the wisest mode of maintaining that efficiency. These were times when it was to the last degree important that all our disposable forces should be developed to the utmost extent, and maintained in the best condition, as there was no knowing when their services might be required. It was pitiable to see the Government of a great country like this adopting such a paltry piece of economy—ill-timed as regarded the present, and most prejudical in respect to the future.
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, although he had not the honour of being connected with the Yeomanry, he could not refrain from expressing the regret with which he had heard that it was not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to call out that force during the present year. That was a measure which could only be justified on the ground of extreme necessity, and he could not see that any such necessity had arisen. It was a step which was entirely contrary to the whole policy of the Government, which had been mainly directed—and very properly directed—to the strengthening of the defences of the country. In this particular case they seemed to have thrown away—wantonly thrown away, as he thought—the present services of a body of 14,000 cavalry; and in doing so, they would necessarily impair the efficiency of the force when called out in another year. He would not

2139
say the Yeomanry force was not susceptible of improvement; for example, in the mode in which they were armed and drilled, they might be greatly improved. He thought also a portion of them might he drilled as mounted riflemen. But the greatest advantage would result in increasing the value and efficiency of this body of 14,000 men, by calling them out for training for longer periods. He must say he thought the noble Earl, the Under Secretary for War, had spoken a great deal too lightly on this subject, which was one of very great importance. It was no light matter, considering the way in which the principal landowners and farmers, and other respectable people in each county, came forward and at great inconvenience to themselves, devoted a considerable portion of their time to the public service, that they should be treated with disrespect by the Government. It appeared to him, when the Government found it necessary to diminish the public expenditure, that they might have selected other items than that relating to the Yeomanry for reduction. The great object now was to augment the security of the country. Were there no Miscellaneous Estimates, which had grown enormously year after year, until they now threatened to swallow up the best portion of the revenue? Was it impossible to make a reduction in those Estimates to the amount of £35,000, the sum which would be gained by not calling out the Yeomanry? If the Government felt strong enough, and were disposed to do their duty, as he thought they were, and if they were permitted by the House of Commons to cut out of the Civil Estimates all the charges which had originated in crotchets and self-indulgence, in luxury, in shams, and in jobs, they would be enabled to place this country in a state of absolute security, without laying any additional charge upon the people. He did not accuse the present Government, or any preceding one, of any misconduct in having allowed those Miscellaneous Estimates to grow up to the extent they had done. He believed it was the House of Commons, and not successive Governments, that the country had to blame for the great increase which had taken place in that branch of the expenditure. He remembered the late Sir Robert Peel on one occasion saying there had been much more jobbing since the passing of the Reform Bill than before. "Before," said Sir Robert, "the jobbing was for individuals, but now it was for constituencies, and that was a
2140
great deal more expensive." The lower we descend in search of a constituency the lower will be the representative we shall find, and we shall only increase instead of diminishing this source of scandalous expenditure. If the Government would economise the expenditure of the revenue drawn from the people, they must firmly resolve, at any risk to themselves—and he believed they would be supported by the country—to cut down those scandals, which were overwhelming the State, giving us things we did not want, or ought not to desire, under circumstances of national difficulty, and depriving us of things which were absolutely essential to the national security.
THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEsaid, an impression, to which his noble Friend who had just sat down had given distinct expression, appeared to prevail among some of their Lordships that his noble Friend the Under Secretary for War had spoken slightingly of the Yeomanry force. But he was certain that nothing could be further from the intention of his noble Friend than to convey any such meaning, and his speech had certainly not produced that effect on his (the Duke of Newcastle's) mind. His noble Friend who had last spoken appeared, moreover, to infer from the speech of his noble Friend the Under Secretary for War that there was a feeling of disregard for the Yeomanry on the part of Her Majesty's Government. He (the Duke of Newcastle) scarcely thought it necessary to defend the Government from any such imputation. He believed that no feeling of the kind was entertained by any one of them: it certainly was not entertained by
the members of the Government generally. Speaking for himself, he did not hesitate to say he regretted that there should be any necessity in any single year for not calling out the Yeomanry, for it was impossible that some detriment should not result to the efficiency of the force from such a measure. But Her Majesty's Government had found it necessary to reduce the Estimates in some Departments, and his right hon. Friend at the head of the War Department thought that the item relating to the Yeomanry was one which he could curtail without any serious detriment to the public service. His noble Friend who had just addressed the House had said, that if the Government had been disposed to do their duty, as he believed they were desirous of doing, and if they had not been controlled by the House of Commons, they would have re-

2141
duced the Miscellaneous Estimates. But he could assure his noble Friend that when those Estimates came before the House of Commons it would be seen that the Government proposed to make very considerable reductions in them. He knew that those Estimates had gone on increasing from year to year until they had reached what might be called gigantic proportions. It was also true that each successive Government had found a difficulty in keeping down that branch of the public expenditure, partly from extraneous causes and partly from the feeling of the House of Commons on the subject. But in the present year the pruning knife had been applied to the Estimates for civil purposes to a much greater extent than the amount of the cost of calling out the Yeomanry. When his noble Friend, the late Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (the Earl of Malmesbury) sought to mix up the affair of the Yeomanry with the Budget of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he (the Duke of Newcastle) was utterly at a loss to conceive what connection there could be between the two subjects: and when his noble Friend talked of "the little chasm," he fully expected that he would have put on his full Yeomanry uniform, and, like the Roman general of old, have thrown himself into it as a martyr. As Lord-Lieutenant of a county possessing two efficient Yeomanry regiments he could speak personally of their value, and although the Government did not intend to call out that body this year yet they had no desire to depreciate its merits.
THE EARL OF DERBYconsidered that his noble Friend's reference to the Budget was quite as germane to the question under discussion as the noble Duke's example of Quintus Curtius:—he believed, however, that the Gentleman's name was Marcus Curtius. He, however, did not understand from the noble Duke whether it was intended to allow to the Yeomanry the same exemption from horse-duty which they would have enjoyed had they been called out for duty.
THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEsaid, he was not prepared to give a positive answer to the noble Earl's question, The subject was one for the decision of the Treasury, and he had not had an opportunity of ascertaining what was the opinion which they entertained with respect to it. But he felt confident that on an application being made from the War Office to the Treasury the exemption from horse-duty which had
2142
been granted upon former occasions of the same description would be allowed during the present year.

HONOURS TO NATIVE PRINCES IN INDIA.

  QUESTION.
  LORD LYVEDENrose to put a question to Her Majesty's Government, of which he had given notice, Whether any and what honours or rewards have been conferred upon those Indian Princes who have remained faithful during the Indian mutiny? There could be no doubt that next to the bravery of our troops we were indebted for the preservation of our Indian empire to the assistance in some cases and the for-bearance in others of Native Princes. The Maharajah of Gwalior had prevented his Contingent from attacking us; the Rajah of Putteealla had kept open the road to the Punjab, and other Princes had rendered us valuable aid. About twelve months since he had put a question in the House of Commons to the then Secretary of State for India, Lord Stanley, and was then told that the subject was under consideration. As a year had elapsed since that answer was given he hoped he should not be thought intrusive in asking what had been done since last year towards rewarding those Native Princes who had remained faithful to us during the late Indian mutiny.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he agreed with his noble Friend as to the value of the services of those Princes. The subject to which his noble Friend referred had engaged the attention of the Governor General and of the Government at home; but he was not then prepared to enter into any minute explanation with respect to it; and he would suggest to his noble Friend that he should then move for copies of the despatches connected with the matter, and that he should make them the subject of discussion on a future occasion.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHwas impressed with the belief that the bestowal of decorations would form the most fitting mode of rewarding the Native Princes, and the one most grateful to their feelings.
  LORD LYVEDENmoved, in accordance with the suggestion of the noble Duke, for Copies or Extracts of the Correspondence between the Governor General and the Home Government.
  Motion agreed to.
  House adjourned at Half-past Six o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.