Sitting of 16 March 1860

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILL.—1° Professional Oaths Abolition.
2° Court of Chancery; Endowed Schools (No. 8).
3° Prisons (Scotland) Acts Continuance; Marriage (England and Ireland).

MR. NEWDEGATE AND MR. COBDEN—PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS.
MR. BRIGHT: The House will, perhaps, permit me, before the regular business comes on, to occupy ifs attention for a few minutes, by referring to a matter of a personal nature—not personal, however, to myself, but to my hon. Friend, the Member for Rochdale (Mr. Cobden), who is now absent, and on whose behalf I wish to say a few words. The matter arises out of a statement made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) in a speech which he delivered to the House during the discussion on the Budget. In that speech—I quote from a slip which I have received from my hon. Friend, and to which he has called my attention—the hon. Gentleman is reported to have said that Mr. Cobden professed to be a Free-trader and Democrat, and yet when he went to Russia he wrote in favour of the despotic Government of that country, and that he was now—
"On such close terms of intimacy with the

719
Emperor of the French that he had declared that, notwithstanding the restrictions on the liberty of the press, notwithstanding; the Chambers were what he (Mr. Newdegate) was afraid the House of Commons would become—a mere registry for the decrees of the Emperor of the French, that he could not understand that the people of France had anything to complain of."
Therefore, said the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Warwickshire, it would be little wondered at that Mr. Cobden should feel little interest in the people of this country, or in what he trusted would still continue to be an independent House of Commons. I understood from the hon. Gentleman that this statement was made by him on the authority of an anonymous letter printed in a paper published in Manchester, which notoriously has long been most unfriendly to my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale. My hon. Friend has written me a letter in which he refers to this, and states that—
"The entire purport of the statement is utterly devoid of foundation; I never expressed the sentiment attributed to me, or anything like it, or the opposite of it, for I never uttered an opinion upon the subject to which it refers. The whole allegation is as pure a fiction as if the speaker had accused me of picking M. Guizot's pocket of his watch. Tray speak to Mr. Newdegate on the subject, and ask him to retract the statement as publicly as it was uttered; and pray tell him that I am lost in astonishment at his having been capable of propagating, without due inquiry, such a calumny on an absent Member of the House."
I have given notice to the hon. Gentleman of my intention to make this statement, and I must say I am satisfied that the hon. Member for North Warwickshire would not utter a calumny of this sort, but that this statement is probably a misconception to which we are all of us liable when preparing a matter to fulminate against our opponents. I think, however, after what has been stated, that the hon. Gentleman will at once express his regret at having been misled into making a statement so unfounded. I ask him to retract what he has stated, in order that there may be no misunderstanding on a matter of this character; because, from the position in which my hon. Friend now stands, it is most important that nothing of this kind should be published that is not strictly accurate; and this misrepresentation, however unintentional, should be retracted as publicly as it was made.
MR. NEWDEGATE: Sir, I fully acknowledge that the hon. Member for Birmingham has only done his duty by undertaking to call me to account for any
720
statement I may have made with respect to Mr. Cobden in his absence, of which he and Mr. Cobden think that the latter has a right to complain, as unfounded or unfair. He has only obeyed the claims of friendship in so doing, and I honour him for it. The Reports of what I said and to which the hon. Member refers are to a considerable degree inaccurate. I find attributed to me in the leading organ of communication the following words which convey, though not exactly, still the general tenor of my meaning. Speaking of the hon. Member for Rochdale, I am supposed to have said—
"Perhaps he might say that Mr. Cobden was so intimate nowadays with the Emperor of the French that it would be dangerous to put any cause of dissension between them. In former times Mr. Cobden had been struck with the same democratic devotion for the Emperor of Russia, witness the pamphlet which he had written on his return from Russia. So complete was the admiration felt by Mr. Cobden, the advocate of democratic doctrines—so entirely was he Epris with the Emperor of France and his system, notwithstanding the restrictions on the liberty of the press, notwithstanding the Chambers were what he feared that House was on the point of becoming—mere registry offices for the decrees of the Emperor, that in Manchester, where, if anywhere, he was well spoken of, he had been represented in the newspapers as unable to understand what the French people had to complain of."
Now, that Report is in some degree inaccurate, because I did not make this statement on my own authority, but stated that reports were current to the effect, which I indicated. I was speaking with a letter in my hand which had been sent me as extracted from The Manchester Guardian, and which was published in that paper on the 21st of February. With the permission of the House, as it is most painful to any man to be accused of misrepresenting a Member of the House, in his absence, I will read a portion of that letter. The letter appeared in The Manchester Guardian of the 21st of February. It is stated to have been from "Our Private Correspondent in London," and it says—
"I am sorry to hear reports in very general circulation by no means complimentary to the soundness of Mr. Cobden's judgment upon the internal affairs of France, or creditable to him as the citizen of a free country. In these reports, which are founded upon the statements of an M.P. who has just returned from Paris, where he has made good use of extensive opportunities of social observation, Mr. Cobden is represented as 'Napoleonized' to a higher degree than we can easily suppose a lover of free institutions could have been by ever so frank an acceptance of free-trading principles on the part of the Emperor.

721
The Member for Rochdale is described as freely avowing his inability to discover what France had to complain of in the present régime, and as ignoring, in the most unaccountable manner, the importance of such elements in national happiness as free thought, free speech, free inquiry, and free institutions. Nay, so painfully, as I hear, have some of the Constitutionalists, now chafing in enforced silence under the iron hand of Imperial despotism, felt Mr. Cobden's utter want of sympathy with their position, that they declare their expectation that from his visit to Nice he will bring back to England nothing but assurances of the eagerness of the Nizzards for annexation to France. I dare say that much of this may be the exaggerations of irritated and not very scrupulous partizans, but I am afraid Mr. Cobden has laid himself open to the imputations of having manifested a zeal for free trade in the inverse ratio to his zeal for every other form of freedom."
Now, Sir, I fully admit to the hon. Member for Birmingham, that if I had not ground for believing that there was some truth in these reports thus circulated in Manchester, it would have been exceedingly culpable on my part to have made any statement on the sole authority of this letter, which is anonymous; but the hon. Member for Birmingham must remember that few Members of this House have had more reason or more opportunities for close observation of the hon. Member for Rochdale, during the last eighteen years, than I have had, and I can assure the hon. Member that few have availed themselves of these opportunities more constantly. There is very little which that hon. Member has said, very little that he has written which has escaped my attention. ["Order!"]—
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman must confine himself to an explanation of the statement he made.
MR. NEWDEGATE: Forgive me, Sir, I was explaining the reason for my having adverted to that letter, which I admit to the House, had the substance of it been contrary to the opinions I myself entertain, would have been unjustifiable. I am vindicating my conduct, being called on to do so, by a Member of this House. I am vindicating my honour as a Member of this House. I have, as I said before, observed the career of the hon. Member for Rochdale for a very considerable period; I have observed in him a tendency to favour institutions very different from what I understand by the term "free Institutions," and this induced me to believe that there might be some ground for the assertions in the letter I have read. Let me first clear the ground by explaining what I mean by free institutions. The House will, I am sure, excuse me if I trespass on its time
722
for a few moments in a matter of this nature. I mean by free institutions, such institutions as this country has the happiness to possess—institutions, embodying, as I believe ours do, a far greater amount of social, and personal, and political freedom than any institutions in the world. I mean by free institutions, the constitution of England, which is the great type of free institutions, as contradistinguished from the despotic democracy of America, as contradistinguished from the democratic despotism of France, as contradistinguished from the despotism of Austria, as contradistinguished from the autocracy of Russia. How that is what I mean by free institutions; and it is to these institutions that I am of opinion that the career of the hon. Member for Rochdale does not show that he is firmly attached. I find that early in 1854 the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Birmingham were present at a meeting at the Albion Hotel. It was a meeting of the League, and Mr. Cobden there declared that the origin of his first appearance in public life was his having written a pamphlet, I believe in 1835, but which was published in 1836, on the subject of Russia, entitled Russia Cure for Russophobia, to which pamphlet I referred on the occasion to which this explanation relates. That was the substance of those observations, with which I will not again trouble the House in detail. Mr. Cobden applauded the institutions of Russia, and declared that he thought the encouragement given to the trading classes ought to be most satisfactory, because persons of a certain capital were exempted from corporal punishment. He went on to declare that he thought it for the interest of Europe that Russia should become possessed of Constantinople. Further, he declared that he had moved a Resolution in a debating society—a Literary Society in Manchester—to that effect, and that there this proposition was decidedly affirmed by that society. Well, Sir, there was a declaration in the pamphlet to which I referred. ["Oh, oh!"] Hon. Gentlemen will excuse me, for I am called to account for a statement which might appear to be a calumny.
SIR CHARLES DOUGLAS: I rise to Order. I put it to the House whether the hon. Member is to go on in this strain. I understood that the hon. Gentleman had risen to explain a statement which he had made on a former occasion, and which is denied to be a fact. It is competent to the

723
hon. Gentleman to persevere in what he has stated, or to retract it; but not to go on with a new statement which has nothing whatever to do with the original statement.
MR. NEWDEGATE: If I make a statement of this kind in this House I have ever observed one rule, that I will cither retract that statement in the House, or will confirm it in the House when called upon. And now, Sir, with your permission, detaining the House the fewest possible moments, I will show that in 1854 not only did the hon. Gentleman the Member for Rochdale avow his authorship of that pamphlet, but he proceeded to say at that meeting, at which the hon. Member for Birmingham was present, that in accordance with his long entertained opinions he would take means to prevent the prosecution of the Russian war, and I will give the House a description of the means he suggested. ["Oh!"] These are Mr. Cobden's words. He said, "If we are to have a war, let there be no accumulating of debt, and no taxes in the shape of Customs or Excise duties. Increase the income tax 20 per cent or more if necessary, and lower the amount down to £50 rather than revert to the old system of indirect taxes." And the hon. Member for Birmingham, who followed him, said he "sincerely hoped with Mr. Cobden, that if this war, which he called insane, should break out, the income tax would be doubled, and that it would be brought down to almost so low a rate as to catch every man who could make a speech from a platform, or who was in favour of it." Therefore the hon. Member for Birmingham [Order, order!]—
MR. SPEAKERsaid, what had been said by the hon. Member for Birmingham on that occasion was not relevant to the explanation now proposed to be made by the hon. Gentleman.
MR. NEWDEGATE: I will not further advert to it. I would beg the House to remember that at the close of the year 1852 ["Oh, oh!"], soon after the death of the late Duke of Wellington, the hon. Member for Rochdale wrote and in 1853 published a series of letters in which he manifested anger at the universal regret felt by the people of this country at that which they considered a national loss, and reprobated the conduct of certain clergymen, who had preached sermons on the occasion with reference to the career of that great man, who had been an honour to this country, and one of her greatest
724
defenders. Mr. Cobden was offended, that the memory of the late Duke of Wellington had been, to use his own words, "so generally selected for pulpit manifestations," and expressed a doubt as to whether such manifestations were calculated to enhance the influence of the ministers of the Gospel, or to promote the interests of Christianity. He went on to say that the wars concluded in 1815 were unjustifiable, and he condemned that great commander because the war was undertaken in opposition to the principles of the first French Revolution. And, Sir, here is the point with regard to the institutions of this country. He went further in his letter. ["Question."] I am coming to the point. He praised the institutions of France, and compared them with the institutions of this country, and to the disparagement of our institutions; and this is my justification. Perhaps the House will permit me to read the words. This is no hasty statement. This is a public document, widely circulated by the hon. Member for Rochdale himself. He says—
"When told that the present Emperor possesses absolute and irresponsible power, I answer by citing three things which he could not, if he would, accomplish: he could not endow with lands and tithes one religion, as the exclusively paid religion of the State, although he selected for the privilege the Roman Catholic Church, which comprises more than nine-tenths of the French people; he could not create an hereditary peerage with estates entailed by a law of primogeniture; and he could not impose a tax on successions, which would apply to personal property only, and leave the real estate free. Public opinion in France is an insuperable obstacle to any of these measures becoming law; because they outrage that spirit of equality which is the sacred and inviolable principle of 1789. Now, if Louis Napoleon were to declare his determination to carry these three measures, which are all in full force in England, as part of his Imperial regime, his throne would not he worth twenty-four hours' purchase; and nobody knows this better than he and they who surround him."
Now I have quoted this extract as a sample of the contents of these letters to show the general tenor of these letters, which is to impugn our own institutions and exalt those of France, expressing admiration for the tendency and effects of the first French Revolution, because it was a social revolution and overturned the rights of property, and condemning the Revolution of 1688, upon which our institutions are founded, because it left the rights of property untouched—because it was a religious and a political, but not a social revolution. The tenor of these

725
letters is throughout in disparagement of the institutions of England, and in exaltation of the principles of the first French Revolution.
I thank the House for having allowed me to vindicate myself from the imputation of having uttered an unfounded calumny, and I think I have said enough to justify the opinion to which I gave expression in the statement which has been called in question. Sir, a man who is for ever endeavouring to prevent this House from taking means to defend the free institutions under which we live cannot, I think, be considered as justly valuing free institutions. A man who for a long course of years has systematically vilified our institutions, cannot be classed among the best friends of those institutions. A man who during a long series of years holds up the institutions of despotic States in comparison with, and to the disparagement of the institutions under which we live, cannot be considered as a true friend to our institutions, but must be held, at best, indifferent to the continuance of free institutions, the benefits of which he may, nevertheless, have no objection to enjoy.
MR. BRIGHT: I asked the hon. Member for North Warwickshire whether he was prepared to maintain the accuracy of what he had stated, or was disposed to retract it. I cannot exactly ascertain from what he has stated that any retractation was made. But perhaps the House will allow me to say on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale, that he utterly denies it from beginning to end. There is not a word of truth in the statement; and, as he must be the best judge of it, I think it has been the general custom of Members of this House to accept an express statement of another Member; and, as the hon. Member for North Warwickshire admits that the only foundation for his statement is an anonymous letter in a newspaper known to be hostile to my hon. Friend, I leave the House to judge between the hon. Member for Rochdale and the hon. Member for North Warwickshire.
MR. NEWDEGATE: Excuse me for one moment; I did not retract my statement; I did not found my statement entirely on an anonymous letter, but I broadly stated to the House the grounds of the opinion I entertain and had expressed.
Subject dropped.

LIGHTNING CONDUCTORS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. FREELANDsaid, he would beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works, Whether his attention has been called to a Despatch from our Minister at Brussels, dated the 24th of February last, stating that on the preceding Sunday a violent thunderstorm, accompanied by an unprecedentedly heavy fall of snow, had over-spead Belgium; that twelve churches had been simultaneously struck by lightning, and that three of them had been totally destroyed and the others much injured; whether he has seen a paragraph in The Times of August 17, 1857, stating that the Flag Tower of Windsor Castle had been struck by lightning, and that about four tons of the parapet had been displaced; and whether any provision has been or is to be made for seeming the Public Buildings of this Country which are under the control of the Board of Public Works against such injuries or destruction by lightning as have occurred at Windsor Castle and in Belgium?
  MR. COWPERsaid, his attention had been called by the hon. Gentleman's question to a very remarkable meteorological fact of a violent thunderstorm, accompanied by a heavy fall of snow, so that twelve churches had been simultaneously struck by lightning; but he had not thought that this very portentous event would justify this country from departing from the ordinary custom by which those buildings only which were much above the ordinary level were protected by lightning conductors. Buildings at a great elevation, such as the Palace in which they were now assembled, should be protected; but the expense would be very considerable of fitting copper conductors to all our public buildings. With regard to the statement in The Times, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, it was true that the Flag Tower of Windsor Castle had been struck by lightning, but he was happy to state that the accident had been repaired for the sum of thirty shillings.

MEDICAL OFFICERS IN INDIA.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BAZLEYsaid, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for India, Whether the Medical Officers of Her Majesty's Indian Army have had all the privileges conceded to them which the Royal Warrant of the

  727
  1st day of October, 1858, entitles them to receive?
  SIR CHARLES WOOD: Sir, the Warrant of 1858 cannot apply in all respects to the Medical Officers of the Indian army, inasmuch as the pay and pensions of the Queen's Service differ from those of the Indian Service; but the rank and position of the Indian Medical Officers and those of the Medical Officers in the Queen's Service in India are on a footing of perfect equality.

THE OYSTER FISHERY.

  QUESTION.
  MR. CAVEsaid, he wished, to ask the President of the Board of Trade a question respecting certain Papers which have been moved for relative to the Oyster Fishery. Some doubt having' arisen as to the answer of the right hon. Gentleman, what was wished was, that he should remove that doubt by repeating the purport of his reply.
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, he bad been asked whether there were any Papers that could be laid on the Table relating to the French Convention and the Oyster Fishery; and his reply was, that there were no Papers of a character to be usefully laid on the Table. He had also stated that there had been no recent remonstrance from France with reference to the Oyster Convention, and no increased stringency on the part of England in carrying out the provisions of the Treaty.

FORESHORES (SCOTLAND).—QUESTION.
MR. FINLAYsaid, he wished to ask the Lord Advocate, Whether he has received a Memorial from certain Proprietors and Road Trustees of the county of Argyll, complaining of the claims made by the Crown to the Foreshores of Scotland and to the property of the solum or ground of the Seashores up to high-water mark; whether he has in consequence communicated with the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, and with what result; and whether the claim by the Crown to the property of the whole Foreshores of Scotland is made in accordance with the advice and opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown in Scotland?
THE LORD ADVOCATE: In answer to his hon. Friend he had to state that be bad received a memorial from certain proprietors and road trustees of the county of
728
Argyll, complaining of the claims made by the Crown to the foreshores of Scotland, and to the property of the solum, or ground of the seashores up to high water mark, and he had seen a deputation that waited upon him for the purpose of discussing the matter, although it was not directly in his Department, but in that of the Woods and Forests. He had made inquiry into the particular matters involved in the question, and he found the practice for some years had been to grant licences to take gravel and stone from below high-water mark; those licences were entirely at the pleasure of the Crown, and at a merely nominal rent. With regard to the general question as the claims of the Crown to the foreshores, he was not aware that there was any particular opinion or opinions given by the Law Officers of the Crown in Scotland as to the taking of sand or gravel from the seashore; but the general rights of the Crown as to the foreshores had been the subject of an opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown in Scotland, and the Woods and Forests had substantially acted on that opinion.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (SCOTLAND) BILL.

  QUESTION.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid, he would beg to ask the Lord Advocate, Whether, as under the provisions of the Representation of the People (Scotland) Bill the only persons to be qualified to vote in the Election of Members of Parliament are—1, Proprietors of lands or houses worth £5 a year; 2, Tenants of lands and houses held under the same landlord, and rented at £10 a year, provided they reside in the county for six months in each year; it is intended to disfranchise the following descriptions of existing voters:—1, The old freeholders; 2, Joint life-renters; 3, Liferent tenants who have sublet their farms; 4, Tenants not resident in the county; 5, Tenants of lands who live in houses belonging to separate proprietors; 6, Tenants of minerals, quarries, fisheries, &c. which have no houses attached to them; 7, Joint proprietors or tenants, where there are more than two on the same property; and, whether new voters may under this Bill be registered upon such qualifications as entitle persons to vote under the existing Acts?
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he thought the questions of his hon. Friend

  729
  would have been put on Monday next, when the Bill would come on for a second reading. Most of the questions in his (the Lord Advocate's) opinion might have been answered by a study of the Bill itself, and he would recommend his hon. Friend to adopt that course. The only explanation he thought it necessary to make was in regard to the tenancy franchise. It was not intended that the residency clause should apply to any of the old tenancy franchises under the Reform Act. They were all arranged by reference to the valuation roll, and if there was any ambiguity in regard to residence it would be put right. It was not intended that the residence clause should apply to the old franchises, but only to the new franchises.

MALT DUTY.—QUESTION.
In reply to Mr. PACKE,
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERstated that the question of the Malt Duty was no doubt very interesting to those concerned; but it was not one of special importance with regard to any contemplated change of the Law, and therefore the position in which he stood was this, that it would be most inconvenient to the public service to keep the Customs Bill waiting for the Malt Resolutions to be decided, and it would be almost impossible for him to give adequate time for debating the question if it came on at a late period of the Session. Therefore, unless he could get rid of the question to-night by an early vote, be proposed to drop it altogether from the present Bill, and to bring on the question at some convenient period after Easter, when there would be an opportunity for full consideration.
On Motion that the House at rising adjourn till Monday,

CORONERS' INQUESTS IN KENT.

  QUESTION.
  MR. T. DUNCOMBEsaid, he rose to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, if his attention has been called to the fact, that the body of a man, of the name of Thomas Edward Kean, recently found dead in the woods near Seal, in Kent, was interred without any inquest being held upon it; and what steps have been taken in consequence? He was satisfied that not only the local authorities, but the Home Office had not done their duty on this occasion. It ap-
  730
  peared that, in 1858, this unfortunate man became insane, and was placed in Colney Hatch Asylum, whence he was afterwards sent out sane. He returned home, and resumed his ordinary occupation, but towards the close of the year be suddenly disappeared, and no more was heard of him till his wife received a letter from the superintendent of the police in Kent, stating that the body of a man which, from its appearance, must be her husband, had been found in the woods, and had been buried, as it was supposed he had died from cold. He asked the question on this ground, that this man was a Member of a benefit society, to which he hoped many of the Members of the House belonged—the Ancient Order of Foresters—and the rules of that Society required that before relief in case of death was given, the death, and the cause of death, should be set forth. Now, the burying of the body without a coroner's inquest rendered this information impossible. Inquiries had since been instituted, and it appeared that this poor man had gone into a public-house in the neighbourhood of the place where the body was found, and had some bread and cheese, and having no money to pay for them, though-he had a ring on his finger, the humane landlord ordered him to pull off his boots to pay for his refreshment, and in that state he appeared to have wandered into the woods. It was quite clear that in this case an inquest ought to have been held, and that, in neglecting it, the law had been violated.
  MR. MILDMAYsaid, this was one of a class of cases which unfortunately often occurred in Kent in consequence of the disputes between the coroner and the magistrates, who refused to allow the expenses for holding inquests, unless necessity was clearly shown to exist. In some counties a compromise took place by which the coroner received his fees when notice to hold an inquest was given to him by the police constable; because as the police constable had no pecuniary interest in inquests it was presumed that he would not give unnecessary notices. Of course the coroner could hold an inquest without such notice, but it was at the risk of not receiving his fees if it should turn out that the inquest was unnecessary. But this system was not introduced into Kent. The system worked extremely ill, and some change of the law was imperiously! required.
  MR. CLIVEthought he could show the

  731
  House that the Home Office had not neglected its duty in this case. As it had no power of compulsion in those unfortunate disputes which so often existed between coroners and magistrates, all the Home Office could do was to bring a Bill into Parliament, which should have the effect of settling these disputes. That they had done, the Bill being now before a Select Committee. With respect to the present case the Home Office had written to the coroner to know why an inquest had not been held. In reply, he received a statement that the man had appealed as a stranger at Seal, and was last seen in a place where, having no money, he had left his boots in pledge; that he appeared subsequently to have divested himself of his coat and trousers; that there were no marks of violence on him; and that it was supposed he had died in a fit. This, of course, was a gratuitous supposition; but the real reason appeared to come out in the latter portion of the letter, in which the coroner stated that he was placed in a very delicate position, because the magistrates of Kent required him to send in along with his bill of charges a statement of what criminal act or criminal neglect had appeared to render the inquest necessary, and the magistrates thereon decided whether this was sufficient to justify an inquest, without which his fees were not paid. If that rule were adopted he could not say that it was a fair one.
  MR. DEEDESsaid, as some blame had been cast on the magistrates of Kent in these statements, he trusted the House would allow him to say one word in their defence. There was not the slightest ground for supposing that in a case of this kind any difficulties would be thrown by the magistrates in the way of holding an inquest. It was true the magistrates had laid down a rule that the Coroner's bill of fees should be accompanied with a short statement of the reasons which induced him to think that an inquest was necessary; but it was also true that the magistrates invariably allowed the expenses of the coroner in going to the place where a death had occurred, and making those pleminary inquiries that were necessary to satisfy him that an inquest ought to be held. He had no doubt in the world that if the Coroner had done this in the present instance, no objection would have been made to it; but he was inclined to believe that the coroner had not made these preliminary inquiries.

THE NAWAUB OF THE CARNATIC.

  QUESTION.
  MR. SMOLLETTsaid, he desired to ask the Secretary of State for India, if he will consent to lay upon the Table of the House a Copy of a Despatch from the Governor General of India, dated the 14th day of November, 1855, and Copies of Letters from the Government of Madras, respectively dated the 12th day of October, the 20th day of November, and the 4th day of December, 1855, reporting the death of His Highness the Nawaub of the Carnatic, on the 7th day of October, 1855; and Copy of a Despatch from the Court of Directors of the East India Company replying to these communications, announcing that the dignity of the Nabobs of the Carnatic had expired, and that the treaties which secured the rights and title of the family of the Nabob were at an end? The hon. Gentleman proceeded to say he had an allegation to bring forward, and it was this, that the provisions of the treaty entered into sixty years ago, and scrupulously carried out for fifty-six years, had at length been wantonly violated. The late Nawaub of the Carnatic, having died in 1855, his uncle made application to be permitted to attend the funeral as his recognized successor. To that request a distinct refusal was given, and at the same time a significant intimation was made to him that the Government would take the means to prevent any one from assuming the title and rank of Nawaub. A day or two afterwards a written application was made to know if the Government of Madras intended to allow the provisions of the treaties of 1792 and 1801 to be carried out, and to acknowledge the uncle of the Nawaub. To that application an answer was returned, that the Government were resolved not to acknowledge the uncle; but they said they would send all the facts to England by the next mail, although they never informed the Nawaub what recommendations they intended to make. After a year's delay an answer arrived, the purport of which was that the treaty was personal to the late Nawaub, and that he being dead, the treaties were at an end, but that they might have an allowance of £10,000 a year from the Government. Now he did not hesitate to pronounce that decision arbitrary and tyrannical in the extreme. Who was the dethroned Prince? Why, he was the son of the very sovereign with whom the treaties were made, and who died

  733
  in 1819. The Governor General had decided on holding the title in abeyance, which he supposed was the diplomatic term for robbery, because the treaties were purely personal, and because the late Nawaub was allowed to hold the throne purely as a matter of grace. Now, a reference to the treaties themselves showed that they were not merely personal, and therefore he had no hesitation in pronouncing the whole transaction as most discreditable to those engaged in it.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSONprotested against an attack being thus made upon servants of the State without notice, and on a mere Motion for papers. There was no public man whose acts would bear inspection better than Lord Dalhousie; but for the present he should content himself with denying that there were any treaties in existence which entitled the uncle and heir of the late Nawaub of the Carnatic to succeed to his predecessor as an hereditary dignity.

THE INDIA HOUSE MUSEUM.
  QUESTION.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for India, Whether the Natural History portion of the India House Museum had been offered to the British Museum? He stated that the portion of the India House Museum to which his question related was—at all events the great bulk of it—presented by himself to the East India Company, and was the produce of his own gun. The hon. and gallant Member also asked whether telegraphic communication had been established between Alexandria and Calcutta, and whether a communication had been received from the latter place in six days?
THE TRADE OF CENTRAL ASIA.
  QUESTION.
  MR. W. EWARTsaid, he wished to inquire of the Secretary of State for India, respecting the means of extending our trade with Central Asia? He believed it was very desirable that a trade should be opened with that portion of the world across the Himalayas. Russia was greatly extending her commerce in that quarter, and he had no doubt that on fair terms we should be able to compete successfully with her in that market,

THE INDIAN ARMY.—QUESTION.
MR. A. MILLSsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for India, Whether
734
there is any objection on the part of the Government to lay upon the Table of the House the Minutes in Council in Calcutta of the 2nd and 7th of January last, by Lieut. General Sir James Outram and Sir Bartle Frere, on the question of the Amalgamation of Her Majesty's Indian Forces with the British Army. In the year 1859 the Indian Army Commission had presented a Report, but no step appeared to have as yet been taken. But he did not blame the Government for the delay which had taken place in the matter, because the principal question with which they had to deal was one of considerable difficulty, and one which had given rise to a remarkable conflict of opinion among the witnesses who had been examined by the Commissioners. He should add, however, that it was extremely desirable the Government should decide as speedily as possible one way or the other, in favour cither of a local army, or of an enlargement of the line in India.
MR. W. EGERTONsaid, he had to put a question to the Secretary of State for India relative to the trade with Central Asia. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the road which was begun by Lord Dalhousie, from India to Central Asia, through Simla, is yet completed.
SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, that in answer to the Question of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Smollett), whether he had any objection to produce certain despatches relative to the claim to the dignity of Nawaub of the Carnatic, he had to state that he was prepared to lay before the House not only the despatches mentioned, but all the papers connected with the subject. He thought he had a right to complain of the extraordinary and, be hoped the hon. Gentleman would forgive him for adding, the unfair course which be had pursued upon that occasion. The hon. Gentleman had merely given notice that be would ask whether there would be any objection on the part of the Government to produce certain documents; and upon that notice he had founded an attack on the Government of Madras and on the Government of India, but more especially on the administration of Lord Dalhousie. The natural result was that he (Sir Charles Wood) was not prepared at that moment to answer the charges put forward by the hon. Gentleman. He could then only express his belief that Lord Dalhousie could not have been guilty of such conduct as the

735
hon. Gentleman had imputed to him; and upon clue notice he would be ready to enter into a detailed consideration of that subject.
In reply to the Question of his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Sykes), he had to inform his hon. and gallant Friend and the House that he understood the Natural History portion of the British Museum was about to be removed; and as it was in contemplation to make it the best natural collection that could be formed, and thinking that the excellence of a museum of that kind depended on its being made as complete as possible, he conceived he was contributing to the accomplishment of a most desirable object when he offered to its managers such portions of the Indian Museum—which, after all, was but an imperfect one—as they might require.
In reply to the second Question of his hon. and gallant Friend, he had to slate that he believed the telegraphic communication was complete between Calcutta and Alexandria; but that there seemed to be a break in the line in some point in Europe, and probably either at this side of Alexandria or at Malta. He had not himself received a telegraphic communication from Calcutta within the space of six days; but a communication from Calcutta had that day been received in the City dated the 10th of March, and which had not therefore occupied more than that time in the transmission.
The next Question he had to answer was that which had been put by his hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Ewart), with respect to our trade with Central Asia. That was a matter, no doubt, of great importance, and it had not escaped the attention of the authorities cither in India or in this country. He had that morning had a conversation with Sir John Lawrence, who had lately filled the position of one of our Indian administrators with such distinguished ability, not only in war but also in peace, and he had been informed by him that every possible effort had been made of late to open a communication between India and Central Asia, from which such large quantities of wool were to be obtained. He found that the value of the wool exported from the port of Kurrachee, which amounted in the year 1853–54 to £180,000, had risen to £393,000 in the year 1857–58. Some years ago a Chinese Commissioner was sent into Thibet, and an English Commissioner was sent from India, in order that they might meet and take joint measures for facilitating the trade of that region; but the proposed meeting of the two Com-
736
missioners had never taken place; one of them had been murdered; and no further steps had been taken in the matter. He was happy, however, to be able to state that instructions had been given to Lord Elgin to enter into negotiations with the Chinese Government for the friendly settlement of that subject.
In answer to a Question which had been put to him in reference to the progress made in the construction of the road to Central Asia through Simla, he had to state that he was not then prepared to afford any precise information upon that point, and in reply to the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. A. Mills) he wished to observe that before any question connected with the organization of the Indian army was brought before the House it would be his duty to produce not only the papers to which the hon. Gentleman referred, but also a variety of other documents bearing upon the subject.

SANDHURST MILITARY COLLEGE.
THE TURKISH MEDALS.

  QUESTION.
  SIR FREDERICK SMITHsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether the Government have any objection to lay upon the Table of the House Copies of any Correspondence on the project referred to in the Report of the Council of Military Education for the extension of the Royal Military College, Sandhurst, so as to admit of all candidates for the Cavalry, Guards, and Line, who have passed the usual examinations for Commissions, receiving at that institution a course of professional instruction and training previous to joining the Army?
  COLONEL KNOXsaid, that he wished to ask if the Government have taken into consideration the question of the competitive examination with respect to the Staff appointments? It seemed to him that the double examination which those Officers had to undergo was altogether unnecessary,
  MR. SIDNEY HERBERTsaid, that in the regulations issued a short time back by the Commander-in-Chief an exception was made respecting staff examinations, and it was provided that officers should be appointed to the staff without examination when they had proved themselves qualified for that post by previous service. As to the papers which were asked for by the hon.

  737
  Member for Chatham (Sir F. Smith), it was true that the subject of first admissions into the army was one the importance of which could not well be over-estimated, and that plans had been proposed by which all officers entering the army would be compelled to pass through the school at Sandhurst. In their published Report all these plans had been given, for the Military Council did not stint the House in information. Whether, however, the correspondence which had passed between the heads of Departments in the discussion of this question should be published was another matter. He believed that the compulsory entrance at Sandhurst was brought forward at a Cabinet meeting held in November, 1858; and it was clear that if the House wanted to know the grounds of the decision then arrived at by the Government, they ought equally to know the arguments which influenced that decision, which would be nothing more nor less than making the discussions of a Cabinet Council public. In the same way he did not think that the correspondence between the Secretary of State, the Council of Military Education, and the Commander-in-Chief ought to become Parliamentary documents. If the first impressions which were formed and expressed by the heads of Departments on any subject, and which were often afterwards modified or changed altogether, were to be given to the world, the consequence would be that no man would offer an opinion, or that, if he did offer one, it would be in the form of a private letter which could not be published. A full power of consultation must be given in all such cases without the restriction which would be imposed by the chance of future publicity. A new proposal had recently been made by the Council of Education, which obviated many of the objections taken to their former proposals; but the adoption of the plan would be very expensive, as new buildings must then be provided at Sandhurst for the accommodation of officers. He was willing to admit that the present system, by which some officers were admitted direct, and others through Sandhurst, was open to many objections, for at present a positive advantage was enjoyed by the former, whose examination was much less severe than that undergone by officers at Sandhurst. For the reasons he had stated, he thought it would be seen that there would be a great objection to grant the correspondence which had been asked for.
  738
  Before sitting down, the House would perhaps allow him to reply to a question which had been recently put to him respecting the Turkish medals. On a former occasion he had stated that these medals had arrived and would be distributed immediately. That, however, was a mistake. The medals had not arrived; and news had been received that the Pomona, the vessel in which they were deposited, had foundered and all the medals had gone to the bottom. The Government had telegraphed for information, and had inquired whether it would be possible to recover the cargo; but the answer was that it was quite impossible. Great disappointment would no doubt be felt on this point, but he felt bound to let the House know how the matter stood.

ENGLISH POOR LAW.—REMOVAL OF IRISH TAUPERS.—QUESTION.
MR. LANIGANsaid, he wished to call the attention of Her Majesty's Ministers to the treatment of the destitute Irish by Poor Law Officials in England, with a view of checking the abuses which exist, and of assimilating the English Poor Law to that of Ireland, by which Boards of Guardians are compelled to grant relief to all who seek it (irrespective of the country to which they belong), there being no evidence required to establish their claims except the fact of their destitute condition. The hon. Member said it was extremely cruel that honest, hard-working Irish labourers should toil in this country all their lives, without asking relief of any sort, until the blood was dried up in their veins, and the marrow taken out of their bones—and then, when poverty and sickness overtook them, they should be looked upon by their English employers only as so much worn-out machinery, fit only to be cast away. It was shocking to see the steam-vessels which left Ireland laden with cattle and sheep return laden with living skeletons—Irish labourers, who having become chargeable to the parish were torn away from their homes sick and helpless, and hurried on board; whence, after enduring exposure on the decks for days and nights, they were landed on the quays in utter destitution. When they arrived they generally found all their friends gone, owing to their long absence in England, and their paternal homes demolished. The hon. Gentleman quoted some remarks of Lord Palmerston on this subject, where the

739
noble Lord said that wherever they saw a man going up a steeple, carrying a hod of bricks upon his shoulder as heavy as himself, and which he could not carry upon level ground, they might be sure he was an Irishman; and that wherever there was shown a contempt for danger in the discharge of an occupation, he was sure also to be an Irishman. He had been chairman, and was now a member, of three boards of guardians in Ireland, but he never saw such practices. Whenever any poor person applied for admission to a workhouse in Ireland, he was never asked whether he was a Scotchman or an Englishman, and the only question asked was as to his destitute condition. The hon. Gentleman then related the case of an Irish woman, who thirty-eight years ago came to London, being then 20 years of age. For seven years she was a general servant, and then she married, and had nine children—two of whom, daughters, aged respectively 15 and 19, were now alive. She had supported her family by her own industry, and without parochial relief; and a short time ago, being afflicted with a bad leg, she was compelled to become an inmate of St. Pancras workhouse. The surgeon told her that she ought to have her leg cut off. The woman objected to that operation being performed, and her case being reported an incurable one, and as she was likely to become permanently chargeable to the union, she was sent back to Ireland, much, however, against her will, and in spite of the protestations of the two daughters, who offered to support their mother, and to pay the expenses incurred on her account while in the infirmary. These were the statements of the woman herself, and if they were true they cast a slur upon the name of England, and rendered it no longer worthy to be called the land of freedom. [Laughter.] The man who laughed at or defended such a cruel system had a heart as cold, callous, and cruel as he who dealt in human flesh in Africa. The first law of removal was a penal one, passed in the reign of Charles II. It was directed against a certain class of people, who roved the country like gipsies, and settled and built cottages on the land. The present Removal Acts were the 4th and 5th William IV. and the 9th and 10th Vict. The magistrates had the power of removing Irish paupers from this country; they carried out the penal clauses of the Act of Victoria, but ignored the more humane provisions of the Act of
740
William IV., which compelled the parish removing a pauper to give twenty-one days' notice to the authorities of the parish to which he was to be removed. He did not blame the present Government for the existing state of things more than its predecessors; every Government since the days of Charles II. had connived at this oppressive law of removal, he called upon the Government in the spirit of the noble Lord who pronounced the favourable opinion he had quoted regarding Irish labour, to introduce some Bill upon the subject of Irish poor removal, and he called upon the Free Traders of the House, with whom he entered the lobby, for the benefit of the people of England, to urge the Government to pass such a law. If the Government would not do so, let the Free-traders of the House show that the sympathy they always expressed for the poor working classes of the country was a genuine emotion, and not a morbid sentimentality, and insist upon the Government either passing such a Bill, or resigning their places—not, certainly, to the Conservative Gentlemen on the other side—but to an hon. Member, whom he did not then see in his place, and his party, by whom alone the poor working classes of the country could ever expect to have justice done them.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, that the whole treatment of the Irish paupers in this country was connected with the law of settlement. There were many instances which had come to his knowledge of the cruel manner in which that law operated upon the unfortunate Irish pauper, and he hoped that if the Government did not come forward with the assurance that the whole subject would be taken into consideration, some Irish Member would bring in a measure calculated to remedy the evil. He feared, however, that if the hon. Member for Cashel brought forward such a Bill, those among whom he sat, and to whom he had so pathetically appealed, would do as they had done before—vote against it.
MR. C. P. VILLIERSsaid, the question raised by the hon. Member was a very large one, involving as it did the whole law of settlement in England and the want of it in Ireland. No doubt there was a great want of a proper law of settlement in both countries; but the question had puzzled every man who had dealt with it, and it could not he conveniently discussed upon the Motion for Adjournment. With regard to the particular case to which the hon. Member referred, some one had been

741
kind enough to send him a Tipperary paper, in which the woman's statement was published. That statement, however, was quite unauthentic, and was made by a woman who could neither read nor write, and who affixed her mark, and it was not taken on oath. As soon as he received the Tipperary paper, he instructed a poor-law inspector to make inquiries of the parochial authorities with regard to the case. He (Mr. Villiers) did not in the least deny that great hardships were connected with the law as it existed, and he should be glad to see them removed. Yet he was in a situation to tell the hon. Member that not one single act of illegality had been committed in the present case. The medical officer reported the woman permanently disabled, and, being chargeable to the parish, she was removed. Some of the facts stated by the woman were totally incorrect. Her daughters, so far from offering to support her, threatened that if she were removed they would throw themselves upon the parish. After it was determined to remove her, three weeks were allowed to elapse to see whether she would leave herself, or whether any person would take charge of her. His predecessor in the office he had the honour to hold (Mr. Baines), instituted an inquiry upon the subject of removal, and proposed several judicious alterations for the purpose of mitigating the hardships of the law; but when he introduced a Bill to give them effect he was met by such a storm of remonstrance from the Irish Members, that it was impossible to make any advance in legislation upon the question. His right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie), also introduced a Bill on the subject, but was obliged to withdraw it in consequence of the opposition it received, particularly from Irish Members. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wilts (Mr. Sotheron Estcourt) also attempted to deal with the matter, but he, like his predecessors, was obliged to withdraw, not having received the support of the Irish Members. The main reason therefore why legislation had not taken place on the subject was the want of union among Irish Members. If a measure founded upon the propositions which had been approved by his right hon. predecessor were brought forward, it should receive the support of his Department.
MR. H. A. HERBERT, as himself a member of an Irish Board of Guardians, knew many well-authenticated cases of the
742
grossest hardship, and cases in which the poor-law authorities on this side of the water, in their anxiety to get rid of Irish paupers, had certainly gone beyond the law. He had known persons, who, having been twenty or thirty years in this country, had lost all their relatives in Ireland, and had forgotten even the names of the streets in the town where they were born, sent over and thrown upon the quays of Cork, or perhaps those of Dublin or Belfast, in a state of positive destitution. As there was no law of settlement in Ireland, these poor people could not be forwarded to their own parishes. It was not, as his right hon. Friend thought, in consequence of any Irish opposition that the former efforts to remedy the evil had failed in that House; but it was because the matter had been mixed up in the enormously difficult question of the English law of settlement. If the right hon. Gentleman would turn his mind to the whole subject, it would not be very difficult to frame a Bill to provide for it. At present, in England, an industrial residence of five years in any parish entitled a poor person to relief there, and rendered him irremovable. If this rule were extended from the parish to the union, many of the hard cases which he had alluded to would be obviated, because, as the law now stood, these poor persons were often driven from one parish to the other, without perhaps going out of the union during that period of time, so that, after many years' residence in the neighbourhood, they lost the advantage of a settlement. The suggestion he made was, that five years' residence in the union should bestow the settlement.
MR. MAGUIREbegged leave to support his right hon. Friend in relieving Irish Members from the charge of unwillingness to do justice to the poor of their own country. He had a perfect knowledge of the history of the several Bills which from time to time had been brought before the House by successive Presidents of the Poor Law Board. The object of one of the first Bills was to do a wise and humane act—to abolish the law of settlement and removal in England. A more wise and more humane proposition could not, in his opinion, emanate from any Government. But while that proposition was made for England, the law as regarded Ireland was to be held in force as before, and the Irish poor were to be prevented from enjoying the great boon offered to this country. The Irish Members naturally took exception to

743
this defect, and did their best to have the claims of Ireland recognized. When, however, they found that they could not succeed, they very reasonably refused to allow a Bill to pass which, being so partial, was, therefore, unjust to their poor country-people. A Committee was appointed to consider the subject, and it sat for two years. It made several wise and humane recommendations; among which was one for the diminution from five to three years of the period during which, by industrial residence, a poor person became exempted from removal. A Bill was brought in subsequently, founded ostensibly upon the recommendations and the report of the Committee; but the Bill fell so miserably short of the unanimous recommendations of the Committee—a Committee representing English, Irish, and Scotch Members—that there was certainly a strong sense of indignation on the part of many Irish Members. Nevertheless, with all its shortcomings, they were not prepared to reject the Bill. There came, however, a storm of indignation, not indeed from Irish Members, but from alarmed English parishes. Petitions from almost every parish in England were presented to the House—every board of guardians in London, Liverpool, and Manchester, was in a state of alarm. Deputations were incessantly filling the lobbies, representing the exaggerated apprehensions of the ratepayers of England. It was owing to this opposition that the Bill had to be abandoned. Now, he would mention one instance of the manner in which the jealousy and apprehension of the Irish pauper worked upon English property. It appeared in evidence before a Committee, which sat for a short time last year, that there was a certain parish in Loudon, having in it a large number of Irish labourers, and in which there were only two descriptions of employment for such labour—one market-gardening, and the other brick-making. As a matter of course, these occupations depended entirely upon the state of the weather. When the weather was bad, there was no employment, and as the Irish labourer was absolutely necessary to the parish for carrying on those particular branches of industry, he had in the intervals of employment to live upon the rates. Would this be the case if the law of removal were done away with? Unquestionably not. If the law of removal and settlement were abolished, and a poor man were permitted to go wherever there was a demand for his la-
744
bour, they would not have the thousands and tens of thousands at present depending upon the rates of individual parishes. The apprehension of the parish to which he had referred, was that in a short time the unemployed labour would positively eat up the property and industry of the parish. He therefore urged that the question was one which English, Scotch, and Irish Members alike should look at, not in any narrow spirit, not as a subject to be judged of from a mere geographical point of view, but as one which affected the interest of the empire at large. He held that inasmuch as Irish labour was absolutely necessary to the prosperity and the advancement of England, it was for the benefit of English ratepayers that there should be perfect freedom for those whose only capital was their labour, to go where-ever they could find a demand for it. He once brought twenty cases of what he conceived to be gross hardship before the House; but, as in the instance of his hon. Friend that night, every single one of them, however plausible, however fair it seemed to be, however minute were the particulars, was disproved by the evidence of those who had the best interest in disproving it. The relieving officers proved themselves to be most humane, the magistrates demonstrated their own judicial perfection, the boards of guardians made it evident that they themselves had acted with the greatest deliberation and the utmost sympathy—and all concurred in representing that the pauper alone was a liar and a schemer. He should give one piece of advice to his hon. Friend—never, under any possible circumstances to bring before the House any individual case, supported alone by the testimony of a poor person; for it would immediately bring down twenty, fifty, or one hundred statements, to prove that the pauper was a person unworthy of credence. There was evidence of a different kind brought before the Committee of the House. The passage from London to Cork occupied sometimes three, sometimes four, and even five days; and it was proved that poor decrepit paupers, male and female, were put on the deck of the vessel, and left there unsheltered, to bear the inclemency of the weather and the fury of the waves. Cases had come before the board of guardians, of which he was a member, of very great hardship. Week after week poor women, who had forgotten the places of their birth, were, with their children, and who spoke

745
only the English tongue, brought before them; and such was the feeling of commiseration inspired by their sad story, that almost every member, out of his own pocket, contributed something to send them back to the place where they could find employment, because there were no means of giving them employment in Ireland. He recommended his hon. Friend not to take the insidious advice tendered to him by the right hon. Gentleman. Let the Bill be a Government measure; let them bring in a Bill founded upon Mr. Baines's recommendations, and the Irish Members would give it every chance of success.

PROPOSED REDUCTIONS IN THE CUSTOM HOUSE, &c.
WINE LICENCES TO EATING-HOUSES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. MONCKTON MILNESsaid, he would transfer the attention of the House from one form of official cruelty to another. He rose to call the attention of the House to the reduction proposed to be effected during the present financial year in the establishments of the Custom-house and Inland Revenue, and said that he was not going to pretend that such great financial measures as those with which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had to deal could be carried out without being accompanied as a matter of necessity by considerable reductions in the establishments. If, for instance, there was to be no more silk to weigh and no more freights to lock up, the number of lockers and weighers must necessarily be considerably reduced. But still he could not view, without some degree of apprehension, reductions to such an extent as £50,000 per annum in one establishment and £36,000 in another. Such reductions, he thought, could scarcely be effected without operating with extreme hardship on the officials affected by them; and if this were not the case, if they were to receive compensation, the compensation paid would necessarily form an item so large that if it fell on the Consolidated Fund it would considerably diminish the advantages which the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to derive from that source. However great the public benefit conferred by any measure, it ought never to be accompanied by a large amount of private calamity—of injury for life to a large number of very
  746
  worthy and excellent men, and destroying generally that confidence in the public service which always attracted to it the best class of public officials. The Chancellor of the Exchequer might perhaps reply that the officials thus deprived of employment would soon be absorbed in the population. That term "absorbed in the population" was extremely vague in its character. He recollected an instance of "absorption" of this kind, the narration of which might perhaps give the House some notion of what really was meant by persons being "absorbed in the population." Once upon a time a large hotel proprietor enjoyed a flourishing business, and was on the high road to fortune. But a railway came in close proximity to the line of road on which the hotel stood, and took away all the traffic. Of course the hotel became worthless, its business was gone. Upon asking what had become of the proprietor, it was replied, "Oh, he was absorbed in the population." The man had become an ostler. He hoped his right hon. Friend would be able to assure him that, as far as possible, he would promote the necessary reductions with due regard, not only to the large body of persons mechanically employed, and who were perhaps young enough to turn their attention to other employments, but also to those old and deserving public servants who had spent their whole lives in becoming familiar with the duties of their office, who if now turned out would be unable to attach themselves to other pursuits, and having no resources would be exposed to extreme penury. Perhaps his right hon. Friend would inform the House how he proposed to carry out these large reductions, and that he would be guided by the principles of humanity and generosity, as well as by economical considerations.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERowned that he was very much embarrassed as to the manner in which he should answer the really very singular inquiry of his hon. Friend (Mr. M. Milnes). He was asked to give an assurance that in regulating certain reductions in the public establishments he would be guided by the principles of humanity and generosity. Well, in regard to the principles of humanity, he was not aware it could be justly alleged that where reductions were carried out in the public establishments of this country there had been displayed any want of humanity in the arrangements. He was bound to say, comparing the proceed-

  747
  ings of the State and Government of England with those of any other country, they were influenced by principles of humanity, equity, and consideration for private interests to an extent of which there was no other example on the face of the earth. As to generosity—he knew not what had excited the apprehension of his hon. Friend, and induced him to make this appeal for an assurance that these parties should be treated with generosity. Generosity was a great and noble virtue in individuals, but he confessed he had great distrust of generosity on the part of States, on the part of the House of Commons, on the part of Members of Parliament in behalf of public officers when spending public money. As to the practical part of the question it stood thus. When the Government first formed the intention of submitting to Parliament proposals which would render practicable a very considerable reduction of the public establishments, he had immediately communicated with the chiefs of both Departments, directing them to suspend their applications to the Treasury for new appointments, particularly in the more expensive class of officers. He had applied to his right hon. Friend the Chairman of the Board of Customs to know how he acted with respect to these coming or possible reductions. He said it would be impossible to give any estimate in detail which should affect the general estimates of the Department, because they could not take place before the passing of the law; the Department would require to be in perfect possession of all the measures before they could possibly consider in detail the arrangements of the establishment that would be consequent on these measures. Fully occupied with the measures themselves, he was not aware that any progress had been made up to this time in the Customs department with these arrangements, although no doubt some preliminary steps might have been taken. But he must say he had the most perfect confidence in the justice, equity, and consideration which his right hon. Friend at the head of the Customs would show in adjusting and determining these reductions with a view to the interests of the public service and the claims of individuals. The head of the Board of Customs was primarily responsible in this matter. The Chairman of that Board had to submit his plans to the Treasury, whose conduct the House of Commons had in turn to take under its review.
  748
  The hon. Member for Marylebone (Mr. Edwin James) had given notice of his intention to ask whether in the Bill introduced by him for the granting of wine licences, it is intended to exclude houses licensed for the sale of beer, under the provisions of the Acts regulating the sale of beer, from the right of obtaining licences for the sale of refreshments; and, if so licensed, then from the right of obtaining a licence for the sale of wines under the provisions of his Bill? His hon. Friend had lost his opportunity, but he would nevertheless answer his Question. He had no authority more than any other person to construe the language of a Bill, even though he might have framed it; but he would describe the intention of the Bill in simple terms; and this was the more requisite, inasmuch as the popular analysis of the Bill of the Government which had appeared in some of the newspapers did not rightly convey the effect of some of the enactments. The measure had two principal objects. The first related to refreshment houses universally and as a class, and was intended to remedy an evil much and justly complained of—namely, that those houses were entirely exempt from the supervision of the police. The provisions of the Bill would therefore compel all keepers of such houses—with the exception of certain small houses in country places—to take out a licence at a low rate. The holding of that licence would subject them to the supervision of the police, under certain penalties and restraints which he thought adequate for the purpose in view. The second principal object of the measure had reference, not to refreshment houses universally, but to such of them as might be properly called eating-houses. The Bill attempted both to define what was the true character of an eating-house and to provide the means of justly carrying out that definition in practice. Eating-houses, as thus defined, would entitle the keepers of them to apply for licences to sell foreign wines. The hon. and learned Member would have asked whether the Bill dealt with beer-houses. His answer was, that the measure was not intended in any manner to touch what were known as beerhouses—that was to say, drinking-houses kept open for the sale of beer, and licensed under the Beer Acts. With regard to whether a licence for the sale of beer would ipso facto constitute a disqualification for holding a licence to sell wine, that was a point on which the House would have to

  749
  exercise its own judgment; but undoubtedly it was not meant by the framers of the Bill that in the case of an eating-house a licence to sell beer should of itself disqualify the keeper for a licence to sell wine.

FRENCH FORTIFICATIONS ON THE ISLAND OF ST. PIERRE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. HALIBURTONsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if his attention has been called to the fact of the French Government having erected Fortifications on the Island of St. Pierre. The matter was one of very great importance, and one which had much excited the public mind in the Lower Province of Canada. It was well known that in former years the people of almost every European country resorted to the coast of Labrador and Newfoundland for the purpose of fishing; but by degrees the use of those fisheries had become confined to the English, American, and French fishermen. The English fishermen from Newfoundland and the coast of Labrador having greater facilities, were, of course, the largest participators in that valuable fishery. The Americans having within three leagues of the coast the right of fishing, and having the easement of curing their fish on both uninhabited shores of the island, had their peculiar catch, but they did not interfere with us. The French had two small islands, the principal of which was St. Pierre, and they became the centre of a very large fishery, which had grown up in an extraordinary manner in the last few years. In addition to the absolute ownership of these two Islands, the French claimed the use of the shores of Newfoundland, which were uninhabited, for the purpose of curing their fish. In time this occupancy began to be stretched into a right of territory, and, according to that new phrase of the Emperor, "the logic of facts," their power was about being made much greater. On the breaking out of every war for the last century and a half we have had to take proceedings to drive away the Frenchmen from this coast, and on every peace their rights had been restored to them. The last occasion on which this cession took place was in 1814, and in this way they held the islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon. The rulers of France, with that foresight that had eminently distinguished them, had granted a very large bounty on the catch of fish—a bounty, he bettered, equivalent to the value of the fish;
  750
  and, under these circumstances, they had fostered and brought up that fishery to that degree that they had between 30,000 and 40,000 sailors engaged in that business. It was the great nursery of their seamen. Such were the facilities and advantages which they derived from these bounties, that they undersold the Nova Scotian in the Halifax market, and sent up to Quebec and there undersold their own resident countrymen. The constant resort of these 30,000 or 40,000 French fishermen to these regions had inspired them with an idea of their own strength and power; and using these advantages sometimes without discretion, great conflicts bad occurred between them and the people of Newfoundland. Indeed, they had carried their pretensions to the length of giving notice to the inhabitants of St. George's Bay, about 2,000 in number, that if they did not move out of their habitations, they should have them pulled down about their ears. In short, the people on that part of the coast of Newfoundland were now under warning. The French law required the boats engaged in the fishing trade to be of a certain build and to carry a certain number of men—because the object of the Government was not so much to stimulate employment in fishing as to create sailors. That was a matter of much greater importance to the Emperor than a treaty stipulation with England about coal. These proceedings had naturally been viewed as serious grievances by the British subjects settled near the Straits of Belle Isle and that portion of Newfoundland. A good deal of bad blood had also been excited, and it was astonishing that there had not been many conflicts ending in a very fatal manner. The French claimed the soil of a portion of the country, and an easement in other parts, and they demanded exclusive privileges; but that part of this subject which he would now put out of view, as it was still under the consideration of Commissioners appointed by both countries: he meant the aggressions on Newfoundland and the claim to exclusive privileges even over the rivers running into Labrador. The fortifications of the French on the island of St. Pierre had been raised contrary to express stipulations by treaty. The two barren islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon were of great importance, for they were situate in the larger outlet of the Straits of Belleisle and commanded the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and were within forty hours of the coast of New Brunswick

  751
  and Nova Scotia. It was a nest which in the event of a war we should have, as the very first thing, to destroy, and as the French had no right to fortify the place it was very important that it should not, in the event of a war, be the cause of greater expense in money and life than if it had remained according to the terms of the treaty. He had not himself been on the island of St. Pierre, but he was informed that, independent of the fortifications which the French had put on it, they had made it a naval station, and they had large steamers which lay there under pretence of receiving mails from the Cunard steamers for Halifax; whilst nine miles below were the mouths of the mines from which they got their coal, and they were forming large depots at this place, and in the event of a war, rapidly as intelligence could now he conveyed by telegraph, the whole commerce of that portion of the world could be swept away by privateers. The 6th article of the Treaty of Paris, under which these islands were given up to France, declared, in terms which could not be mistaken, that they were "to serve as a shelter for the French fishery," and His most Christian Majesty undertook "not to fortify the said islands, nor to erect buildings upon them, but merely to hold them for the convenience of the fishery, and to keep in them a guard of fifty men only for purposes of police." He was personally aware that a coal station existed at the place; and he was informed that a large body of armed men, who were called "marines," and who might therefore excuse their presence on the ground that they were neither soldiers nor sailors, were kept on the island. In the event of hostilities these men, as had once before been the case, might take possession of Newfoundland, and, though they would probably not be able to keep it in their hands, they would undoubtedly occasion a great deal of mischief. The hon. Member concluded by asking the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether his attention had been called to the erection of these fortifications on the island of St. Pierre; and whether, if any correspondence had taken place on the subject, it would be consistent with the interests of the public service to produce it for the information of the House?

ANNEXATION OF SAVOY TO FRANCE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. KINGLAKE: Before the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign
  752
  Affairs answers the Question which has just been put, I shall take the liberty of asking the question of which I have given notice—namely, Whether there is any objection to lay upon the Table of the House his Answer to Lord Bloomfield's Despatch of the 3rd day of March, respecting the proposed annexation of Savoy and Nice to France. I do not desire to read Lord Bloomfield's despatch, but to point the attention of the House to the attitude which Prussia has taken in the present European crisis, as indicated in that communication. Baron Schleinitz, the Prime Minister of Prussia, stated to Lord Bloomfield that in all Germany there was but one opinion as to the character of this intended annexation; that for a time his Prussian Majesty had trusted the statement made by the Emperor in his Milan proclamation, but that he now saw the time for maintaining silence had passed. The despatch concludes by saying that the Baron had declared the policy of Prussia to be decidedly opposed to this annexation, and had given his opinion that France must now be called on to refrain from taking any further step until a conference of the Powers shall be held. I coufess I read that despatch with great pleasure, and I may be permitted to say that it indicates an intention on the part of Prussia to take a step as nearly as possible identical with that which I ventured to indicate by the Notice which I gave last week. I cannot but regard this as an overture of great importance, and one which I trust may be looked back upon in later times as the commencement of the pacification of Europe. Not only is the despatch itself significant, but the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs must he aware that its production and publication is also a matter of deep importance. That despatch is dated the 3rd of March; some of the papers contained in the volume of correspondence delivered to this House date down to as late a period as the 9th inst., but they do not include the answer which the noble Lord must have given to the despatch in question. I have, therefore, to ask whether it will be convenient for the noble Lord to lay that answer on the table of the House; and I trust when we see it we shall be able to say that it was a reply worthy in every way of the spirit in which this overture on the part of Prussia has been made. I have not given notice of an intention to ask the noble Lord for any general information with respect to this

  753
  pending question of the annexation of Savoy and Nice, because I felt sure that without notice from any Member of Parliament he would know that any information which he might be able to give this House would be received with grateful satisfaction. On Tuesday last the noble Lord at the head of Her Majesty's Government gave us a right very strongly to hope—and I think, considering the relation between the two countries, a right also to expect—that the proposed annexation would not take place without France consulting—and seriously consulting the other Powers of Europe. I trust the noble Lord may now be able to say the expectation he then held out has not been falsified; that the rumours of the last two days are inconsistent with the truth; and that it is not the fact, in spite of all which he has said, that the Emperor of the French is proceeding to this annexation without consulting the great Powers of Europe, and that he is on the point of including in his annexation to France the districts of Chablais, Faucigny, and Genevois, contrary to the express promise which he has made, and the proof of which is to be found in the Correspondence that has been delivered to the House. I trust the information which the noble Lord may give us will be of such a character as in some degree to remove the anxiety which is at present felt.
  SIR ROBERT PEEL: Perhaps before the noble Lord answers the Question of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater he will allow me to say that the information of what is taking place in Europe is seriously true; and to ask him whether, in addition to this despatch of Lord Bloom-field, which certainly contains intelligence of a very remarkable character, he is also aware of the danger which threatens the independence and neutrality of Switzerland. I am very loth again to trespass on the attention of the House with regard to this subject, but I feel that we have arrived at a period when it is absolutely necessary we should give utterance to some expression of opinion on this question. More than that, I believe I state the opinion not only of every Gentleman in this House, but of every man of feeling in the country, when I say that we ought to declare the sentiment by which we are all animated— that not only has an outrage been inflicted on the public mind of Europe, but that it is particularly directed against the Government of this country. We have been over and over again told there was no danger
  754
  that the Emperor of the French would proceed to the extremities which he now threatens; over and over again in these despatches we find assurances that without consulting the Powers of Europe nothing whatever would be done. Now, I myself am in receipt of a telegram from Annecy, which states that these provinces Chablais and Faucigny have been so worked upon and harassed, and that the people from one end of the country to the other are so divided, that the municipalities of each district are perfectly ready to vote in favour of annexation to France—and why? Because all kinds of terrorism have been used, such as were employed in the time of the first French Revolution to excite the population—poor, innocent, primitive people, as every person knows they are, who really do not understand duplicity and art,—and to lead them to believe that if they annex themselves to France no danger will result, but that otherwise the most serious consequences will ensue. The despatch to which my hon. Friend has called attention is one of the greatest importance. He did not read any passage from it, but, if the House will allow me, I will just touch upon one expression, because it shows that the Cabinet of Prussia has taken up a dignified attitude, which I hope, and, indeed, have every reason to believe her Majesty's Government are desirous of emulating. Lord Bloomfield says in his despatch that "Baron Schleinitz appears to have stated to the French Minister that in Germany there was but one opinion of determined opposition to the project. Baron Schleinitz seems also to have observed to the French Minister that during the war the present Prussian Government had been the means of restraining the violent feeling which had been excited in Germany by the war in Italy, and had made themselves very unpopular by so doing; but that it must not be considered now, with regard to the question of Savoy, that if they remained silent at the present moment their silence meant indifference, for they should view that absorption with the greatest distrust. The noble Viscount at the head of the Government told us the other night that the war in Italy was part of the Emperor's policy for freeing that country, but it appears from this extract that the opinion in Germany about it was not so favourable. But if Prussia views this absorption with great distrust, surely this country is entitled to view it in the same light; and not only

  755
  this country, but every country, is bound to give a firm and determined opposition to this policy of annexation, which, as Lord Derby well observed last night, is now commenced on the feeble pretext of danger to France from the proximity of a kingdom of 9,000,000 inhabitants,—a pretext which may be used very soon as an argument for annexing the Rhine provinces of Prussia and Belgium. Is the House aware of what is now going on on the frontiers of Belgium? There are newspapers published in the towns on the frontier—one in particular, the Journal de Mons—which advocate openly the annexation of Belgium to France, telling the people that if they could do away with the douaniers great facilities for trade and great commercial advantages would follow. This is an underhand, ungenerous policy, in which every power in Europe is directly interested, and which they ought to endeavour to curb with a vigorous and powerful hand. I cannot refrain from making some allusion to the conduct of Sardinia in this matter. The noble Viscount the other night paid a very flowing compliment to M. de Cavour, and he is a man whom I believe almost everybody believes to be a disinterested statesman and generous patriot; but on reading his despatch, no one who has watched his conduct can deny that his wish has been, not only to deceive Her Majesty's Government, but also to play a mock dignified part, which is quite unworthy of the influence he might have exercised at this moment. His expressions are really very curious. As everybody knows, he has disclaimed any engagement or any disposition to part with Savoy. In his despatch to Chevalier Nigra, his Minister at Paris, he says,
  "The Government of His Majesty would never consent, even with a view to the greatest advantages, to cede or exchange any portion of the territory which has formed for so many ages the glorious appanage of the House of Savoy."
  Fine words, indeed, and if he had acted up to them, he would have had all Europe with him; but then he goes on to say,
  "The King's Government cannot refrain from taking into consideration the changes which the events that have taken place in Italy have caused with respect to the people of Savoy and Nice."
  The same thing he said to Sir James Hudson.
  "Count Cavour came to me," writes Sir James Hudson, "and repeated to me what he had stated before, that Sardinia was under no engagement
  756
  to cede, sell, or exchange Savoy, or any other part of the King's dominions."
  But Count Cavour ends with this remarkable expression, "The question is one for Savoy, not for the rest of the kingdom," though he had not long before written that Savoy was "the most glorious appanage of the House of Savoy." I say this is not a Sardinian question, it is not a French question, it is a European question. The question is not now whether Savoy shall be incorporated with the French dominions, with whose people and whose institutions she is unacquainted; it is not whether the King of Piedmont can yield up the appanage of the House of Savoy, the inheritance of his ancestors, which has been consecrated by so many generations of honourable exploits—but it is whether, after the King of Sardinia has enjoyed ever since 1815 all the advantages which the re-annexation of Savoy conferred on him— and it must be recollected that at that period the Sardinian Monarch received from the European Powers 10,000,000 francs to fortify the country against France—Europe will allow him to cede that territory to France by a private arrangement depending on the disposition of Italy. I say such a policy is unworthy of the Government of il Re galanluomo. "Perish Savoy," said the hon. Member for Birmingham the other evening. It has perished. I hope the hon. Gentleman is satisfied. We shall have "Perish Switzerland" next, and "Perish all the liberties of Europe." The hon. Member laid it down that, after all, the map of Europe, as regarded the limitation of the States of Europe, was not worth a moment's consideration; and he turned round to me and my hon. Friend here, and asked us, "Is what you want to settle the map of Europe?" My answer is, that we do not want to settle the map of Europe, but we do not want to unsettle it. We do not want to recommend the Government to pursue a course opposed to the interests of this country; but we want to check and curb a policy on the part of France, which is daily tending to outrage public opinion, and to violate the received and acknowledged interests of Europe. When my hon. Friend and I took up this question some time ago, we were told that we exaggerated its importance to England and Europe, and that beyond a formal protest, England had nothing to do with it. Time has shown the gravity of the question. When we are told that we are advocating the interests of Savoy and Switzerland to

  757
  the detriment of other more important interests, our answer is that we would scorn to advocate interests which are opposed to the general interests of mankind; and that, in advocating the cause of Savoy and Switzerland, we are, in fact, advocating the cause of Europe; and that if you allow this state of things to continue, most grave consequences will ensue to Europe. I want Her Majesty's Government to protest, in a manly, straightforward way against the conduct of France. That protest will ring far beyond the walls of this House. You will rally Prussia, Germany, nay, the whole of Europe round you; and you may, perhaps, save millions of treasure and thousands of lives by such a course. I ask this House to protest against the conduct of France. I protest against it here, and I appeal to Europe in vindication of a system which the hon. Member for Birmingham has condemned, but which has worked well for very nearly half a century. I denounce that policy in the face of this House, and I warn you that this union of Savoy with France not only affects the future interests of Savoy and Switzerland, but it is the first step, the first act of conspiracy, against the liberties of every European State.
  MR. WHITESIDEsaid, that before the noble Lord, the Foreign Secretary, replied, he wished to call his attention to the memorial of certain British subjects, Protestants, resident in Spain, complaining of the law of Spain, which did not allow them to have a place of worship of their own, or to send their children to any but a Spanish school. The law of Spain declared that no foreigner should "profess" any other but the Roman Catholic religion in Spain; and there were some doubts as to what was the exact meaning of the word "profess." What the memorialists desired was, that the noble Lord should intercede—not "intervene"—to procure an arrangement by which they would be able to send their children to a school of their own, and also to have Divine service celebrated in a private house in any place where there was no Consul or representative of Her Majesty.
  LORD JOHN RUSSELL: I will first answer the Question which has been put to me by the hon. and learned Gentleman, the Member for Launceston (Mr. Haliburton), with respect to the fortification of the Island of St. Pierre. There is no doubt that fortifications are forbidden by the Treaty of 1763, and also by that of 1783. To the latter treaty, which was concluded
  758
  at a period when this country could not hold her head so high as she did in 1763, there were appended certain declarations, but I am not aware whether they apply to this subject. In the year 1856 the attention of the Foreign Office was called to this question; the facts were submitted to the law officers of the Crown, and they were asked whether the buildings existing or constructed at St. Pierre, were any infringement of our treaties with France. Their reply was, that they did not think that anything had been done which amounted to such an infringement. I have not had time to look particularly into the case; but I understand, from the Gentleman who was then Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, that the question was last year again referred to the law officers of the Crown, who were of the same opinion as their predecessors. We have not lately heard anything tending to show that any new buildings have been erected, or that anything has been done different from what had been done in the year 1856.
  In reply to the Question of the hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Whiteside), I have to say that we are continually appealing to the Government of Spain with a view of obtaining permission for British residents to celebrate Divine worship in their own houses, and their freedom from some very intolerant provisions of the Spanish law. The penal law of Spain declares that a person who shall celebrate Divine worship in any other than the Roman Catholic form shall be liable to banishment; there are various other provisions with respect to any number of persons more than thirty meeting for any purpose of political or religious discussion, which are of a very penal nature, and it seems to be an established practice, or perhaps the established law of Spain, that these laws shall be enforced by the clergy, who are empowered to call upon the civil officers to execute them whenever they are infringed. There was a case some time ago in which a newly-born child, of Protestant parents, which had been baptized by the medical man, who was a Roman Catholic, died and was buried in the Protestant cemetery. According to the Spanish law that child was a Roman Catholic; and the Spanish clergyman called upon the alcalde of the place to have the child disinterred and reburied in the yard of the Roman Catholic church. Mr. Buchanan exerted himself very strenuously, and at last the Spanish Government gave way, and pre-

  759
  vented the priest from carrying his intentions, into effect. Another case occurred recently, in which an attempt was made to prevent some persons holding a meeting for public worship. It is not that Mr. Buchanan is at all indifferent to, or neglectful of, the question; but that any attempt to change the law of Spain would be quite hopeless. The law is very bigoted, the Government is very bigoted, and the people are more bigoted than either the law or the Government; and therefore there is but little chance of effecting any change in the law. The Government and the civil authorities have, however, no objection, upon the representations of foreign Ministers, to permit in certain cases the celebration of religious worship in private houses; and probably, if the number of children required it, a similar indulgence would be granted with regard to their education.
  My hon. Friend, the Member for Bridgwater, has asked for the production of the answer to the despatch from Lord Bloom-field of the 3rd of March, with respect to Savoy. That despatch contained an account by Lord Bloomfield of a conversation between Baron Schleinitz, the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Prussia, and the French Minister; and, therefore, as containing no representation to the British Government, did not call for an answer from me. We have, however, been in continual intercourse with the Government of Prussia, and I have more than once had conversations with Count Bernstorff, the Prussian Minister in this country; and I am able to state that the Government of Prussia and ourselves are entirely agreed on the view which we take of the proposed annexation of Savoy. I do not know that I could in March say, or that it was needful to say, more than I said both in July of last year and in January of the present. We have, as is shown by the papers, expressed at Berlin and Vienna, and at St. Petersburg, our objections to the annexation of Savoy, leaving them to take what part they should think right upon this question of European interest. I cannot say that I have heard from Vienna any satisfactory account as to any steps that the Government of Austria will take upon this subject. There are reasons which Members of this House will easily imagine why Austria should not be particularly zealous in preventing a partition of Sardinia, seeing that she herself has lost, both in Lombardy and Tuscany, dominions belonging either to herself, or
  760
  to members of the Royal family, through the action of the King of Sardinia. It is a month since I communicated with Vienna; and a week afterwards I made similar communications to St. Petersburg, and it certainly is a disappointment to Her Majesty's Government that, considering that so long a time has elapsed, and that annexation has, as it were, been impending during all this time, we have not received any notice or intelligence that any strong remonstrance against the annexation is intended to be made by those Governments. The language of Count Cavour has been, I think, a good deal of the character described by my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth, because, while he continues to say, as he said some time ago, that the King of Sardinia would not cede, or sell, or exchange Savoy, he goes on in the latter part of his despatch to say that if the people of Savoy are disposed to belong to another empire, and be under another sovereign, however the King of Sardinia might regret it, he would make no objection to their obtaining their wish. Now, I certainly conceive that that is a very extraordinary and a very unnecessary declaration. We know very well that there have lately been and are countries which have felt themselves so oppressed by their Governments, or have had such different views of policy from those entertained by other Governments, that they have wished to sever their connection with their sovereigns; but we have never heard that of Savoy, nor, that I am aware of, has there till lately been any indication that the people of Savoy wished to sever their connection with, or abjure their allegiance to, the House of Savoy. It is, therefore, a singular, I should say an unprecedented thing, for a Sovereign to say, "These subjects of mine are much attached to me; I value them very much. At the same time, if they wish to dissolve their allegiance and belong to some other country, I can have no objection to their doing so." It certainly looks as if the King of Sardinia and his Minister were not very unwilling to sever the connection. Now, Sir, I must say that our position must be a good deal influenced by these different things. If the great Powers of Europe which were to be consulted; if Austria and Russia feel no great interest in this question; if Prussia and Great Britain are the only European Powers that do feel any interest in it, and if the King of Sardinia, on his part, is apparently willing to yield

  761
  this territory, it certainly does become very difficult to make any opposition to that act. But, Sir, there is another matter which I am going to state to the House, because, after the questions which were asked of me by a noble Lord not now present, I think I ought to state to the House what is my impression as soon as I have received a decided impression upon the subject. There was delivered to me yesterday a despatch from M. Thouvenel to Count Persigny, laying the case of the annexation of Savoy before Her Majesty's Government for their consideration. The despatch is a very temperate one. It abjures altogether the notion of natural boundaries, and states the case as one of a special interest arising from special circumstances—namely, that the position of Italy is changed; that the position of France is thereby made worse; and that therefore this is a special case which deserves the special consideration of Europe. But, although it is stated in the despatch that this question is submitted to the wisdom and equity of Europe, I must say that, taking the whole despatch together, including the statement that it is a necessity for France and for her security that she should have this extension, she can hardly be justified in saying that the Powers of Europe are to be consulted, and that by their verdict the French Government mean to abide. I have not yet laid this despatch before my colleagues. I am telling the House at once all I know upon this subject. The Cabinet will, no doubt, consider gravely and maturely what answer shall be given. The whole of this despatch, and especially that part of it which relates to the question of Faucigny and Chablais, is one of such gravity and importance that I will not say more about it at present than that it requires the most serious consideration. As soon as I am in a position to answer it, and Her Majesty has approved the answer, I shall lose no time in laving the despatch before the House.

THE SALE OF GAS ACT.—QUESTION.
MR. H. B. SHERIDANsaid, he would beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, Whether the Lords of the Treasury are now prepared to carry out the provisions of the Sale of Gas Act, and to have the "Gas-holder" at once deposited at the Exchequer Office. Great inconvenience had been caused by the neglect of the Go-
762
vernment to have the gas-holder deposited at the Exchequer Office. The reason for that neglect appeared to be a doubt in the mind of the Astromer Royal whether the instrument might not be put out of order if it were moved; but the deputation of meter-makers were unanimously of a different opinion. It had been stated that the instrument mentioned in the Act was not known; but such was not the fact. Even gentlemen of the medical profession were well acquainted with it, for they sometimes made use of it in order to test the lungs of their patients. There was great excitement in the country on the subject. Every town council and almost every quarter sessions had held a meeting to decide whether they would or would not adopt the Act; and they had appointed Inspectors, who were unable to discharge their duties because the model of the instrument had not been deposited as required by the Act. Certain officials appeared to think that, though the Act of Parliament had distinctly placed the carrying out of the measure in their charge, it did not properly come within their duties; and they referred the deputation to the Board of Trade. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. M. Gibson) received them courteously; but he said that there was nothing in the Act that gave the Board power to interfere. That was quite true, and the only reason he could assign for the manner in which the Act was drawn was, that he supposed its noble author (Lord Redesdale) was anxious to follow as closely as possible another Act of Parliament of a kindred character — the Weights and Measures Act.
MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, the Board of Trade were not charged with any powers to carry the Gas Act into execution. About a week ago they were consulted by the Treasury as to the sufficiency of the Act for the object for which it was passed. After consideration they had come to the conclusion that the Act did not require any immediate amendment, and might be carried into execution. They had communicated their opinion to the Treasury; but otherwise they could not interfere, the Act giving to the Board of Trade no authority-whatever.

FRIDAY ADJOURNMENTS.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. E. P. BOUVERIEsaid, his excuse for troubling the House with a few obser-

  763
  vations must be that of all the speakers that addressed them, he should be the only one that made any remarks upon the Question really before the House—namely, the adjournment till Monday. There was a celebrated speech that they had all heard in their youth, of which these proceedings on a Friday evening always strongly reminded him. It began—Quousque tandem abutere patientia nostra? These conversations of two or three hours on every conceivable subject, forced the phrase irresistibly upon him. In allowing them they were guilty of the grossest abuse of the forms of the House; they were really neglecting the business of the country, and in ninety-nine out of every hundred of the questions that were thus raised, they were needlessly wasting the public time. The Standing Orders were distinct and explicit. They provided that—
  "Unless the House should otherwise direct, all Orders of the Day set down for Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, shall be disposed of before the House proceeded with any Motion of which notice shall have been given."
  But by the practice which had grown up they had virtually repealed that Standing Order so far as Fridays were concerned, because Notices were taken before they could proceed to the Orders of the Day. He had taken the trouble, as he sat wistfully looking at the clock, to note down the length of time which each of the discussions they had just heard had occupied. They began with the hon. Member for Finsbury, who took them into Kent, and for ten minutes occupied the House with observations on the subject of coroners — a matter which could hardly be of so much urgency as to require the immediate interference of Parliament. Then he was sorry to say that a Scotch Member spoke next. Scotch Members did not generally offend in this way as much as the representatives of any other parts of the United Kingdom; but to-night a Scotch Member had erred grievously against the forms of the House, and for 25 minutes he was discussing the claims of the Nabobs of the Carnatic, under the pretence of asking the Secretary for India whether he should have any objection to lay papers on the table. There was, in fact, another very objectionable practice growing up—of which they had had two examples that night—the practice of putting on the paper notice that on the Motion of the Adjournment of the House, they would ask the Minister of a Department whether he was prepared to
  764
  lay certain papers on the table, and then making long speeches instead of reserving them for actual Motions for the production of the papers. In that manner speeches had been made that night on the Carnatic and on Savoy. Hon. Gentlemen had brought on discussions without giving any notice of them beyond a notice that they would each ask a simple question; and he trusted that to this practice the House would not give its sanction. Then for ten minutes the hon. and gallant Member for Chatham detained them with the Royal College at Sandhurst. Next came three or four minor Indian subjects. The question of the Indian Museum occupied the House for four or five minutes; and then extension of trade and intercourse with Central India took up another five minutes. The question about the army of India occupied another five minutes. Next came, as usual, an Irish debate, which occupied forty-five minutes, the subject being the removal of the Irish poor. No more important question affecting the comfort and welfare of masses of the community could be brought forward than the laws relating to the settlement and removal of the poor; but he (Mr. Bouverie) must protest against the idea of raising it in this incidental manner, which precluded those Members, who respected the forms of the House (which he always endeavoured to do), from expressing opinions which they might have come to after long and serious reflection upon the subject. Then came the hon. Member for Pontefract, who must forgive him for thinking that he was a great sinner in this respect. The hon. Gentleman consumed fifteen minutes on a point with which he (Mr. Bouverie) must say the House had properly nothing to do—he attempted to force the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give a sum of money, which the right hon. Gentleman, having a due regard to the public purse, thought it his duty to refuse. Next the hon. Member for Launceston carried them across the Atlantic, and for ten minutes discoursed on the French fortifications on the Islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon, and on our rights under existing treaties. That was another very important subject; but he submitted that it ought to have been brought on by a formal notice, and then there might have been a proper debate upon it. Lastly, they had had a discussion of half an hour upon the all-important subject of Savoy, respecting which they bad just heard a most interesting statement from the noble Lord the Se-

  765
  cretary for Foreign Affairs. That statement was one that it was very desirable the House should be in possession of; the facts bore upon a subject which was agitating the mind of all Europe; but he must still contend that the time which had been chosen for communicating these facts was not a fitting occasion. The House had been exhausted by the conversations which had already taken place, and instead of a full House, and the Minister making his statement at five o'clock, there were hardly fifty members in the House. Hon, Gentlemen had gone home to dine (and he did not wonder at it); and they would be surprised when they came back at the end of two hours to learn what an important announcement had been made in this incidental manner by the Secretary of State. The more he saw of this practice the more he deprecated its continuance, and the more he was satisfied that it was damaging to the reputation of the House as a place of business. The only thing he could compare it to was a part of Mr. Albert Smith's performance at the Egyptian Hall. There was a song which Mr. Smith sung, and in which he introduced every topic of the day in rapid succession. This appeared to be the style of thing to which the House was gradually tending. The forms of the House would not permit him to repeat the Motion which he had made a short time ago, and which would have saved the House from these irregularities; but he would endeavour to do the next best thing in his power—he would give notice of his intention to move that this Motion for adjournment should be made on Thursday instead of on Friday. If hon. Members then chose to infringe upon their own privileges, and to make speeches on a Motion of adjournment, instead of taking their chance for precedence in the ballot for notices of Motion, it would be their own fault; and the business of the country would not at any rate be delayed four or five hours, Friday after Friday, in the way it was now.
  Motion agreed to.
  House at rising to adjourn till Monday next.

TREATY OF COMMERCE WITH FRANCE.

  THE ADDRESS TO HER MAJESTY.
  Message from The Lords,— That HER MAJESTY had appointed Saturday next (To-morrow), at Osborne, at One of the Clock, to be attended with the Address of both Houses of Parliament on the sub-
  766
  ject of the Treaty of Commerce with France, and that the Lords had appointed the LORD STEWARD and the LORD CHAMBERLAIN of the HOUSEHOLD to attend HER MAJESTY therewith on the part of their Lordships, and do desire this House to appoint a proportionable number of its Members to go with them.
  Ordered, That Mr. BYNG, Mr. BAINES. the VICE CHAMBERLAIN, and the COMPTROLLER of the HOUSEHOLD do go with the Lords mentioned in the said Message.
  Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Lords, to acquaint them therewith; and that the Clerk do carry the said Message.

SUPPLY.—CHINA.—VOTE OF CREDIT.
MR. SIDNEY HERBERT MR. SIDNEY HERBERT moved that the Speaker leave the Chair, in order to go into Committee of Supply.
Order for Committee read.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
SIR DE LACY EVANSsaid, he rose to move the Amendment of which he had given notice. He had intended to have brought this question forward at the opening of Parliament, as its importance demanded; but from various causes he was sorry to find that two months had elapsed before he could get an opportunity. It was true that a short discussion took place on the subject about a week ago, but it was postponed at the instance of the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary, who said he expected shortly to receive additional papers from Mr. Bruce. He understood the noble Lord had laid some despatches on the subject before the House in the early part of the evening, but he saw by the newspapers that Mr. Bruce was doing nothing, waiting for instructions from the noble Lord. Mr. Bruce was waiting for the noble Lord, and the noble Lord was waiting for Mr. Bruce. In the meantime a gigantic expedition was prepared, which he ventured to submit would cost far more than the £850,000, the amount of the Vote about to be asked for that purpose. He understood that the Government were not disposed to admit that the force would be so large as was generally supposed. But he had received a statement from a high source, asserting that the Indian Government were sending 18,000 British troops and between 7,000 and 8,000 Native troops from India. Artillery, and, he believed, a battering train, were being sent from this

767
country, and there was besides a considerable force from France. Several thousand marines and seamen would also be employed on shore; so that the total force would approach very nearly to 40,000 men. It was possible that the Government had sent orders to reduce that force; and he hoped they had, for it was of portentous magnitude, and he did not know what 40,000 men could be required for. The Chinese were a most unwarlike people, and the least capable of any set of men of resisting even a small force. The employment, therefore, of an enormous force such as he had mentioned, excited apprehensions that some serious views of conquest were entertained. The question of expense was, then, involved in this matter, and, perhaps, an augmentation of the income tax next year. Upon this question of expense he believed that some entertained hopes that a considerable portion might be recovered from the Chinese in the way of indemnity; but he would read the emphatic language used by Lord Elgin in one of his despatches. The noble Lord stated:—
"Among the difficult questions which I had to resolve at Tien-tsin no one gave me so much anxiety and annoyance as that of the amount to be exacted from the Chinese Government in name of indemnity. From a very early period in those negotiations both Baron Gros and I satisfied ourselves that it would be idle to attempt to extort money directly from the Imperial Government in the North. Everything we saw around us indicated the penury of the treasury. Nothing could be more miserable than the state of the high officers of the Imperial Government with whom we came in contact. The troops called together to defend the capital were, as we had reason to believe, unpaid. Under these circumstances we came to the conclusion that, on practical grounds, and apart from certain considerations of morality and justice which might, perhaps, have been urged on behalf of the Chinese Government, it would be unwise to drive it to despair, and, perhaps, to extreme measures of resistance, by putting forward pecuniary claims which it could satisfy only by resorting to measures that would increase its unpopularity and extend the area of rebellion in the empire. The power of passive indurance is not wanting to the Chinese character, and it was to be feared that the Emperor might make up his mind to brave the worst at our hands, rather than consent to render himself, as his father did after the last war with England, tax-gatherer, on an extensive scale, for foreigners. We resolved, therefore, that such pecuniary claims as we had to prefer should be regarded as a charge on the province of Canton exclusively; that the city should be held as a pledge for their payment; and that the Emperor should only be required to sanction our taking measures to recover them from the local authorities."
Let the House consider how enormous would be the expense of the army now
768
being sent to China. It must be borne in mind that the troops proceeding from the highest point, namely, India, would have to go 5,000 miles, and the stores must be transported 15,000 miles. These were matters which cost enormous sums. Some time ago he put a notice in the business paper with the view of inducing the Government to select some diplomatist of great experience to take charge of these important affairs now pending in China; and within the last few days it had been formally announced that Lord Elgin had been selected to proceed to China. That appointment put an end, to a certain degree, to the public anxiety as to the selection of the functionary to go out to China, because very considerable confidence was no doubt placed in the noble Lord's judgment, and the noble Lord might naturally be deemed the fittest person to obtain the ratification of the treaty he negotiated. He perceived from the despatches laid before the House that Lord Elgin was earnestly requested by Lord Malmesbury not to quit his post until he had completed the work so well begun. He supposed the noble Lord had authority to leave, but he thought it matter of regret that the noble Lord did not remain until the whole matter was finished. As he now wished to vary the terms of the Amendment he had given notice of upon the Motion for going into Committee of Supply, he would read the Amendment he desired to substitute. It was as follows:—
"That humbly participating in the wish of Her Majesty, expressed in Her most gracious speech on the opening of this Session of Parliament— namely, that she will be gratified if the prompt acquiescence of the Emperor of China in the moderate demands which have been made upon him by the Allies shall obviate the necessity for the employment of force—this House is of opinion that the moderation of policy thus indicated on the part of Her Majesty and that of Her Ally the Emperor of the French will best contribute to diminish expenditure, avert complications, and to promote commerce, the interests of justice, and the establishment of peace."
Sometimes trifling incidents gave rise to wars. He recollected one war that began in consequence of a hatchet being stolen from a farmer. In the present case, when there was to be a combination of the troops of the two countries, and when difficult circumstances were to be anticipated, it was desirable that every precaution against an unnecessary extension of operations should be taken. It appeared that this great force will be under the direction of two Plenipo-

769
tentiaries, two Admirals, and two Generals. Now, if all these high functionaries acted harmoniously together, as it was to be hoped they would, such harmony would exceed any "happy family" that had ever been exhibited as yet. As material interests connected with the commerce of England were at stake, it was to be hoped that the Government of this country had arranged with the Government of France certain conditions, beyond which their operations would not extend. There were rumours that this expeditionary army was to be disembarked at the mouth of that river which had been the scene of so much disaster, and was then to march to Pekin. He earnestly hoped that that might not he the case. No doubt this force, and probably one-fourth of it, would overthrow any Chinese force that could be opposed to it; but the consequence of marching a great army into the country might be serious. Hitherto, the two wars carried on against China had been on the seaboard, but this, it was said, was to be conducted by an inland operation. He did not pretend to say that some demonstration might not be necessary to restore the reputation of the British troops to a more satisfactory footing in the eyes of the Chinese Government; but he hoped that the passage in Her Majesty's Speech from the Throne expressing a hope that the employment of force would not be required would not remain a dead letter, but that the moderate demands which the Plenipotentiaries had been instructed to make, would obviate the necessity for the employment of force. They might expect that such would be the case the more confidently, seeing that the noble Lord himself and other distinguished members of the Cabinet had on a former occasion very strongly deprecated operations against China. The condition of the country would certainly place great, almost insuperable, difficulties in the way of the troops, and he did not see how batteries of artillery could be worked upon such roads as lay between Tien-tsin and the capital, unless expenditure were disregarded and no resistance encountered. The reason why the French joined so readily in this expedition was, he supposed, that they had a very large army without a present European war wherein to employ it, and this Chinese conflict was perhaps meant as a temporary amusement or occupation for the French soldiery till something more serious turned up. He would not object to our pending a powerful force if France did the same—to be sure
770
we were 10,000 miles nearer the scene of action—but he did not see why we should send double the force of our Ally. He hoped that the noble Lord would immediately inform the House that an agreement on this subject had been entered into with the French Government, and relieve their minds from the apprehension that it had been left loose and indefinite, at the mercy of this diplomatist or that general. The two Governments ought to lay down a definite basis for this proceeding, which was one of very great moment. If they neglected to do so, it was quite possible the expenses of the expedition might swell beyond all calculations, perhaps to eight or ten millions. The hon. and gallant General concluded by moving—
"That humbly participating in the wish of Her Majesty, expressed in Her most gracious speech on the opening of this Session of Parliament— namely, that she will be gratified if the prompt acquiescence of the Emperor of China in the moderate demands which have been made upon him by the allies shall obviate the necessity for the employment of force—this House is of opinion that the moderation of policy thus indicated on the part of Her Majesty and that of Her Ally the Emperor of the French will host contribute to diminish expenditure, avert complications, and to promote commerce, the interests of justice, and the establishment of peace.
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: In regard to the question last raised by my hon. and gallant Friend—namely, the military operations in China—it would obviously be unwise and impolitic to publish the exact instructions given to the military and naval commanders; and, besides, it would also be exceedingly unwise to make those instructions so strict and positive that the officers commanding, at a distance of 10,000 or 15,000 miles from home, would be tied up to a particular course, in whatever circumstances they might find themselves. I therefore cannot give the military and naval instructions. My hon. and gallant Friend says it is not desirable that the troops should march upon Pekin. Undoubtedly it is not, and we have always expressed our desire that it may not be necessary. But, in the event of all reasonable terms being rejected by the Chinese, it will be the duty of the troops to proceed to Pekin; and it would be not only unwise, but a departure from duty, for us to give particular instructions that there should be no marching upon the capital under any circumstances. The terms of negotiation have not yet been finally settled, on account of circumstances which have lately occurred. Instructions have been drawn up by Lord

771
Elgin in which the French Government generally concur; but there are some points upon which they wish for further explanation. Her Majesty's Government thought that the best way, under these circumstances, would be for Lord Elgin, who was very well acquainted with Baron Gros, and had acted with him in a very cordial manner, to go to Paris and consult with him as to the points on which explanation was required. One point of very great importance was, whether the two negotiators, Lord Elgin and Baron Gros, each of them having the full trust and confidence of their respective Governments, should have supreme authority over the naval and military commanders, and have the power of stopping operations whenever they should think it advisable to do so. It is a very right principle that they should possess that power; but at the same time it requires modification, for the naval or military commanders might be so situated that it would be impossible for them to stop operations at a particular moment with safely to the troops and ships. That and other points are still under discussion; no final conclusion, as far as I have yet heard from Lord Elgin, has been come to in regard to them. I shall say a few words as to the necessity for the display of military force. It is evident that when 400 or 500 men were killed and wounded by an ambuscade, without any sort of notice, the lives and property of Europeans in that country could not be safe unless in one way or another reparation were made for that outrage. ["Hear, hear!"] He observed that some hon. Gentlemen seem to doubt that this was done without notice; but what occurred was simply this:—When Mr. Bruce said he was going to the mouth of the Peiho, he expressed the hope that he should be allowed to go up with a vessel sufficient to carry himself and his retinue to Tien-tsin, and that he might be conveyed in an honourable manner from thence to the capital. That proposal was not met by a positive refusal. On the contrary, the Commissioners at Shanghai said they would communicate it to the Court at Pekin, and get an answer in regard to it; the time, however, which they required for that purpose was unreasonably long. When Mr. Bruce reached the mouth of the Peiho the people said there were no authorities on the spot, that they were acting without orders, that they had merely put up the stakes in the river as a protection against pirates, and that they were not authorized
772
to say anything to the British Ambassador. Whether Mr. Bruce was right or wrong in the course he took, it is quite clear that he and Admiral Hope went up to the barrier without any notice having been given to them that their passage up the river was to be obstructed. That being the case, and the loss inflicted on us being so severe, it was necessary that some reparation should be insisted upon. The demands we made were exceedingly moderate. We required, of course, that the treaty which had been concluded, and waited only for ratification, should be carried out. We demanded also an apology for the outrage which had been committed. That being done, we proposed that our Minister should go up in a peaceable manner to Pekin, and that there the ratification of the treaty should take place. Considering that we are at the expense of a considerable armament, more reasonable proposals than these could not well be made. If they are refused and the armament should arrive there, then Mr. Bruce was instructed to ask for a large indemnity. I do not think we could propose anything less than this; and if these moderate terms are not accepted, then the treaty and the other stipulations will have to be enforced by arms. The strength of the expedition will by no means be so great as my hon. and gallant Friend imagines, but we trust and believe it will prove sufficient for the enforcement of our proposals. No one can lament the whole matter more than I do. We do not go to China to form alliances against other Powers. We have no question of boundaries to settle there, or any disputes of the kind that arise in connection with the affairs of Europe or America. What we have to do there is merely to trade; but for the purposes of trade we must have security for the persons and property of our countrymen. Our trade has enormously increased of late years. The trade of Shanghai, for instance, has sprung up since the Treaty of Nankin, and has already assumed considerable proportions. Being a large trade, a great number of persons are engaged in it, and disputes of various kinds are liable to occur. It is therefore desirable that our Minister in that country should be able to resort to the chief authorities, when necessary, and that he should not be confined to Canton, having to deal with petty officials, and to wait months for the conveyance of messages to and the return of answers from Pekin. It is necessary that our Minister should have the power of going

773
to Pekin, with free access to the authorities there. I do not think we ought to be content with the proposition in the American Treaty that the Minister should go to Pekin only on matters of business, and come away again directly. That is not enough. Our Minister ought to have the option of being at Pekin whenever he thinks necessary. It may be found more for our interest and convenience that the Minister should reside at Shanghai, and only go occasionally to Pekin, still I think that the condition which Lord Elgin inserted in the Treaty is essential and ought to be insisted on. I have only further to say that Lord Elgin will soon return from Paris and proceed upon his mission to Pekin. There is no man more anxious to maintain the most peaceful relations with China than my noble Friend Lord Elgin. He is esteemed by the people of that country, and he has a strong desire for their welfare. Both he and Baron Gros are animated by the most pacific sentiments, and we have thought we could not do better than ask Lord Elgin and Baron Gros to go out again as our Plenipotentiaries to arrange our differences with the Chinese Government.
SIR JAMES ELPHLNSTONEsaid, he had listened to the speech of the noble Lord in the hope that he would have laid before the House some plan of a comprehensive policy for regulating our future relations with China, and for bringing to a close the discreditable position we had hitherto occupied in that country. He wished the House to look back to the period when the Government first undertook the responsibility of communicating with the Emperor, and to allow him to retrace what had since occurred. In 1832, when the charter of the East India Company came to an end, a different stale of things was forced upon the Chinese Government. Instead of the monopoly that existed on the part of the East India Company, when a disciplined force acted under treaty engagements, and everything was conducted in an orderly manner, the trade was thrown open to persons who flocked to China as an El Dorado. The Government sent out a nobleman (Lord Napier) as superintendent of trade, who was neither charged with the powers of a Plenipotentiary nor backed by a suitable force, but who landed at Canton in the dead of night, and who was accredited to no one but the head of the police and the Customs authorities of Canton. He was insulted, the trade was stopped, and al-
774
most every one who had anything to lose left the country. He (Sir James Elphinstone) was there at the time, and therefore spoke with a personal knowledge of the facts. Lord Napier's death brought that, state of things to an end, and for three or four years afterwards the trade was carried on under the most irregular circumstances. The seizure of opium, the burning of the factories, and a series of outrages upon British subjects led to the first Chinese war. The Government sent out Sir Henry Pottinger as Plenipotentiary, and he concluded the Treaty of Nankin, after hostilities that brought the Chinese Government into great disrepute with their subjects. That treaty was called a seven years' settlement. It was clearly impossible that the relations of the two countries could long rest upon the basis of that treaty. British subjects were exposed to indignities of every description; they were massacred and murdered; they were confined to the neighbourhood of Canton; the city of Canton, contrary to treaty engagements, was closed against them; and the affair of the Arrow was only the culminating point in the long list of injuries and indignities. He thought that Her Majesty's Government were perfectly in the right in this question of the Arrow, because if they allowed vessels that carried the British licence to be interfered with, the commerce of our settlements in those seas would soon fall to the ground. He should, therefore, have supported the Government of the noble Viscount in this dispute with the Chinese Government if he had had the honour of a seat in Parliament at that time. The second Chinese war resulted in the mission of Lord Elgin. In his belief, the whole of the operations of that war, up to the point when Lord Elgin left China, were conducted with singular ability, not only by our Plenipotentiary, but also by the gallant Admiral who commanded our naval forces (Sir M. Seymour). We then had another treaty, which, although it was an improvement on that of Sir Henry Pottinger, was not framed in that comprehensive spirit and regard to the future which ought to have characterized it. Lord Elgin was now going out again, and he trusted that in any future treaty the noble Lord might conclude provision would be made for placing our trade on such a footing that it could be carried on peaceably in future, humanizing and civilizing the Chinese, and giving us greater influence with the

775
Chinese Court. As regarded military operations he differed with the noble Lord as to the plan of operations he had appeared to shadow out, for, in his opinion, it would be a fatal mistake for the troops to advance upon Pekin. No doubt the insult perpetrated upon us deserved retribution; but, in the first instance, it ought to be put before the Chinese as demanding an ample apology and an indemnity large enough to compensate us for the loss of our vessels and material and compensation to those who were injured or their relatives, That was, he thought, as far as we could well go at the outset, failing such a settlement. He would then reduce the forts of the Pehio, but he would be very chary of going further in that direction. He should fall back, and take up the strategic position we ought to occupy, which was to hold the city of Nankin. He had always held that that city was the strategic point which we ought to occupy in China, and which would enable us completely to command that empire. He who held it would have a complete control over all the great producing districts, by the possession which it would give him of the command of all the commercial arteries of the country, and it would then be impossible for the Emperor to collect his revenue or exercise the powers of Government. He (Sir James Elphinstone) would first, therefore, take possession of the Taku forts, and then fall back upon Nankin, where he would make it known to the inhabitants that we were prepared to maintain order and to receive their produce. But if our forces were to go to Pekin the fleet must start in the month of April; some time would be required to reduce the Taku forts, and the month of August would have arrived before the troops could have got to the Chinese capital. Now, it was the opinion of every person acquainted with China that in that event the Emperor would retire into Mantchouria. He had not himself a doubt upon that point. Our army would then have to maintain order among a vast and turbulent rabble; they would have to spend the winter under a climate in which the thermometer sometimes fell to 20 or 30 degrees below zero, and their communications would be cut off by myriads of Tartars. They had all heard of the disasters of Cabul, and it would be too much in one lifetime to suffer from a similar calamity. Our troops might be able to overthrow any army which could be mustered against them, but the Chinese would probably not
776
collect together that we might butcher them. Asiatics would not fight under our conditions, and of all Asiatics the Chinese were the most subtle and ingenious. They would do everything to prevent our march to Pekin, and, when there, would, no doubt, do everything to make our stay as unpleasant as possible. Now, the policy he recommended was one which would checkmate the Emperor at starting, and to do this we ought to take possession of Nankin with a force of gunboats. This would enable us to keep the internal navigation of the country clear, and silk and tea would come to us down the tributaries; the atrocities alike of the rebels and the Imperialists would be prevented; the prosperity and safety of the producing districts would be insured; and the Emperor would at the same time be cut off from the fairest portion of his dominions and forced into a negotiation which, under proper management, would end in a more permanent settlement of the question. This, in his opinion, was the true solution of the Chinese difficulty. With regard to the rebellion, there seemed to be considerable misapprehension. It was of no recent occurrence, but appeared to have existed, more or less, from time immemorial. In 1820, when he went out to China, the rebels were in force in the province of Quangtung. The Chinese authorities then got Americans to fight for thorn, and one of these, a man named M'Gee, kept a public-house, was made a mandarin of the peacock's feather, and used to wait at dinner with his peacock's feather on. In 1849 a sort of semi-Christian movement took place in this province quite distinct from the normal rebellion with which, however, it became speedily identified, but our policy throughout had been of the most vacillating kind. Sometimes we supported the rebels, sometimes the Government; and all this time much of the Chinese coasting trade was thrown into the hands of foreigners, or the Chinese merchants had to pay black-mail for its convoy and protection from piracy. Unless the Government of Great Britain was in a position to take the Chinese Government into their own hands they were not warranted in weakening the power of the existing Imperial Government. The rebels had never carried on a regular Government of any kind, but had been guilty of rapine and murder wherever they went. The only chance of maintaining order and authority in China was to strengthen the hands of the existing Government; and

777
this was the view taken by Lord Elgin in one of his despatches addressed to Lord Clarendon. The noble Lord the Foreign Secretary, in the statement he had just made to the House, seemed to point to a demand for indemnification from China; but unless we laid hold of the export duties of the country we had no means of obtaining indemnity from that people. In the despatch from Lord Elgin read by the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster the great poverty of the Chinese was clearly pointed out, and he observed that it was unwise to put forward pecuniary claims upon them in such circumstances.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, the claim insisted on in the Treaty of Tien-tsin was £1,200,000, as compensation for losses sustained by Her Majesty's subjects.
SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONE: Yes, but the noble Lord now asked for an indemnity for the great armaments we were sending out to China. He told the noble Lord that it was impossible to obtain it. We had the Persian expedition to guide us in our calculations as to the probable expense of this expedition to China. The Persian expedition only lasted about five months, the distance from Bombay was 1,500 miles, and the sum the country was called upon to pay in order to meet the expenses of that expedition was£2,225,000. How much more than that amount was laid upon our willing horse, the empire of India, he never could ascertain correctly, but it was said that the whole cost of the Persian expedition amounted to £3,750,000, and it is most probable that it did not greatly, if at all, fall short of that sum. But that amount was expended upon a small force going a distance of 1,500 miles. Now, the distance from Bombay to the mouth of the Peiho was 5,000 miles, from Calcutta 1,700 miles, and from Madras 4,800 miles. The contrast price of coal for the expedition to the Peiho is £3 per ton. The horses, artillery, and attendants upon an army of 10,000 or 12,000 men, going such a distance, must be much larger than the number which was required for the Persian expedition; and the basis of the operations being India, the army must necessarily carry the greater part of its supplies with it. But supposing the whole thing to be done in a few months—though he did not expect it would take less than twelve months before the expedition could be at an end—and supposing it would be necessary to leave a force in the country to enforce the carrying out of the pro-
778
visions of the treaty, in that case his belief was that they would not get out of this Chinese war at a less cost than £10,000,000. And all this was to be incurred at a time when they had a deficiency of £7,000,000 or £8,000,000, of which no account was taken, but which must eventually conic out of the pockets of the people; and with a large deficiency and no adequate amount allowed for the expenses of the Chinese expedition, the result to this country would be disastrous. That was the reason why he had steadily opposed the financial measures of the present Government. As to the French, he could not conceive what brought them into this Chinese matter at all. During the sixteen years when he was in the habit of going backwards and forwards lo China, he found the whole of the French trade to that country represented by one ship, that brought out claret to China and took back some toys and green tea, and silk piece goods. He believed that that trade had lately increased, but he was sorry to say, in a most unfavourable direction; namely, in the carrying Coolies, which was neither more nor less than a system of slavery. This trade had been gradually increasing of late years, and had now reached a very unsupportable pitch. It was spreading throughout China a distrust and hatred of the Europeans, and especially of the English, because the inhabitants of China could not draw the distinction between us and the French nation in regard to this obnoxious trade, believing us to be the great promoters of that trade, because we were the only nation that appeared to have commercial transactions with them to any great extent. Now he was of opinion that this Coolie question was a most serious one, and must be dealt with summarily by us. He had heard nothing said by the Government as to the propriety of putting a question to the French Government upon this subject, and it was one that was eating into the vitals of cur Chinese trade, and would continue to do so until we took up the matter as we ought to do and settled it. Before he sat down he wished to impress upon the Government that they ought by no means to take the control of the army and fleets out of the hands of the military and naval commanders after a definite policy had been decided upon; because if an Ambassador, having the control, proposed to concentrate the forces on a given point, the Admiral in command, when two nations were co operating, would often be

779
embarrassed in the discharge of the service in consequence of having to consult the officers of the other nation with whom he was acting. Their great object in China now was to obtain by a permanent treaty arrangement the commodities which they went there to purchase, and in doing so they ought at all times to act as Christian merchants, to support the Imperial Government, defend the honour of our flag, and abstain from shedding the blood of the inhabitants in unnecessary quarrels, and to carry on all their transactions in the spirit of peace and justice.
MR. BRIGHT: Sir, when the speech in which the Session of Parliament was opened met my eyes, and when I came to the paragraph which referred to these unhappy transactions in China, I confess I was glad to see, or to think, that the tone of that paragraph was moderate, and indicated a disposition on the part of Her Majesty's Government to avoid any re-opening of the war with China. I presume that the Resolution which has been moved by the hon. and gallant Gentleman below me is a Resolution rather calling upon the House to support the Government in the policy which was indicated in Her Majesty's Speech. The words of it are such as I imagine every Member would be quite willing to support with his vote, and such as the Foreign Secretary would be ready to accept. There is another object, as it appears to me, in proposing this Resolution—namely, to afford the noble Lord an opportunity of making the statement which, on some previous evening, he gave the House to understand he would make on Chinese affairs. With that statement I confess I am a good deal disappointed; for he has not told us a single thing, except that the amount of force to be sent to China is only about half as much as that which had been stated by my hon. Friend near me. It appears to me that on occasions of this nature, when the country may possibly be dragged into a bloody and most costly contest, it is the duty of the Minister for Foreign Affairs to be a little more explicit to the House. We have had before us, on another occasion, a case which has been mentioned to-night by the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir J. Elphinstone)— that is, the war which was carried on with the kingdom of Persia, which cost more than £2,000,000, about which we heard nothing when it began, and about which nobody has heard anything since it ended, except that we have had an enormous sum
780
to pay for it. We are apparently involved in another transaction, which I think the most robust conscience in this House can never regard in the light of an honourable cause. Let us for a moment —and I shall not take up the time of the House more than a very few minutes— trace the progress of these transactions. I will not go back to the original Chinese war, which was about as bad as anything could be, but to that war which was commenced by the indiscretion — to use no harsher term—of Sir John Bowring, the English Plenipotentiary—which was based on a fraud,—upon that which the House of Commons has condemned as a positive lie; and although when there was a dissolution of Parliament a majority was returned to support the Minister who was then in office, yet no attempt has ever been made—and I think no Minister would ever pretend to attempt—to induce the House of Commons to reverse the judgment to which it came on that occasion; and I believe there is now scarcely a dissentient opinion throughout the country as to the folly and guilt of that transaction. One way or other that war came to an end, and a treaty was made under the auspices of a noble Lord who is at present a Member of the Cabinet. There was, in the negotiation of that treaty, a grave error committed. There seemed to be a constant disposition to introduce something into it which should be a special cause of aggravation to the Chinese, but which could be of no use to the trade or the political interests of this country; and one thing was insisted upon which has hitherto been unheard of in China—namely, that an English Minister should take up his residence at Pekin. It is a question open to discussion whether it is worth while to keep a Minister at any Court in the world—it is a question whether it would not be much better that all your Ambassadors should be withdrawn; and that when any difficulty arose between the Government of this country and any foreign Government you should send out a Minister for the special purpose of dealing with it. But, however, this question may be decided, that man must have a wonderful notion of English policy or English commerce who thinks that anything can be gained by picking up some inexperienced or some needy diplomatist—though I would not apply the term needy to this case—and sending him to reside at Pekin, where he will be the least comfortable,

781
and perhaps the very least wanted. That clause was inserted in the treaty, I believe, with the special object of humiliating the Chinese, and to give a proof of the absolute supremacy and triumph which the arms of England had obtained over the feeble Government of China. Now, to turn from the question of the treaty, to the question of its ratification—I do not understand why, in the midst of a political affair of this nature, a nobleman who had been the Minister who had arranged this treaty should not have stayed until the ratification was complete. There may have been reasons for his return that I do not know of, and it may be that the Minister who succeeded him has been, as compared with other men in the subordinate situations he has filled, fit for the position. He is a gentleman whom I never saw, of whom I know nothing, except for this transaction—indeed, I never heard his name until he went to China, and we found him engaged in a transaction so calamitous to this country and so calamitous also to the Government and people of China. In this second case I maintain that we are just as wrong as we were in the case of Sir John Bowring at Canton. All the arguments which the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs used in 1857 would, to my thinking, be valid against the case which he has undertaken in some sort to apologize for to-night. The noble Lord spoke of treachery that was exhibited towards the forces of England; but we have it on the authority of an English officer who was engaged in this sanguinary and unhappy affair, a gentleman holding the rank of captain, and connected with a high dignitary of the Church, who says there was no treachery whatever. And, more than that, if the Chinese had intended to be treacherous or to lay an ambuscade, he says that not a single vessel could have escaped, nor a single person on board have survived, had the Chinese taken the opportunity that was afforded them for firing on the squadron and inflicting such damage upon it as was open to them to do. The fact is, it is not worth our while, as sensible men, involved in the discredit and guilt of this transaction, to try and cover it up by charges of treachery against the Chinese. The charge is one of utter folly and imbecility on the part of our own Minister, and, nowithstanding all that may be said of the valour of the Admiral, of great indiscretion on his part. I hold that pru-
782
dence and valour are twins and go together. Together they do great things; but separate they end in disasters like this. I have no patience to hear in this House Gentlemen getting up and praising the valour of the commanders of vessels on occasions like this. Every man in the fleet, I suppose, showed equal valour; but the 400 or 500 men who were sacrificed on that occasion were sacrificed to the bad arrangements of the Admiral and the utter folly of the Minister. That is an opinion which I do not offer as my own, but as that of men who served in China, and the opinion, I undertake to say, of 99 out of 100 of all reflecting men in England who have read the narrative of this miserable transaction. Up to that point no one can blame the present Government. The noble Lord had just taken office in the very week in which this business took place in the Peiho; therefore he is not to be blame for what happened 15,000, miles away; but I think neither he nor his colleagues showed afterwards that judgment which might have been expected from men placed in responsible positions when they heard the accounts of this transaction. It appears to me no man could read the despatches and narrative, whether they came direct from the Chinese papers or from the correspondent in China of a London paper, or from Indian papers, or from private letters, or any other source, but that he must come to the conclusion that Mr. Bruce has been guilty of a great want of judgment, the consequence of which has been a most disastrous failure. But what has been done with a man who has shown a great lack of judgment and has failed disastrously? I do not pretend to say that I, or any other man may, not sometimes have failed in judgment; we may fail in many affairs of life:—but surely when a Minister placed in this responsible position 15,000 miles from home commits errors so grievous as to bring about results so startling and alarming to the people of this country, the first thing the Government should do would be not to continue such a man in an office of such responsibility, but to replace him by some one in whom the Government and country could hope to find a sounder judgment and better discretion. Nothing can be so absurd to my mind as negotiating with a people through a Minister who has just failed in the first and only transaction he has had with them, and whose mind must necessarily be irritated by his want of success; because, in-

783
stead of going to them with a mind unbiassed, entertaining generous sentiments and such regard for the people as the case admitted of, together with a sincere wish that both nations might live in amity with each other, his mind must he in a state of irritation at his own defeat. I say it is not possible to pick out from the whole world a man — considering equal competency in other respects—who would be so entirely unfitted to have the conduct of these further negotiations or operations, whatever they may be, as Mr. Bruce, who since these transactions has been continued as our Minister in China. If Gentlemen will read his despatches they will see that he never was fit for the office, because they will find that he commenced his negotiations in a spirit of what I must call most unfair suspicion and distrust. Almost every expression that he uses is one which shows ' how much he was disposed to affront rather than to consult the feelings of those with whom he was about to negotiate, and, in fact, he appears to make a positive claim to the confidence of his employers, the Government at home, because he wishes to do things precisely in that manner most calculated to mortify and humiliate the dignitaries of the Chinese empire. Well, if he was not fit for his office then, can he be fit for it now? If he be so great a man that Kwelliang, the Prime Minister over 300,000,000 of people, was not sufficiently great a man to meet him then, if you trust your future negotiations to him, I should not have the smallest expectation of their coming to a successful result; and I think the estimate of expense which the hon. Member for Portsmouth has laid before the House probably falls short of the bill that will ultimately have to be paid by us. But now the noble Lord, doing tardily that which some months ago ought to have been done, proposes to send Lord Elgin out again, with the hope that he may terminate this unhappy state of affairs. I am not able to say whether Lord Elgin is the most suitable man for the purpose; but from his experience and knowledge of Chinese affairs he would appear to be so. If he can clear his mind of all feeling, exasperation, or anything akin to that which Mr. Bruce has felt, then I do not know why he may not be as good a man for the purpose as any other man. Possibly, the failure of his brother may have this beneficial effect upon him, that he may be anxious by his own conciliatory conduct to close this dismal chapter, and he may be anxious by
784
his own conduct of affairs to veil the misfortune of his relative, and therefore he may prove, in the end, the most suitable man to send out to China. I find no fault with the selection of that noble Lord, for I presume there can hardly be a greater difficulty for a Minister than to select a suitable person to fill a most responsible and difficult position on the other side of the globe. I think the noble Lord should begin his instructions—which instructions, by the by, we are not allowed to know anything about—by not insisting upon that part of the treaty which requires that an English Minister should reside at Pekin. I confess, as I said before, I can see no advantage that could be gained to the trade or policy of this country by our Minister residing at Pekin; but if we are more powerful, and can send fleets and armies without stint to break up a great nation that has existed for centuries before we were heard of—if we can do all this, it is not necessary to use all this vast power in so ungenerous a manner as to annoy and insult the supreme governor of 300 or 400 millions of people. If the noble Lord at the head of the Government should speak to-night, or on any future occasion, I hope he will tell us what is the good to be expected from establishing Mr. Bruce, or Mr. Bruce's successor, at Pekin. If he can show that the good is something greatly overbalancing the evil, then we can consider it; but it seems to me to be—to use a rather favourite expression of the day — going to war for "an idea," and that idea about as stupid a one as ever entered into the head of any statesman. Now, on one point the hon. Member for Portsmouth has referred to I should like to make a few observations. The course being taken before going into this new war,—or this now crime, I do not know any other word for it—is one of an alliance with another nation. I am not one of those who are always expressing distrust of the Emperor of the French; I speak with respect on all occasions of the Emperor of the French, the Emperor of Austria, and all the Powers that rule in all countries, as much as any person with whom I am acquainted. But this may be the case—the objects of another Government may be different from the objects of this Government. The noble Lord has told us there is no convention with France as to this transaction; no specific agreement between the two countries as to what they are going to war for, what are to be the terms of peace, how the cost

785
is to be defrayed, or if either Power intends to retain any territory in China. All these points were arranged before the Russian war; but they have not been arranged before the Chinese war; and we may be dragged into complications in China that will cause immeasurable evil there, and lead afterwards to serious complications and unpleasantness nearer home. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot feel very happy if he heard the speech of the hon. Member for Portsmouth, and his estimate of the probable expenses of this war. As to expense, it appears to me that the country and Parliament have become absolutely drunk on the question. The "words of truth and soberness," such as I endeavour to speak on this subject, are treated as if I were talking of the affairs of the people of another planet, which we have nothing on earth to do with. Here is a great toiling nation of 30,000,000 of inhabitants, increasing every census, with its exports doubling every few years, its population enjoying itself more and more; this is the vast reservoir from which Parliament and the Chancellor of the Exchequer think they can draw inexhaustible streams of wealth, to pay the cost of a policy so idiotic as this we are pursuing in China. I believe the hon. Member for Portsmouth is right in all his calculations and estimates of the cost of the expedition. The calculations we have heard from the Treasury Bench are the mere fringes of that immense mass of cost that must come down on us, if we live to another year. Hon. Gentlemen opposite charge me with having some special affection for the present tenants of that bench. I have always felt a great interest in everybody who has been powerful on that bench since I have had a seat in this House, when I thought they pursued a course in harmony with the true interests of the country and the opinions I have formed of what is necessary for those true interests. I do not blame the Government for any considerable wrong they have done, because they came into this transaction as a legacy of misfortune from their predecessors. But when I approach this Chinese question I confess I think the Government stands on grounds so slippery that I should not be in the least surprised if in the next Session of Parliament—should they be living as a Government, as I hope they may—they find themselves ingulfed by this very Chinese question, which has once before caused political changes in
786
this House. When that discussion took place three years ago I was spending some weeks in the city of Rome. I there received a letter from the hon. Member for Rochdale, written immediately after that division; speaking of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech, I recollect well that he said it was "a marvel of persuasive eloquence." That is true; I have heard the statement confirmed by others who listened to that speech. But the right hon. Gentleman on that occasion was speaking on behalf of great principles of justice, and telling the House that what is called the prestige of England is valueless to the nation if it is not based on an equitable policy to other nations. I am not charging the Government with having been inequitable, nor blaming them for transactions of which they are not guilty. I am only warning them against two things—first, against forming a partnership with another Power in transactions which, in connection with another Power, they cannot control; next, against making demands on the Government of China based only on the disaster caused by the folly of their own Minister, and which they have no right, in the sight of God or man, to make. Looking hack on our transactions with China during the last few years, I believe nothing more vicious can be found in our history; no page of our annals is more full of humiliation, because full of crime, than that on which is recorded our transactions with China; and, because I feel this—because I wish the Government to live and prosper—because I wish this House to stand in honour before the country—because I wish the country to hold a position of repute at morality before the world, therefore it is warn the Government and this House against proceeding with a policy which no man here can say in his conscience is not a policy conducted in defiance of the laws of Heaven, and those principles of justice without which human society itself cannot be held together.
MR. SIDNEY HERBERT: Sir, the hon. Member for Portsmouth appears to have misconceived what fell from the noble Lord (Lord John Russell), from the emphatic manner in which he has warned the Government against giving instructions for our forces to advance to Pekin. The hon. Member's speech is, however, inconsistent in its main principles. The hon. Member's policy consists of an advance on Nankin, which he admits is at this time in the hands of the rebels, or

787
left an utter desert and waste; and he endeavoured to show that we ought to advance upon that city, not for the purpose of putting a temporary pressure on the Chinese Government, but with a view of permanently retaining it. Now, Nankin is either a waste or in the hands of a body of the Chinese people, with whom we are not at war. Our object has been to localize the war as much as possible—to show that we are engaged in hostilities with the Government only, and wish the people to suffer as little as possible. The hon. Member says Nankin ought to be permanently annexed. [Sir J. ELPHINSTONE: Occupied.] Well, "annex" and "occupy" are nearly convertible terms. But I am certain Her Majesty's Government will not be disposed to adopt his advice. Nothing could be more disastrous than saddling ourselves with a tract of country which must involve us in hostilities, and could be but of little use. Then the hon. Gentleman quarrelled with the moderation of the terms of the Government. He blames it for having only required the ratification of the treaty as it stood, and that it has not demanded any indemnity for the war, though he had before said the country is so impoverished it would be impossible to get any. I think the hon. Member's warning that the English and French troops should not march too far into the interior is superfluous. If there are any two armies in the world that do not require a warning against advancing on Nankin, up a river frozen in winter, through an immense population, relatively to which any army must be small, they are the armies of France and England. The English army has the recollections of Cabul, and we should not be willing to incur any similar disaster. The French army, too, has advanced on foreign capitals, from which it barely returned, and could cite its own experience against the attempt. The hon. Member has referred to the difficulties in some of the Chinese towns caused by the Coolie emigration; a very valuable officer, Mr. Austen, has directed his special attention to this subject; and I hope other European nations are accommodating themselves to our mode of conducting the traffic, and that complications with the Chinese from this cause will be prevented. Now let me come to the speech of the hon. Member for Birmingham. He said, with great truth, that this is not a question which the two sides of the House need discuss with asperity; for both
788
have been engaged in the transactions that led to the mishap of the Peiho. The instructions were originally given by Lord Clarendon, and adopted by Lord Malmesbury. Mr. Bruce was, I believe, appointed by Lord Malmesbury. There can, there-fore, be no party recriminations as to the misfortunes that have occurred. But he also says the treaty bargained for things I not necessary. I have no wish to say a single word in defence of the treaty of Tien-tsin. I have an opinion of my own on Chinese matters. Looking back on all the history of our transactions with China, I think we have there been "in a wrong groove," and it is very difficult to get out of it. But I hope the statesmanship of the noble Earl who is about to go to China may obtain for us a better footing there. It may be true that the treaty imposes upon the Chinese conditions which they did not anticipate, and conferred upon us certain advantages. But, at the same time, two Governments represented on both sides of the House have adopted the treaty, so that it constitutes, as it were, a point of departure. Now, it is possible that there is no necessity that there should be an English Minister resident at Pekin. Lord Elgin appeared to be of that opinion; for, although he stipulated for the right of being able to go to head-quarters in case any difficulty should arise, he at the same time assured the Chinese Government that, except on those occasions upon which some misconduct on the part of its officials gave cause for complaint, the English Minister would not insist upon going to Pekin and residing there. Indeed, he rather held the occurrence of such an event in terrorem over them, in case the Chinese Government should act with injustice towards British subjects. But be that as it may, the Treaty at Tien-tsin is now a fait accompli, and has been accepted by both sides of the House, and its ratification must therefore be insisted on. We have not, even subsequent to the attack at the mouth of the Peiho, attached any onerous conditions to that ratification. All, indeed, that we have demanded is that the ratification should take place. It must be borne in mind that the question is one which was beset with great difficulties. The affair of the Peiho took place on the 25th of June. When the news with respect to it reached us, we had to decide upon the conduct of our officers in a remote part of the world. It is also but just to Mr. Bruce to state that his was a very difficult position; he

789
was perplexed by the vacillation of the Chinese plenipotentiaries at Shanghai; he had to contend during the whole summer with the duplicity of their diplomacy. I do not reproach the Chinese functionaries on this account, because I am not quite sure that duplicity quite as glaring did not characterize the diplomacy of European nations boasting the highest civilization, within a period stretching not quite so far back as the end of the last century, nor am I sure it is quite free from it even now. At all events, Mr. Bruce saw that the object of the Chinese was to frustrate by delay the object which he had in view. He accordingly proceeded to the mouth of the Peiho, and he found on his arrival there the entrance barricaded. I may here observe that I think the hon. Member for Birmingham is slightly in error in the expressions on this point to which he gave utterancce, for it does not follow that an ambuscade is not resorted to with a treacherous design because it does not succeed. There is, at all events, no doubt that our officers went up to the barricade in perfect good faith. When they reached it they found no flags flying, and no men of rank came down to receive them. The issue was, as we are all aware, that a battery opened on them and that great slaughter took place. Now, that being so, it is quite clear that, whatever may have been the wisdom of our policy towards China in former years, we have now but one course to pursue with respect to that country. We may hope to obtain the ratification of the Treaty of Tien-tsin without bloodshed, but it is, I contend, absurd to approach the Chinese with that object without making some demonstration of force to show that we are capable of carrying our wishes into effect. It is very easy, I cannot help saying, to be wise after the event, and to criticise the conduct of men with the view of showing that they have displayed a great want of judgment. But that is not exactly a fair way of looking at the matter, and, when we are told that the Americans negotiated successfully with the Chinese, it must be borne in mind that they merely asked to be allowed to come within the scope of the most favoured nation clause, and that their privileges in the matter were greatly facilitated by the negotiations of Lord Elgin and the presence of an English fleet. The truth is that the Chinese look upon all "whites," whether Europeans or Americans, as members almost of the same
790
nation, and what they had granted to one nation they would never think of refusing to another. With regard to those persons who have censured the proceedings in China, I will remind them that it is easy to be wise after the event, and to criticise the conduct of men acting at a great distance from home and surrounded by difficulties; but let me suppose that Admiral Hope had succeeded in silencing the fire of the Chinese batteries, and had accomplished his purpose, nothing would then, I imagine, be said in derogation of the judgment displayed by Mr. Bruce. But, passing from that point, I have the strongest expectation that Lord Elgin on his arrival in China will be able to place this question on a better footing. He possesses, in my opinion, many of the qualities which are necessary to effect that object. He has great local experience. He it is who made the Treaty of Tien-tsin, and he must be in a peculiar manner desirous that peace should be established on a durable and permanent basis. You cannot, moreover, read the blue-books connected with this subject without perceiving that he is inclined to the opinion that we are asking too much from the Chinese. Through the whole of his correspondence, indeed, there is breathed on his part a spirit of conciliation which animates me with the utmost hope that we shall be able, with his assistance and the great demonstration of force which we are about to make—for we could not carry our views into effect without such a demonstration—to place our relations with the Chinese empire upon a satisfactory footing. I shall now say no more on the subject, but when the House goes into Committee I shall be prepared to explain the circumstances and amount of the Vote which we are about to ask you to grant this evening.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: Sir, I quite concur with the right hon. Gentleman that the discussion on this important subject is one which need not assume a party character. The late Government, I am aware, appointed Mr. Bruce, and we should be very much to blame if we endeavoured to escape from any responsibility which attaches to us in this matter. But, while I agree with the right hon. Gentleman to this extent, I am sorry to be obliged to add that he has not in the course of his observations relieved me from that disappointment with which I heard the statement of the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs. In making that state-

791
ment I think the noble Lord has hardly acted up to the promise which he made on a former occasion, when I understood him to say that at no distant date — as soon as the despatches which he then expected should have been received—he would make a full explanation to the House as to the policy of the Government with respect to the position of affairs in China. We are still loft in ignorance upon that point. The subject is one in reference to which I am sure the Government cannot complain that they have been subjected to undue pressure from this side of the House. The contrary, indeed, has been the case; for owing to the great interest which we have felt in the discussions on the Budget, on matters of foreign policy, and the approaching debate on the Reform Bill, the attention of Parliament has been to a great extent diverted from the consideration of this most important question. This matter involves considerations of the first import-once. It involves what are hereafter to be our relations with that great and peculiar people, the Chinese; it involves an immense amount of trade with that quarter of the world,—I am sorry to say, at this moment it involves the question whether or not we are to embark in a most costly and difficult war; and, lastly, it involves the question of what is the becoming conduct for the Government of ibis country to take after that most disastrous reverse Her Majesty's arms sustained at the mouth of the Peiho. I think, too, that that most unfortunate event involves the question in such extreme difficulty as to entitle the Government to the support and assistance of the House. Approaching this difficult and embarrassing question in this spirit, I quite admit that, after that unhappy affair at the mouth of the Peiho, it is the undoubted duty of our Government to see that our power and prestige in the East are not diminished. On that account I am not disposed to find any fault with the Government for having sent out a powerful armament to support any demand they may think proper to make on the Emperor of China. I think it was their duty to do so. They have acted wisely to that extent. But the hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham—in a great part of whose speech I entirely concur—alluded to the speech delivered two years ago by the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, a speech which the hon. Member for Birmingham did not himself hear, from a cause which now happily exists no longer,
792
but which was described to him by the hon. Member for Rochdale in terms he quoted to the House, and to the justice of which I entirely subscribe. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will not suspect me of any intention or spirit of flattery when I say that I think that speech was the finest and most impressive I ever heard in this House. I only hope the right hon. Gentleman has not forgotten the sentiments he then expressed. The noble Lord, the Foreign Secretary, also addressed us on that occasion. He was not then, as now, sitting side by side with the noble Viscount. He then stood in very different relations to the noble Lord from those in which he is now placed; and I believe neither the House nor the noble Lord can have forgotten the emphasis with which he, in a spirit of equity and wisdom, in which I heartily concurred, bade this House be just and fear not. That was the maxim the noble Lord laid down; and in the present difficult and anxious state of our relations with China I earnestly hope that the noble Lord will now act on that principle,—be just and fear not. The noble Lord told us tonight that he would not raise any question as to the conduct of Mr. Bruce; and I have no desire to force any discussion on that conduct more than is unavoidable. But I must say that the extent to which the noble Lord to-night abstained from giving us any view of the intended policy of the Government does force us, in my opinion, to enter in some degree on the conduct of Mr. Bruce, because that conduct lies at the very root of the policy which the Government are to adopt. Well, I have stated that I think the Government are right in making a demonstration of force in China; but the noble Lord—and that is one of the respects in which he has told us the policy of the Government—the noble Lord made an announcement to-night, in confirmation of what he told us on a former occasion, to which the hon. Member for Birmingham did not allude,—that one of the demands which the Government do intend to make of the Government of China is an apology for the transactions that took place at the mouth of the Peiho. The hon. Baronet the Member for Portsmouth (Sir J. Elphinstone) adverted to that demand of the Government, and in terms of approbation. I know not how far the views I entertain on this subject will find favour in the general opinion of the House, but this is a matter of so much importance, involving

793
consequences of such moment to this country, that I cannot stop to ask whether my views may find favour in this House, or to what extent they may be shared; but I feel it my duty to state those views, and I wish to put it to the House and the Government whether, looking to the unfortunate origin of that transaction at the mouth of the Peiho, looking to the whole conduct of Mr. Bruce in this matter, we are entitled to demand an apology from the Chinese or not. If this is to be your policy—if you are to demand an apology from the Government of China, that decision involves of necessity two questions—first, do the facts as they occurred, acting in that spirit of justice to which I have adverted, justify the demand for an apology? And the second question which of necessity arises is this— if that apology should be refused, what is the alternative? Let me advert for a moment to a question on which the noble Lord has not touched to-night; nor, indeed, has the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. S. Herbert) referred to it, but I have heard it adverted to before—namely, that the instructions of Lord Malmesbury to Mr. Bruce under the late Government were such as to justify the course pursued by Mr. Bruce. Now, I entirely dispute that proposition. [Lord JOHN RUSSELL: I did not say so.] I did not impute it to the noble Lord; on the contray, I said he did not say so; but the statement has been made by others, and I cannot help adverting to it. Now, I can see nothing in the instructions of Lord Malmesbury that called on Mr. Bruce to make that attack off Peiho. With the permission of the House I will read the very few words of Lord Malmesbury'a despatch which really bear on this question. [Mr. BRIGHT: What is the date of the despatch?] I quote the first despatch in the printed papers, dated March 1, 1859. The only instructions to Mr. Bruce, which appear to bear on this point, are contained in these words: —
"The Admiral in command of Her Majesty's naval forces in China has been directed to send up with you to the mouth of the Peiho a sufficient naval force, and unless any unforeseen circumstances should appear to make another arrangement more advisable, it would seem desirable that you should reach Tien-tsin in a British ship of war."
I know no other expressions from which it is possible to say that Lord Malmesbury had instructed Mr. Bruce to force his way up the Peiho; and that is the question upon which the matter will ultimately turn. I will not at this late hour detain the House
794
by entering into these despatches more than is necessary to establish this point; but I desire to show that Mr. Bruce was not justified in ordering the attack in the Peiho, therefore I will at once direct the attention of the House to the despatch Mr. Bruce received from the Chinese Commissioners Kweiliang and Hwashana. I think that Mr. Bruce acted with discretion in refusing to negotiate at Shanghai. It is quite clear that, for reasons of their, own they wished to detain him at Shanghai and there reopen negotiations; but Mr. Bruce, I repeat, acted with judgment in refusing to remain at Shanghai to negotiate. But when the Chinese Commissioners found that Mr. Bruce was determined to proceed on his mission to Pekin, and would not re-open the negotiations, that very important despatch was written on the 12th of June by them, on which mainly, if not solely, turns the question as to the propriety of Mr. Bruce's attack on the Peiho forts. That despatch says: —
"The Commissioners feeling that it would not be correct that the day appointed for that purpose [to exchange the ratifications of the treaty], which was near at hand, should be passed, after due deliberation decided that the only course open to them was to represent the matter fully to his Majesty the Emperor, and to request him to be pleased specially to select some high officer who might proceed to Tien-tsin to make arrangements for Mr. Bruce's reception. Their memorial was sent forward at the rate of 200 miles a day, and would arrive at the latest in some eight or nine days at Pekin, so that it might be assumed that when Mr. Bruce and the Ministers of France and America reached Tien-tsin the Imperial Commissioners could not fail to have arrived as well, and so the exchange of treaties in Pekin would be effected by the time fixed for the purpose.…. It behaves them, therefore, in obedience to His Majesty's commands, to return post haste to the capital. As they have prayed His Majesty to detach a high officer to act as agent in the matter, Mr. Bruce will be certainly enabled to arrive at his destination by the time appointed. With the peaceful relations now established between the two nations, nothing certainly will be done that is not in conformity with the provisions of the treaty, and the Commissioners accordingly pray Mr. Bruce at once to put away all misgiving on that subject. … His mission being a pacific one (or as he comes speaking peace) his treatment by the Government of China will not fail to be in every way courteous; and it is the sincere wish of the Commissioners that relations of friendship may be from this time forth consolidated, and that on each side confidence may be felt in the good faith and justice of the other."
Now, I wish to ask the Government what diplomatists in any country could have held language more perfectly fair—more perfectly consistent with the bonâ fide intention to execute the treaty at Tien-tsin

795
than that which I have read? Could Mr. Bruce take the slightest exception to that language? On the contrary, was not Mr. Bruce bound, after receiving this letter from the Commissioners, at any rate to have waited the course of events the Commissioners had indicated in that despatch? I cannot see that he had the least pretence for doubting the proposal they made. But what did Mr. Bruce do on the receipt of this despatch? The despatch was dated the 12th of June. Eight or nine days were necessary, on their own showing, to communicate with Pekin. Mr. Bruce then proceeded to the mouth of the Peiho, and, without waiting to see whether or not these Commissioners were acting in good faith, he gave directions to Admiral Hope to break through the barriers and force the passage of the Peiho. What is the language of Mr. Bruce on this subject? In the despatch in which he describes the failure of the attack on the Peiho, he writes thus to Lord Malmesbury:—
"After a long and anxious consultation M. de Bourboulon and I decided that we ought to adhere strictly to the course laid down in our letters to Kweiliang at Shanghai, and that we should insist, as much for the sake of our future communications with Pekin as for the successful accomplishment of the mission now confided to us, on the right of using the river as the natural highway to the capital."
And a little further on he adds:—
"I do not think that in any case we ought to have allowed our right to choose the only expeditious and commodious route to the capital to be questioned."
I speak with diffidence on this point in the presence of those conversant with such questions when I say I believe that Mr. Bruce is not supported by the law of nations in laying down the proposition that they had the right to choose the route by which they should proceed to the Chinese capital. But, however that may be, I hold that he was wrong in not waiting longer to see how far the promises made by the Chinese Commissioners at Shanghai would be fulfilled. In the same despatch Mr. Bruce speaks of the difficult task that lay before him in carrying the treaties into full operation, and ensuring a reception at Pekin "on terms to the last degree mortifying to Chinese arrogance." I am sorry to find those expressions in Mr. Bruce's despatches. I have no desire to comment with unnecessary harshness on that gentleman's conduct; but the papers show that he has been impressed throughout
796
these transactions with the idea that the Chinese authorities ought to be approached in a very different spirit from that wise caution and moderation which, in my opinion, would have best enabled him to perform the difficult duty assigned to him. Well, what happened immediately afterwards? Not waiting for the answer to the message sent to Pekin, Mr. Bruce directed the unfortunate attack on the 25th of June to be made on the forts of the Peiho. At 9 o'clock on that morning a junk came alongside Her Majesty's ship Magicienne, the vessel in which Mr. Bruce was stationed, and which was anchored about nine miles from the forts, bringing an offer from the Governor General of Pechelee to welcome the British Envoy at Peh-tang-ho, whence he might proceed to Pekin by land. The Secretary of State for War has told us we are apt to be very wise after the event. I admit that we are arguing this' question with that advantage; but surely we must not allow that consideration to deter us from endeavouring to place ourselves, as nearly as we can, in the position in which our Minister stood at the time, and then passing a fair judgment on his conduct. Why, I ask, was the Magicienne at a distance of nine miles from the scene of action? That was not the case with the American Minister. He was on the spot at the critical moment, although far less interested in what was going on than our representative. When the communication reached Mr. Bruce inviting him to Peh-tang-ho, in my opinion he ought, if possible, to have countermanded his orders for the attack. For what was the invitation he received? Here is the translation of the Chinese communication:—
"Hang, Governor General of Chili, Ac, makes a communication. In obedience to the commands of His Imperial Majesty, the Governor General has come to Peh-tang-ho, a port (or harbour) to the northward of Ta-koo, to be of any service (or to do the honours to) Her Britannic Majesty's Envoy. As the negotiators of the treaty made last year, His Majesty the Emperor has issued a decree commanding the Chief Secretary of State, Kweiliang, and the President of the Board of Civil Office, Hwashana, to return from Shanghai to Pekin and they may arrive any day. If the Envoy of Her Britannic Majesty will have the goodness to wait until the Chief Secretary Kweiliang and his colleagues reach the capital, they will thereupon receive him at once, and he will enter the capital to exchange the treaties (or will exchange the treaties in the capital)."
I appeal to the House whether this invitation, made directly from the Governor

797
General of the province on the morning of the 25th of June, although it may not have boon the direct result of the previous communications from Shanghai, does not exactly correspond with it in spirit? Was it not a carrying out, as far as the Chinese authorities could do so, of their avowed intention to receive our Minister with all proper honour, and expedite his mission to Pekin? I must express my strong opinion that after what passed at Shanghai—after the despatch of the 12th of June, Mr. Bruce was not warranted in ordering the attack of the 25th. Still less, after the invitation sent to him on the morning of the 25th, was the unhappy attack on the forts to be justified. And if it was not justified, are we entitled to demand an apology? The Chinese only did what they had a perfect right to do in barring the entrance of the river. I admit that their conduct at the mouth of the Peiho was not ingenuous or straightforward. [Lord J. RUSSELL: Hear, hear.] The noble Lord cheers, but he is not able to tell me who was responsible for the deception practised on that occasion. The Chinese pretended that there were only militia there; and when Admiral Hope sent in to make certain demands he was met by people who said that the barrier was placed there only to exclude rebels. Nobody, surely, will contend, considering the character of the nation with whom we have to deal, and after the communications received from high officials and persons in authority, that because of these doubtful proceedings at the mouth of the Peiho, the responsibility for which cannot be traced to any one, we are justified in using force to choose our route to the Chinese capital. For, remember, there was no dispute as to our Minister going to Pekin to exchange the ratifications. The Chinese Commissioners at Shanghai fully conceded that point. The only question was as to the route to be taken; and under those circumstances it cannot be maintained that we were warranted in attempting to break through the barriers, and in declaring that we would go by the Peiho, and in no other way. But supposing we demand an apology, and it is refused, what is to be the alternative? Are Her Majesty's Government going to embark the country in a protracted and sanguinary war with China on so doubtful a plea? I hope not. I think the Government are right in requiring that the treaty shall be ratified, and in making a powerful demonstration to support that demand. But I take exception
798
to their intention to insist on an apology, unless they are prepared—which I hope they are not—to make the refusal of that apology a cause of war. At the same time, if they are not so prepared, it would be most unwise to demand the apology at all. The noble Lord alluded to a very doubtful point—namely, how far the Ambassadors have power over the commanders of the naval and military forces, and the extent to which they could direct the operations. What does the noble Lord mean by "the Ambassadors stopping those operations?" Have instructions gone out to commence hostilities before the arrival of the Ambassadors? That is a point on which the House ought to be informed. I believe by the time the two Ambassadors reach China the season will be very far advanced for military enterprises. With regard to the appointment of Lord Elgin, I am happy to say I make no exception or objection. I believe that, looking to the great knowledge which that noble Lord must have acquired of the habits and usages of the Chinese, the Government could not have made a better selection of their negotiator; I but I confess I am anxious to learn on, what footing Mr. Bruce is to remain. Is he to continue in a diplomatic position, or will Lord Elgin supersede him? Are both of them to receive salaries from the country as Ambassadors to China? In conclusion, I may express a hope that the noble Lord at the head of the Government; will be able to give us some more satisfactory information with regard to the future policy of the country than has yet been afforded by the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs or the right hon. Gentleman who has last addressed us.
MR. G. W. HOPEsaid, that no one was more ready than himself to assent to the doctrine of the hon. Member for Birmingham, when speaking of Admiral Hope, that personal gallantry was no excuse for alleged misdirected operations; and he ventured to think that Admiral Hope himself would willingly subscribe to that doctrine. The real question was, whether the hon. Member for Birmingham was justified in asserting that these operations at the Peiho were undertaken without a reasonable prospect of success. He did not allege that there was any cause to suspect an ambuscade, and he had not seen any statement in Admiral Hope's despatches to that effect. He would put the case on broader and more general grounds, and maintain that if we looked to the whole

799
history of our wars in China there was nothing in this case to justify Admiral Hope in refusing to obey the instructions he had received. There was no ground for asserting that the Admiral made no reconnaissance, the fact was that he took all the means in his power to obtain information; and admitting the truth of everything that had been stated, that the forts were in a state of sufficient preparation, better than Chinese forts usually were; that foreign auxiliaries were present, and that Russian caps and Russian faces were seen behind the entrenchments, was there in these circumstances sufficient reason for him to decline the contest? He would put it to any professional man, or even unprofessional man, present whether he would not have been held to have disgraced himself had he done so? But there was also another point of view from which it was fair to look at the question. It has been said that the operations in China had been wholly unsuccessful; but was it true that they were so in every part? Until the hon. Member for Birmingham made his observations to-night, the opinions expressed in the House had been so generally favourable to Admiral Hope that he had not prepared himself with references to despatches; but this, he remembered, that the statement by Admiral Hope was distinct — and, indeed, it was admitted by the Chinese themselves, though, of course, with some attempted explanation—that the firing from his guns silenced those of the forts. Now, if the Admiral was able to conduct the operations so far successfully, was it possible to say that he was not justified in undertaking them? He now came to the disastrous part of the affair—the landing. He knew that Admiral Hope took upon himself the responsibility of that part of the operations; but, he asked, was he morally responsible for it? He stood by his men, and fought his best—when he was completely disabled the command fell into other hands, and though with the feelings of a gentleman he took on himself the responsibility of the whole operations, it was too much to say that because that part that was not conducted by him personally had proved unsuccessful he was responsible for all the disaster. He did not wish further to enter into the question except to protest, with the hon. Member for Birmingham, against the further waste of gallant lives in such operations. He was not one of those who looked for
800
the millennium of peace, when wars were to cease, but he remembered hearing an opinion expressed by Sir Robert Peel, in which he agreed, that no war undertaken for mere pecuniary or commercial purposes was ever worth the cost of blood and treasure expended. He did not object to war when honour, interest, safety, or justice, demanded it, but he did object to wars such as these Chinese wars, in which success brought no honour, and failure could only be atoned for by devoted personal heroism.
MR. CUMMING BRUCEsaid, he could not refrain from asking the permission of the House to read an extract from a letter of the representative of Her Majesty in China with regard to the conduct of that gallant admiral, on whom the hon. Member for Birmingham, having wasted all his eulogy and admiration on the Emperor of the French, had thought fit to pour the vials of his indignation. The British Minister wrote of the gallant officer, with whom he was acting,
"Our Admiral is a hero of the antique stamp; such coolness, pluck, and devotion to his duty; he is a great character, say of him what we will. If he underrated his foe, I should like to know who did not; and, as he had never fought with Chinese, he could only form his opinion from what other people had told him. People in England talk as if he went in for attack; but that is not so. We went in to ascend the river, the only high road, and that up which Lord Macartney had gone. No Chinese authorities had told us we were not to take that route; the forts, they declared, were not put up with any intention against us; and no soldiers or banners had been seen there the week before. The gun-boats lay inside the bar, and we had no reason to doubt that, if they advanced boldly and peaceably, to carry out the instructions we had received, they might ascend the river without any such opposition being offered."
These were the remarks of our Minister in China. He also held in his hand a letter from a gallant French officer who served out there, and who said that
"there was nothing to criticise in the conduct of Admiral Hope; but that great praise was due to him for having covered with high honour the most disastrous check which had ever been undergone in China;"
The French officer went on to remark that,
"properly speaking, there was no attack made, but that the object sought was only to open the passage; and that, in the opinion of those best qualified to judge of the moral value of the Chinese resistance, it might well have been presumed that intimidation alone would have sufficed to remove it."
With regard to the landing, the same French writer thought that, even if this

801
had been done by Admiral Hope's authority, it was a step which he might have been justified in taking. Our Minister, Mr. Bruce, had been blamed by the hon. Member for Birmingham, inasmuch as he received a message from the Governor General of the province at nine o'clock in the morning, and yet the attack went on; that he took no notice of it, and did not suspend operations against the Chinese. But the facts were these. The booms were blown up on the night of the 24th. On the 25th two junks arrived, with provisions, and a letter from the Governor General of the province. There was some informality in the letter, and Mr. Bruce immediately went on board the French Minister's ship to communicate with him. While he was there, consulting with his French colleague, the firing began. The filing continued till night. It was supposed that he might have stopped the firing; but the fact was, that the Magicienne was anchored outside the bar, ten miles from shore. No news came during the day; the Ambassadors were most anxious, but the state of the tide rendered it impossible to communicate with the Admiral. In fact, all the boats of the Magicienne were employed inside the bar, with the gun-boats; and they had no other boat capable of facing such weather. One member of the Embassy, with the master of the Magicienne, did, in fact, endeavour, in the ship's gig, to communicate with the shore, but found it was utterly impossible, and was obliged to return, re infectâ. The conduct of the Minister, in not communicating with the Admiral, was not, therefore, so unjustifiable and inhuman as some hon. Gentlemen declared. Another thing which Mr. Bruce had been unduly condemned for was, not having adopted the course which the American Minister did, in proceeding by another way to Pekin. It was very easy to criticise after the event. But, on his return from the capital, the American Minister called upon our Ambassador on his way down, and authorized him to state officially that, after his experience at Pekin, he (the American Minister) was perfectly persuaded that Mr. Bruce had followed the only course which could have led to any satisfactory result. Mr. Bruce had been much blamed for simply acting upon his instructions, which were to obtain the ratification of this treaty at Pekin, and at Pekin only; he was not entitled to receive if at Shanghai, but he was to insist on all the tokens of respect due to
802
the Minister of a great and equal power. If he had consented to go to Pekin by any other road than that only known and recognized highway by which Lord Macartney and Lord Amherst had gone before him, this would have been, in the eyes of the Chinese, a confession of inferiority and a submission to insult. If he had done so, he would have violated his instructions, and thrown away all the advantages gained by the Treaty of Tien-tsin. He (Mr. C. Bruce) regretted this evasion, on the part of the Chinese, of their treaty engagements, but he did not yet think what had happened would necessarily lead to a renewal of the war, if the negotiation was conducted in a proper spirit. He hoped a renewal of the war would be avoided, because it would be a war in which our success would itself be a calamity for our own interests, inasmuch as it would lower the prestige of the Chinese Government, the only means of preserving order amongst two or three hundred millions of people; and if it brought about a state of anarchy in China, that would be cutting up our commerce by the roots. But he thought the effect of this defeat— as he was afraid it must be called—at the mouth of the Pehio had been much exaggerated; and that the Chinese Government, perhaps, "frightened at the sound themselves had made," would submit to the terms which our Ambassador would offer; and that nothing would occur to prevent the peaceful ratification of the treaty. A great deal had been said about the worthlessness of the stipulations of this treaty that we should have a Minister resident at Pekin; but he was at a loss to reconcile the description which had been given by the hon. Baronet the Member for Portsmouth (Sir James Elphinstone) with the miserable and unsatisfactory state of our former relations with China. It must be remembered, however, that three Governments in succession had recognized the necessity of having a British Minister at Pekin. He must also remind the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. B. Cochrane) that Lord Elgin was expressely precluded by his instructions from making a treaty which did not confer a right to enter Pekin. It must also be remembered that the people of China were not averse to our expedition; the gallant Admiral admitted that the peasants themselves came down to assist him in getting the gun-boats up the river. What we had really to overthrow was the authority of the mandarins. Mr. Bruce had been blamed for

803
going to China with a preconceived notion that everybody was against him. But Mr. Bruce thought that the war party had recovered its influence in China, and that he could obtain the treaty only at the place where he was authorized to do so, namely, at Pekin. But what would have been said if Mr. Bruce, from the fear that his entrance would be opposed, had turned tail towards the coast? Would he not in that case have deserved the censure which had been thrown upon him? In his opinion Mr. Bruce had been most unfairly and unjustifiably attacked, and he trusted the House would excuse him for having felt it his duty to state the subject to the House in the way in which he had.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I entirely agree with the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir J. Pakington), that when you are judging the conduct of a man, you ought to imagine yourself to be in the situation in which he was placed when he performed the act upon which you are passing judgment, and I think that that is the way in which the conduct of Mr. Bruce ought to be considered. What were Mr. Bruce's instructions? He was instructed to exchange the ratifications of the Treaty of Tien-tsin; he was told that those ratifications were, in accordance with an Article of the treaty, to be exchanged at Pekin; he was therefore ordered to go to Pekin, and he was told to go by the Peiho. He was told that from the mouth of the Peiho he was to go up the river in a ship of war as far as Tien-tsin, and he was informed that the Admiral was to accompany him with a sufficient force. Now, what is the meaning of "a sufficient force?" The only interpretation which anybody in Mr. Bruce's place could place upon the expression "a sufficient force," must have been a force sufficient to enable him to go from the mouth of the Peiho to Tien-tsin in a ship of war, and thence to proceed by land to Pekin and exchange the ratifications. But it is said that there was a qualifying clause—namely, that he was to pursue that course unless unforeseen circumstances should lead him to adopt a more advisable one. I think that Mr. Bruce was perfectly justified in thinking that there were no such circumstances to induce him to alter his course. The right hon. Baronet has quoted a letter from the Chinese Commissioners, which he stated was very fair and friendly, and indicated peaceable intentions; but what did that letter invite him to do? Why, to go to
804
the mouth of the Peiho, for the purpose of going thence to Pekin to exchange the ratifications. He goes to the Peiho, and what does he find there? Does he find at the mouth of the Peiho an official communication saying, "The Government don't like you to go up this way; you must go in some other direction; your passage here will be obstructed by order of the Government?" Nothing of the kind. He finds an impediment. The right hon. Baronet says that every nation has a right to barricade its own rivers. Against an enemy no doubt it has; but you do not barricade your rivers against a friend who is coming to complete a transaction which is to establish peace and friendship and commercial intercourse between you and the nation which he represents. The Ambassadors inquire, "What does this barricade mean, what is the intention of it?" and the answer is, "It is not put up by the Government, it is simply a little arrangement of self-defence established by the people of the district to protect themselves"—against whom? Against the English and French Ministers? No: "against pirates." But the Ambassadors were not pirates, therefore they had no reason to suppose that these barricades were established to stop their progress. Was there any officer of the Chinese Government there saying, "Here I am, and I tell you that you can't go up this way," or" Have the goodness to go another way?" Not a bit of it. The Ambassadors were told that there was no one there but militia and peasantry; nor was there any one in an official capacity under the Chinese Government to offer any obstruction to their progress. Under these circumstances it really appears to me that Mr. Bruce and Admiral Hope were perfectly justified in taking steps to remove the impediment, to remove the obstacles, which did not bear any semblance whatever to an official refusal, and to do that which they came authorized and invited by the Chinese Commissioners to do. Did they begin the attack? No. They began removing the barrier; it was the Chinese who began the attack. It was not necessary for our forces to commence firing. All they wanted was quietly to remove the obstructions in the river, and to pursue the course which Mr. Bruce and M. de Bourboulon had been instructed to take, and had been invited by the Chinese Commissioners to pursue. But was the Peiho the wrong way? Why, the Peiho was so entirely admitted by the Chinese Government to be the pro-

805
per road by which foreign Ministers should go to Pekin, that in the treaty they have concluded with Russia—a treaty which was concluded in May, a month or six weeks before these transactions—there is a stipulation that the Russian Minister, whenever he comes by sea, shall go to Pekin by the Peiho. That river was, therefore, acknowledged by the Chinese Government to be the proper way for diplomatic agents to come, and they knew, moreover, that by our treaty of Nankin we were entitled to the privileges enjoyed by the most favoured nations, including that granted to the Russian Minister of going to Pekin by the Peiho, the passage thus shut against us. I cannot, therefore, imagine any man placed in the situation of Mr. Bruce, knowing what had been the habitual practice, and with instructions to exchange the ratification of the treaty within a certain time—for, be it observed, the period assigned in the treaty for the exchange of the ratifications was upon the point of expiring—shrinking from the difficulties which he found to impede his course, and going away with the treaty unratified. If Mr. Bruce bad done so he would have been justly chargeable with a neglect of duty. It would have been said, "You were told to go up the Peiho in a ship of war; you were told that the Admiral would accompany you with a sufficient force; there was a sufficient force; why did you run away, and allow the honour of the country to be tarnished and its engagements set at brought when you had the means of discharging the mission entrusted to you?" But the right hon. Baronet says, that on the morning of the day on which the attack took place, at nine o'clock, Mr. Bruce received a letter from the Chinese authorities, inviting him to go to Pekin by another way. The right hon. Baronet read that letter very glibly, and if Mr. Bruce had received it as it appears in the blue-book he would have read it very glibly too; but, unfortunately, the letter was in Chinese, and took a considerable time to be translated and made intelligible. No less than two hours elapsed before the letter could be understood, and then Mr. Bruce had to communicate with the French Minister, who was in another vessel at some distance; and I am told that, owing to the stormy nature of the day, the force of the currents, and the very insufficient boat in which alone Mr. Bruce could go, all the other boats being with the squadron inside the bar, he was a long time in reaching
806
the representative of France. By the time be had explained the state of affairs to the French Minister the firing had begun, and it was too late to make any change in his arrangements. But supposing the Chinese letter to have reached him in time, would it have been wise or proper in him to accept the invitation to go to Pekin by the road pointed out by the writer? We know what that road was. The American Minister did accept the invitation, and we know how he was carried through the country in a wooden box on two wheels, without light or air; how between Tien-tsin and Pekin he was obliged to get out and walk because the jolting was so intolerable, and it was impossible to submit any longer to the torture of remaining in his "carriage of honour;" and how when he at last arrived at Pekin he was kept a close prisoner, was not allowed to communicate with the resident Russian Minister, was not permitted to exchange ratifications at Pekin, but was sent back for that purpose to Tien-tsin. Would this country have been pleased to be told that its representative, who had been instructed not to submit in his passage up to Pekin to any degrading ceremony— because it must be remembered that Mr. Bruce was warned by Lord Malmesbury that what might be done on his first arrival would be made a precedent for all future occasions—had been dragged through the country in a covered cart, and so jolted by the way that, in order to avoid a dislocation of his joints, he had been compelled to walk a considerable part of the road? In China there are three modes of honour or of degradation. Those persons whom the Chinese desire to honour are carried in sedan chairs; those who are next in rank are allowed to ride; and none but the very lowest class of people are put in covered boxes and jolted over the rough roads of that country. I say, then, that if I had been in Mr. Bruce's situation and bad received the Chinese letter in time, nothing could have induced me to accept the invitation which it conveyed. No "unforeseen circumstance" could have justified me in undergoing the unforeseen degradation and personal inconvenience which I have attempted to describe. As to the conduct of the Admiral, enough has been already said upon that subject, but everybody must admit that there never was a greater display of heroism than in the attack at the mouth of the Peiho, not only on the part of the Admiral, but also on the part of ail under his command. The cir-

807
cumstance that success did not attend their efforts does not detract in any degree from their distinguished bravery. I should hardly have risen to make the remarks which I have addressed to the House, but the right hon. Baronet wishes to know what is our policy with respect to China— a question which he is undoubtedly entitled to ask. There can be no doubt as to what our policy is; but, when the right hon. Baronet asks what are the instructions we have given as to the operations about to be commenced in China, I must respectfully beg leave to decline answering this question, because the House will see that to tell beforehand how your naval and military commanders or your diplomatic agents are to act in circumstances which have not yet arisen, would be to defeat the purpose which you have in view. But I am ready to say, at the same time, that our policy is as simple as I think it is just and reasonable. A treaty has been concluded with China. That treaty has been approved by the Emperor. We want the ratifications to be exchanged, we want the treaty to become a formal and acknowledged compact between the two nations. Some people think that it contains more concessions on the part of the Chinese Government than it was handsome on our part to ask. I am not of that opinion. The chief variations between the present treaty and the Treaty of Nankin are that we claim, and we obtain, a right of residence, when we choose to exercise it, at Pekin, and the right at all times of direct communication with the central Government of the empire—a right of the utmost importance, the want of which has been the cause of many of the difficulties and unpleasant events that have arisen between us and the Government of China. We have hitherto had communication only with the Viceroy at Canton, an official whose great duty it seems always to have been to put us off with excuses, to keep back our representations—as in the case of Yeh— from Pekin, and, in short to keep the barbarians off as far and as long as he could. The result has been an accumulation of complaints and grievances which have led at last to unpleasant and disagreeable con-sequences. There is nothing in what we ask new to the practice of China. Russia has had for some time a diplomatic agent resident in Pekin, and we therefore demand no more from the Emperor of China than he has already conceded to the Government of Russia. We have more commer-
808
cial intercourse with China than Russia has, more subjects resident in that country, and therefore greater need for direct communication with the central Government of the empire. It may be, no doubt, a question of discretion whether we should exercise the right of having a permanent mission at Pekin. That is a question which would undoubtedly require much consideration. There are many reasons, I am ready to admit, why the position of a Euoropean resident at Pekin might, at all events during part of the year, not be a fit position in which to place a man. But the right of going to Pekin and the right of communicating with the Government of Pekin are rights essential if we want our subjects and their property to be secure. Another stipulation is that we should be allowed to navigate the great liver Yang-tse-Kiang, and to trade with the towns on the banks of that river. At present, while the rebellion continues, and the great towns are reduced to deserted ruins, it is not a right that can be exercised to any great advantage; but it is very important with a view to the extension of trade with China. It is said that we should take possession of Nankin and govern there. I am afraid that town is not likely to afford good accommodation either to our troops or to our commerce; but the right of going up the river Yang-tse-Kiang and trading with the populous towns in the interior is of great importance in the prosecution of our commerce with China. The third stipulation of importance is, that British subjects should have the right to travel in the interior of China with passports. That also is of great importance to our commercial intercourse, and it is a stipulation not at all repugnant to the habits and feelings of the Chinese. People are apt to imagine that what took place at Canton will take place everywhere else. But that is a great mistake. The bad feeling existing towards us at Canton was, I believe, not only artificially got up, but an exception to the rule. At Shanghai there is a large European community living in perfect amity with the Chinese, visiting and associating with them, and our residents go into the interior a certain distance without any molestation from the people of the country. I say our policy with China is to obtain the ratification of the Treaty, and to obtain for our subjects in China freedom for themselves, and security for their commerce and property. We want no conquest. It forms no part of the intention with which this

809
expedition is sent to conquer any portion of China, or to obtain possesssion of any part of China more than we now possess. But we do think, and I am persuaded the country is of that opinion, that it would be disgraceful to this country — that we should lose our position in the East—if, having sustained that disaster which took place at the mouth of the Peiho, we simply allowed things to remain as they are, if we allowed the Treaty of Tien-tsin to remain unratified, and if we did not require from the Chinese Government the satisfaction which we have demanded. It is said that we are pressing the Emperor of China too hard if we demand an apology. If there is to be any redress I think an apology the least which any individual or any nation could demand for an outrage like that which was committed at the Peiho. But there is no reason to suppose that the Emperor of China is disinclined to give us that apology; because we have reason to understand that the term which he has given to the transaction is that it was an isolated fact, arising chiefly from the impetuosity of the British commander; that it was not to interrupt in any degree the friendly intercourse of the two nations; and that he has actually opened to British commerce one of the ports which, by the treaty, was to be added to the five. The Emperor of China is not in a temper of mind indignantly to refuse to make an apology for an act which he disclaims as the result of any orders which he himself had given. When I am asked what is our policy with regard to China, I say that our policy is to require the fulfilment of the Treaty of Tien-tsin, to have by virtue of that treaty increased commercial intercourse with China, but not to involve the two nations in a war which may not be necessary, and not to acquire by conquest any additional cession of territory. With regard to the importance of trade with China, I only ask hon. Gentlemen to go back in their recollection to the feeling of satisfaction which was excited in this country at the time we received the Treaty of Nankin. Let them recollect the general applause of Sir Henry Pottinger for having concluded a treaty which every one believed was of the utmost advantage to this country, and the expectations that the treaty would do great things. The commerce with China has increased very much; in virtue of that treaty we have made an establishment at Shanghai, which is really becoming now a European settlement. But there were things not provided
810
for by the Treaty of Nankin, which are provided for by the Treaty of Tien-tsin, and I do not anticipate that I go beyond the probability of events when I say that when those two treaties are faithfully executed, opening all the resources of China to Europe and America—for we require no exclusive advantage,—they will confer great benefit on the nations of Europe and America, and tend at the same time to improve and increase the prosperity of the Chinese themselves.
MR. WHITESIDEsaid, he remembered hearing the noble Lord the First Minister, three years ago, defend a very much worse cause against the eloquence of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, and against the weight of the intellect and patriotism of the House. It was true that the noble Lord on that occasion sustained a defeat, but he cashiered the House of Commons for it. He admitted that the noble Lord succeeded in that move. He had the country with him, because it was thought-he had shown pluck in having maintained that there was a necessity for thrashing the Chinese and compelling them to enter into commercial treaties at the point of the bayonet. The noble Viscount spoke exactly in the same vein that evening as he had three years ago. He showed no penitence, he exhibited no sign of remorse; he appeared as ready to commence war with the Chinese now as he was then. He (Mr. Whiteside) had no intention of attacking Mr. Bruce; but he could not allow the matter to pass without stating what he thought to have been the error of that gentleman. The Earl of Malmesbury in the despatch conveying his instruction to Mr. Bruce made use of this language,—
"And unless any unforeseen circumstances should appear to make another arrangement more desirable, it would be desirable that you should reach Tien-tsin in a British ship of war."
Could there be in the mind of any man who read that an idea that Lord Malmesbury's intention was that Mr. Bruce should make war on the Chinese. Was it not clear that Lord Malmesbury's intention was that in order to maintain the dignity of Great Britain, Mr. Bruce ought to go up the river in a ship of war? But was that the spirit in which Mr. Bruce did go up the river? Was the language used by that gentleman in his despatch to the Foreign Secretary such as to conciliate the

811
Emperor of China? In a despatch written by him he spoke of the necessity of "inspiring the Emperor and his councillors with the conviction that what was once demanded from them would be exacted," and again,—"I am determined lo assume an attitude and tone best calculated to make the Chinese submit quietly to my very unpalatable proposals, by impressing them with the opinion that these concessions are inevitable unless they are prepared to draw the sword." Why, that gentleman was determined to fight, and went with a resolution of fighting anybody he could find to fight with. The noble Lord was incorrect in saying that Mr. Bruce could not have acted when he got the letter in the morning, because Mr. Bruce himself said,—
"It was difficult to communicate with the Admiral (who was nine miles distant), but I should not have been deterred by the informality of the letter if the contents had been satisfactory."
Mr. Bruce could have reached the Admiral in a steamer if he bad liked the tone of the letter, and so, not liking the tone of the letter, he had a battle. As a humane man, the noble Lord must regret the loss of life on that occasion, but the tone of the noble Lord's speech was calculated to encourage the Ambassador to go there and commit the same offence. But he (Mr. Whiteside) would ask the noble Viscount in what book he found that an Ambassador had in the country to which he was accredited a right to force his way up a river and bombard any forts which might present an obstacle to him? Would an Ambassador from this country to France have a right to so act if he were refused a passage up the Seine? Instead of acting as he had done, Mr. Bruce should have written home and consulted the noble Viscount who would have been sure to recommend a pacific policy. The noble Viscount had explained to the House what his Chinese policy was. As well as he (Mr. Whiteside) could understand, it was this—that no matter how many thousand Chinese lives might be sacrificed thereby, we—in strict alliance with our friend the Emperor of the French—were to force our way to Pekin. We were to blow up their forts and bombard their towns, and then say, Good people, we are a trading community; we have come here to extend your commerce and ours; we commence by violating all the rules of morals and humanity, but we have the authority of the First Minister in England, the First Minister in
812
Europe, that this is a light policy. The noble Viscount was very desirous that our Ambassador should reach Pekin; but if he got there would he sleep calmly? From all accounts it did not seem to be a comfortable place for an Ambassador. He (Mr. Whiteside) wished he had the eloquence of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to convince the noble Viscount that he was not right— though, by the way, the right hon. Gentleman had not convinced the noble Viscount three years ago about that miserable affair of the lorcha Arrow, and justice had now overtaken him for his failure, as he was obliged to propose Estimates for a Chinese expedition, that he must in principle condemn. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War seemed to be the only Member of the Cabinet who on this occasion spoke for peace. The noble Viscount to whom he (Mr. Whiteside) had listened that evening, as he always listened to him, with great attention—had spoken with great determination. Indeed, it was pleasant to hear the noble Viscount at such times. He always spoke with more than his usual animation, spirit, and eloquence, when he was preparing for a war. He had made the Chinese tremble before, and he was determined to make them tremble again— of course with the laudable object of improving our pacific and commercial relations with them. The noble Viscount asked the Chinese for an indemnity; but as the House had that evening heard, on good authority, the Chinese were too poor to pay it. He (Mr. Whiteside) hoped for peace; but whatever might be the result of this war the responsibility of it would rest on the noble Viscount's head, as did the responsibility of the last, though that, indeed, did not seem to affect him much, and when it was brought to a conclusion the House of Commons would have to discharge the bill.
MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEsaid, his conduct had been severely criticised by the hon. Member for Elgin, who had accused him of making misstatements; but he (Mr. Cochrane) was prepared to give the authority for every statement he made. The noble Viscount at the head of the Government had made a very jocose speech with respect to the miserable and unfortunate engagement in the Peiho. The noble Viscount admitted that the Chinese Commissioner sent a letter to Mr. Bruce, which Mr. Bruce could not read because it was in Chinese. Large estimates were voted

813
for interpreters, and yet the noble Viscount made a joke about Mr. Bruce not being able to read a Chinese letter. He was surprised that the noble Viscount had used the language he uttered with regard to the calamitous event in the Peiho. The noble Viscount had also joked about the American Minister, Mr. Ward; but there existed the American President's as well as that Gentleman's own authority for the statement, that he was treated with the utmost distinction. He again expressed his regret that a Minister of the Crown should have made a joke of the sacrifice of life which had occurred at the action in the Peiho, and had embarked in a new war without a sufficient sense of the responsibility incurred.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: The hon. Member has totally misunderstood and misrepresented what I said. I made a joke about the letter, and not about the action; and no man of common feeling, who respected himself, would unjustly impute to another that he made a joke of a great calamity. The hon. Gentleman imagined me to say that there was no interpreter present. That is not the case. There was an interpreter, but it took about two hours to get the letter interpreted so as to be properly understood.
SIR HARRY VERNEYthought that nothing was more important than that distant functionaries should be supported when they were in the right. What was said in that House was acutely felt, and great pain was inflicted by unjust observations. Mr. Bruce was distinctly instructed firmly to resist all the attempts of the Chinese to obstruct his progress to the capital; and he did not see, under the circumstances, how he could have acted otherwise than he had done. He was convinced that the most humane and merciful policy was to insist upon direct communication with the central authorities at Pekin; for, as long as English traders were left at the mercy of the weak and corrupt officials in the provinces and on the sea-board, disputes and outrages would never cease.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Question put, and agreed to:
House in Committee: Mr. MASSEY in the Chair.
(In the Committee.)
£850,000, Naval and Military operations in China (Vote of Credit).
MR. SIDNEY HERBERThoped the Committee would allow him to proceed
814
with the Vote of Credit for the Chinese war.
MR. DISRAELIobjected to going into a Committee of Supply at that late hour. Moreover, the late Minister of War, who had an important statement to make to the Committee, had left the House under the impression that the Vote would not be taken at so advanced an hour of the night.
MR. SIDNEY HERBERTassured the Committee that it was absolutely necessary the Vote should be passed that night.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the necessities of the public service required that this Vote should be taken at once. Unless that were done the Government could not meet its engagements without violating the law.
MR. DISRAELIsaid, if the right hon. Gentleman asserted on his word and authority that this was the last evening on which the Vote could be taken, he had nothing to say — except that the public business was not conducted as it ought to be.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he was informed by those officials who watched minutely from day to day the public expenditure, and compared it with the legal authorities, that this was the last day upon which they could take the Vote with the certainty of being able to meet the regular demands of the public service in the different departments of the Government. The Vote could be criticised or impugned, if need were, when the Report was brought up.
MR. DISRAELIconsented to the Vote being proceeded with, solely on the unequivocal statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and on no other consideration whatever.
Vote agreed to.
House resumed.
Resolution to be reported on Monday next.
Committee to sit again on Monday next.
House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock till Monday next.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Consolidated Fund (£4,500,000.

TREATY WITH FRANCE.
THE LORD STEWARDacquainted the House, That HER MAJESTY had appointed To-morrow, at One o'Clock, to be attended with the Address of both Houses on; and a Message was sent to the Commons to inform them thereof; and that the Lords had appointed the LORD STEWARD and the LORD CHAMBERLAIN of the Household to attend HER MAJESTY and therewith on the part of this House; and to desire the Commons to appoint a proportionate Number of its Members to go with them.
704
Message from the Commons, that they had appointed Mr. BYNG, Mr. BAINES, The Viscount CASTLEROSE, and The Lord PROBY to go with the Lords (mentioned in the Message of this Day) to wait upon HER MAJESTY with the Address.

DIVORCES (IRELAND).

  PETITIONS.
  THE EARL OF WICKLOW presented a Petition from Inhabitants of Dublin praying that the Law relating to Divorce may be so Amended as to allow Irish Suitors to sue for a Divorce in the English Courts. He wished to know whether it was the intention of the Government to introduce any measure on this important subject.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE presented a Petition to the same effect from Rowan Francis Cashel, of Demarara, County Tipperary. The petitioner stated that he did not possess the means of prosecuting a Divorce Bill in their Lordships' House.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that "justice to Ireland" required that the prayer of these petitions should be granted, although the larger portion of the population being Roman Catholics believed in the indissolubility of marriage, and so could not resort to the divorce clauses of the Act. But they might avail themselves of judicial separation, and the Protestant portion of the people were entitled to the full benefit of the new jurisdiction. He had himself introduced into the Bill of last year a clause enabling persons in Ireland to avail themselves of the provisions of that measure. That proposition had received very general support from the Irish Peers, but in the other House of Parliament it had raised a storm of opposition which rendered it impossible to carry such a proposition. He would support any Bill to extend the Act to Ireland, but could not undertake to re-open the subject on the part of the Government, and bring in a Bill for that purpose.

NAPLES.—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHwished to put a question to the noble Duke the First Lord of the Admiralty. Very alarming reports were in circulation relative to the state of affairs in Naples. Those reports might be extremely exaggerated; but undoubtedly it was quite impossible that the state of things repre-

705
sented to be existing there could long continue. Among other things, the public were told that there was a considerable number of Her Majesty's ships in the Bay of Naples. Assuming these statements to be true, he wished to ask the noble Duke, Whether any special instructions had been given to the officers in command of those ships as to what their conduct should be in the event of individuals being driven by a sense of personal danger to claim their protection?
THE DUKE OF SOMERSETsaid, there could be no doubt that the state of affairs in Naples was lamentable. No special instructions, however, bad been given to the officers of British ships which were stationed there for the protection of British residents and of British property. The rule with regard to reception on board Her Majesty's ships of persons in personal danger was not that protection would be afforded to persons flying from justice or desiring to escape the sentence of a court of law; but it had always, he believed, been held that the British flag did afford protection to any refugee flying for safety of life in any country, on account of his political opinions, either from the tyranny of Monarchs or the violence of a mob. Beyond that, officers receiving refugees on board their ships would, of course, not allow them while they were on board their ships to hold communication with their partizans on shore, but would simply give them that hospitality which humanity demanded and justified.
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, he was perfectly satisfied with the assurance of the noble Duke as he understood it—that the action of British officers should be confined to the performance of the duties of common humanity.
LORD REDESDALE: Surely what the noble Duke has said requires explanation. Does he mean to say that if a man is flying from high treason, he is to be protected on board a British ship, supposing he should be lucky enough to escape thither? Should we recognize such a doctrine, if a person charged with high treason were to take refuge on board a French ship of war lying in one of our harbours? Let us take care, my Lords, that we do not lay down doctrines because we are strong and Naples is weak. Let us take care that, what ever principles we lay down as to Naples, we should be able to assert and to enforce against all the world, and to maintain as to French harbours as well as Neapolitan.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURYwould remind his noble Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty that a British officer might be placed in a very awkward position if he was called upon to judge as to the particular nature of the prosecution from which an individual might be trying to escape. A man might be escaping from political prosecution, or from a prosecution instituted in an ordinary court of justice by the constituted authorities. How was the British officer to know what was the case? A man came alongside a British ship in a boat with a pitiful story, and it would often be impossible for the commanding officer to know whether the individual was flying from such a prosecution as that to which the noble Duke alluded, or from one of quite another kind. He was certain we should not permit such a doctrine to be carried out in our ports.
THE DUKE OF SOMERSET: I laid down no principle; I confined myself entirely to what had been the practice of former years, and I took the precaution of looking back to the records of the Admiralty. If there is a revolution, and refugees of one party or the other come on board, they have been often received, though the officers, anxious to relieve themselves from responsibility, take the earliest opportunity of sending them away to a place of safety. That has been the practice as to political offenders. It has been followed repeatedly and in many instances. I limited myself entirely to what had been the practice. I did not pronounce any opinion as to what I thought ought to be the course pursued. As to whether a refugee is flying from political persecution or ordinary justice, our officers must judge for themselves in each case, consulting Her Majesty's Ambassador or Consul on the spot, on whose advice they will act.
THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, I believe that no one doubts that this practice of giving hospitality to political refugees ought to be limited to periods of civil convulsion and revolutionary violence, and is not applicable to ordinary times, even although there may be some degree of disturbance. And I have not yet heard that there is any serious difference between the Government of Naples and the great mass of the people. I may disapprove of the system of Government pursued, but that is a question purely between the Government and its own subjects, and there is nothing at present which indicates a state of things in which alone British naval officers have

707
a right to interpose. I hope, therefore, that the Government are prepared to lay this limitation on the principles they have laid down—that the interference of British officers ought to be limited to times of civil convulsion and revolutionary violence, and that they ought not to interpose under ordinary circumstances.
EARL GREY: My Lords, I understood the noble Duke to say that no special instructions had been issued to officers in command of ships. My Lords, I think that is quite right. It is impossible to foresee the circumstances that may arise, or to define beforehand in what cases protection should be given. It was one of the most difficult questions that a Government or an officer can have to decide. Undoubtedly there are some cases in which the very prospect of a refuge from the consequences of an unsuccessful attempt would have a tendency to encourage civil commotions. On the other hand, there may be cases of persecution and cruelty, in which common humanity may make it impossible to refuse shelter. It is difficult to define beforehand these cases; it is a matter for the exercise of a sound discretion; and looking at the past conduct of British officers, I think they have shown that they are well able to exercise such a discretion. I, for one, am content to leave the matter on the footing in which it at present stands, and hope nothing will be done to increase the difficulty of the position in which our officers are placed.

ANNEXATION OF SAVOY TO FRANCE.

  QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVON: My Lords, I rise to ask a question of the Government with regard to the papers laid upon the table yesterday, which respect the proposed annexation of Savoy and Nice to France; and especially with regard to the two remarkable despatches of Count Cavour, on the 3rd of March, and Earl Cowley, on the 9th of March last. In his despatch of March 3rd, Count Cavour states that he had received an assurance from the French Government of the most formal character that they would not proceed further with the annexation of Savoy, except under three conditions. The first was that no territorial changes should be effected contrary to the wishes of the people; next, that due regard should be had to the interests of Switzerland; and, lastly, that there should be a preliminary con-
  708
  sulfation of the great Powers. In the same despatch Count Cavour proceeded to give himself a deliberate assurance that the Government of His Majesty the King of Sardinia would never consent, even with a view to the greatest advantages, to cede or exchange any part of the territory of Savoy without consulting the wishes of the inhabitants; and he also went on to repeat the same assurance with regard to the other two conditions. A similar assurance on the part of the French Government was given by M. Thouvenel to Lord Cowley, as appears in the despatch of Lord Cowley of March 9th. Here, then, there was a double engagement on the part of France and Sardinia, both Powers pledging themselves equally, on the one hand not to infringe by violence, nor on the other hand by collusion, the treaties of 1815. Now, this morning, my Lords, I read in a telegram what appears to be a direct contradiction on the part of both these Powers to the assurances thus given. It states that the Government of Sardinia has consented to a demand from France, the effect of which appears to be to do away with and violate all these conditions, as regards alike the promise to ascertain the wishes of the people, and to consult the views of the great Powers, on the question of annexation; for it contains these words, "The treaty will be followed by a vote of the municipalities" (not the people generally) "of the two contracting Powers, and there will be afterwards communicated to the Great Powers the nature of the new territorial arrangements." Thus two out of the conditions are abandoned; and the third, as to the regard to be paid to the interests of Switzerland, is equally thrown on one side; for we are told that by this new arrangement Sardinia cedes to France Savoy up to the Alps; so that the whole of the passes of the Alps will be in possession of France, who will also obtain the districts of Chablais and Faucigny. My Lords, I make now no comment upon this. The effect of it is too plain. But if anything further were required, it is furnished by the fact, also stated in the telegram, that the Swiss Minister at Paris has handed to M. de Thouvenel a protest against the annexation proposed on the part of France. My Lords, I ask whether the Government are in possession of any information which can at all qualify or throw light upon this most startling, and, I will add, flagrant discrepancy between words and acts—between promises and performances? My Lords, I have the

  709
  more reason for asking the question because, in the despatch of the 9th of March, I find that M. de Thouvenel tells Earl Cowley that he is about to draw up ft circular despatch to be sent to the representatives of France at the Courts of the Great Powers parties to the Treaty of 1815, explaining the views of the Imperial Government. Now, that despatch will have probably been received—M. de Thouvenel expected it would be sent off on the Tuesday or Wednesday following. I ask whether it is in the hands of the Government?—if so, whether it throws any information on the subject?—and whether (as the Correspondence already produced would be incomplete without it) the Government will without any further delay lay it upon the table of the House?
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEasked their Lordships whether they believed that the question asked by the noble Earl was really one which ought to be addressed to Her Majesty's Government? What was the question put? He had no hesitation in saying, that if the noble Earl were a member of the Sardinian Parliament, it would be hardly fair for him to put such a question to Count Cavour. How it could have been put to Her Majesty's Government, was to him inexplicable; and the more so after the mistakes which had been made in this and the other House of Parliament in the early part of the Session in reference to telegraphic communications. The noble Earl asked him whether he could explain the discrepancies that existed between the two despatches referred to, and the telegraphic communication that appeared in the newspapers that morning. He had, once for all, to repudiate, on the part of the Government, all responsibility for those newspaper telegrams. How was it possible for him, or for any other Member of the Government or of that House, to argue upon the authenticity or correctness of telegrams that appeared in the newspapers? It would be impossible to conduct the diplomatic measures of the Government, if an attempt were made to visit the Government with the responsibility of those pieces of intelligence, and to require them to explain such discrepancies as those alluded to. That there was a great and flagrant discrepancy between the two despatches and the telegram in question, there was no doubt; but the Government know no more about the telegrams than any other Member of the House; and it was, therefore, perfectly impossible for him to explain
  710
  those discrepancies. The noble Earl asked him further—and he admitted that that was a more reasonable question—whether he thought that the circular despatch of M. Thouvenel could be laid on the table? That despatch had only been received within the last twenty-four hours—it was a despatch of considerable consequence, as might be anticipated from the mode in which it was announced. No time had as yet been afforded to Her Majesty's Government for the full consideration of it. And it was, therefore, premature to ask them to lay it upon the table. He was sure that the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby) and every Member of that House would admit that there was no disposition on the part of Her Majesty's Government to withhold from the Legislature and the public any communications that could properly be laid before them he did not recollect, during his experience, any instance in which, with such rapidity and alacrity, the despatches had been laid on the table of both Houses of Parliament; even, he was inclined to admit—sometimes with danger to the due course of negotiations. There were despatches before their Lordships which had arrived within the last ten days. He sympathized with the interest which noble Lords took in the subject. At the same time he urged them to exercise the utmost discretion in putting questions as rapidly as they had, and at any rate to refrain from, asking the Government to explain discrepancies which existed between Statesmen abroad, and telegrams which came to this country, and which were not authentic, until proved to be so by subsequent despatches.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, the answer of the noble Duke was perfectly fair. The despatch referred to had only arrived a short time ago; and no noble Lord on that side of the House of any experience would wish to extract anything from the Government that would be mischievous to the public service. But, on the other hand, while he gave to the Government entire liberty to refuse to answer any question which they thought ought not to be answered, he thought that the noble Duke ought to give the noble Lords on his side of the House the liberty of putting any question to them on all points on which they desired information. His noble Friend having seen telegraphic despatches of great importance in the public prints of that morning, naturally asked whether the Government had received any information on

  711
  the subject; as it was likely that the Government might have received similar telegrams from our Ministers abroad. Although the noble Duke was quite justified in refusing to answer the question, under such circumstances as he had stated, he thought that the noble Duke was rather hard upon his noble Friend in saying that he had no right to ask him such a question,

THE POLICE IN IRELAND.

  QUESTION.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEasked, Whether it was intended to send any portion of Irish constables to the camp at the Curragh, as a part of the military force there assembled, or to any depot or military school of instruction in England. Since he last addressed their Lordships on this subject, one of the Judges of Assize in Ireland had noticed the inefficiency of the police, and attributed it, as he did, to their assuming too military a character.
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEsaid, that he would say, as he had said before, that he agreed with the noble Marquess that it was not desirable that the constabulary force of Ireland should assume too military a character, although he believed it was right they should be organized on a different footing from the police of this country. In reply to the first part of his noble Friend's question, he had to state that there was no intention of sending the constabulary force of Ireland to the camp at the Curragh, or any other place, with a view to military exercise. In regard to the second portion of the noble Marquess's question, the facts were these:—The arms with which the constabulary had been provided were very old, having seen at least twenty years' service; they were inefficient, and of the old smooth-bore principle. It was intended to provide them with new arms; and, of course, they ought to be of the best kind. Those would be the Enfield rifle. With a view that they should know how to use them it was intended to send five officers and sixteen head constables to Hythe, in order to be instructed in the practice of those rifles. They would afterwards be enabled to convey the instruction to the whole force. There was, however, no intention of investing them with a more military character.

DIOCESE OF ROCHESTER.—QUESTION.
VISCOUNT DUNGANNONasked Her Majesty's Government, Whether, in the
712
present vacancy in the See of Rochester, it was in contemplation to divide any portion of the present diocese, so as to establish a Bishopric at St. Alban's; or, whether it was intended to transfer the See and Title of the Bishopric of Rochester to St. Alban's, and to throw the Town of Rochester and its dependencies into the Diocese of Canterbury? He took the opportunity of putting the question at that time as a fair opportunity now existed of making a most desirable alteration.
LORD EBURYsaid, that in the absence of his noble Friend the Earl of Verulam, the Lord Lieutenant of Herts, and before the noble Duke answered the question, he wished to remind their Lordships of what had been done in this matter. A Commission was appointed in 1835 which took into consideration the boundaries of the dioceses in England and Wales, and, in their report upon the best mode in which these dioceses might be remodelled, they recommended that, after the avoidance of the See of Winchester, a portion of that diocese should be transferred to the diocese of London. In 1858 another Commission was appointed, to consider the special circumstances of the four metropolitan sees, London, Winchester, Canterbury, and Rochester. The Commissioners pointed out that the area of the see of Rochester was as large as that of Winchester, although the population was not so great, and that the benefices were still more numerous. They also stated that when, on the avoidance of the see of Winchester, a portion of that diocese was transferred to London, the diocese of Rochester would have a larger area and a much larger number of benefices than Winchester. The Commissioners added that these four metropolitan sees contained 5,000,000 souls, 1,900 beneficed clergymen, and a more than ordinary number of curates. One of their recommendations was that a new diocese should be formed out of that portion of the diocese of Rochester, which lay north of the Thames, and it was proposed that the town of St. Alban's should be the seat of the bishopric with the abbey for the cathedral church. The difficulties to be overcome in forming three new dioceses were three—a cathedral, an episcopal residence, and an income for the Bishop. Recently some of the inhabitants of the proposed new bishopric went to the Government and endeavoured to meet these difficulties. The county of Hertford offered to restore the abbey of St. Alban's as acathe-

713
dral for the new bishop, and they also suggested how the two remaining wants of an episcopal residence and income should be supplied. The clergy of the Church of England very much needed additional over lookers and mote pastoral encouragement, and this want prevented that union and organization which were at present so much wanted in the ministration of the affairs of the Church. The noble Viscount at the head of the Government stated to the deputation that he should prefer to see the question taken up as a whole, instead of being treated in detail. He hoped the matter would nut be allowed to drop through, and taking advantage of the present favourable opportunity the Government had only to appoint Commissioners again to consider tins matter, and then the details might easily he arranged.
THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEsaid, his noble Friend proposed the appointment of a Commission to inquire into this case, but the probability was that before any Commission could report, these of Rochester would be filled up. He would not enter into the general question raised by his noble Friend as to the necessity of increased ecclesiastical supervision in the dioceses referred to, nor as to the extension of the episcopate throughout England. No doubt the population had greatly out-grown the spiritual provision in many of the dioceses, and he agreed with him in thinking that increased episcopal supervision, both of the clergy and the people, was necessary. His noble Friend behind him had kindly undertaken to answer the question put by the noble Viscount, for he stated to the House the answer that a deputation had received from his noble Friend at the head of the Government—namely, that the case was one requiring serious consideration, but that it ought not to be taken up as an isolated question, and that he recognized the propriety of dealing with the whole subject of the extension of the episcopate on a more extensive scale. In the meantime he (the Duke of Newcastle) was authorized to state that any clergyman who might be recommended to the see of Rochester would hold the see subject to such arrangements as the Government and Parliament might hereafter make.
THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGHthought the answer of the noble Duke far from satisfactory. They usually found that when Her Majesty's Government were asked to take up a great question of this kind the answer was that the subject was
714
too wide and must be dealt with in detail, and when they asked the Government to go into detail and take up a particular case that they thought might be so dealt with the answer was that it could not be taken up in detail, but as a whole. This was an unsatisfactory mode of proceeding, and he thought would create dissatisfaction out of doors. How was it possible to deal with the great subject; before them as a whole? The difficulties which were to be overcome existed in particular cases, and à fortiori difficulties would be found besetting the question as a whole, he believed he was correct in saying that the funds in the hands of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners were forestalled by reason of the great amount of parochial destitution existing throughout the country, which rendered it almost impossible to provide an adequate fund to be applied to the endowment of new sees; but the Ecclesiastical Commissioners might render a proportion of aid to such funds as might be provided by the liberality and Christian feeling of the people. He was informed only the other day of the munificent amount of the offers now in the ecclesiastical office, of funds in aid of the endowment of parishes. There was an amount of liberality existing in the country which, if it could be drawn forth, would be amply sufficient to provide the necessary endowments. All that he asked was that facilities should be placed within the reach of such persons for carrying out their intentions. By the course they were following they were putting a damper upon the Christian liberality of the country. In the case of this particular diocese there had long been a strong desire that it should be divided, and if encouragement were given he had no doubt funds would be forthcoming. He hoped the Government would give their attention to the matter, and act in accordance with the importance of the subject.
LORD REDESDALEwished to know from the noble Duke whether they were to understand that some steps would be immediately taken with a view to the increase of the episcopate. He believed it would conduce to the real economy of the revenues of the Church if additional bishops were appointed in many places; for by such means the true action of the Church might be put into more effective working. Was there, he would ask, any serious intention to take steps by which the episcopate might be increased?
THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEsaid, he

715
was not then in a position to answer the question of the noble Lord.
VISCOUNT DUNGANNONsaid, there was a great necessity for the provision of increased ecclesiastical superintendence in many parts of the country.

VALUATION OF RATEABLE PROPERTY (IRELAND) BILL.

  COMMITTEE.—REPORT.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  LORD REDESDALEwished to know what was the precise object of this Bill. It was entitled "An Act to defray one moiety of the expense of the annual revision of the valuation of rateable property in Ireland out of the Consolidated Fund." He wished to know why these expenses, which in all other parts of the country were defrayed by local charges, should in Ireland be paid out of the public revenue.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he confessed he had felt some reluctance to take charge of an Irish Bill; but he had done so in this instance, not expecting that any opposition would be made to it. The valuation of Ireland, which was one of the most important and useful works of its kind in Europe, had been accomplished entirely at the expense of local proprietors. But the annual revision of the valuation was used for many public purposes, as the limitation of the franchise, the decisions of lawsuits, and others. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had thought it a fail-case that one half of the expenses of this annual revision should be borne by the public; and the Bill had passed the House of Commons without a dissentient voice. It appeared also that the Valuation-office in Ireland had been hitherto treated as a temporary institution only, and the clerks employed in it consequently did not share in the privileges of other public servants. By this Bill they were placed regularly upon the Civil Service establishment.
  LORD MONTEAGLEheartily concurred in the principle of the Bill, and thought it would be very desirable if such a valuation as that which had been made for Ireland were made for England also.
  LORD REDESDALEthought, from what the noble Lord opposite had said, that it would be desirable if this subject were seriously taken up for England. His only objection to the Bill was, that it was one out of many instances in which Ireland did get a great many things done for her that England did not.
  THE MARQUESS OF BATHwas understood to remind the noble Lord that the comparison he had made was hardly fair, when they considered the different circumstances of the two countries.
  Bill reported, without Amendment; and to be read 3a on Monday next.

SALE OF GAS.—PETITION.
LORD REDESDALE presented a petition from Gas Meter Manufacturers of Great Britain in meeting assembled, complaining of the delay in carrying out the provisions of the Act for regulating measures used in the Sale of Gas. He said that by the Act of last Session models of gas-meters were to have been deposited in the office of Exchequer for the purpose of having accurate meters distributed throughout the country. Six months had transpired, however, since the passing of the Act, and no models had been deposited. The time was approaching when it would be necessary by law to have duly certified meters, and the gas companies began to be in doubt as to what would be done. The Act required that an instrument, called a gas-holder, should be prepared with balances and other things for the proper measurement of gas. This instrument was well known as a standard by which gas-meters were tested. The Astronomer Royal, however, under whose management the scientific details were placed, was induced for some reason or the other to adopt another instrument, which he at first proposed to call a "transferrer," by which the gas-holder might be tested. But this instrument was quite unfit for the testing of the meters themselves. The consequence was that no models were as yet deposited in the Exchequer; and at present there was no means of supplying the deficiency. The question seemed to him (Lord Redesdale) to involve very considerable difficulties; but he thought on the whole that the Act would be found to work when some of its provisions were modified according to the experience of its practical working. But he hoped the Government would consider the course they meant to pursue, because within twelve months no legal sale of gas could take place except by means of a stamped meter, and it was necessary that some immediate steps should be taken.
THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEobserved, that the Board of Trade and the Exchequer were jointly commissioned with the execu-

717
tion of this measure. They had consulted the Astronomer Royal, who made certain objections to a gas-measurer. The Treasury then consulted the Board of Trade as to whether the Act would require any Amendment, but the opinion of the Board of Trade was that no Amendments would be necessary. Communications were still going on, but he had reason to hope that arrangements would soon be made to meet the inconvenience of which the petitioners complained.
LORD MONTEAGLEfeared that unless the Act was amended the expectation of its framers would be disappointed.
LORD REDESDALEsaid, he understood that the measurement of gas had been carried on for a long time at Berlin, and he believed at Paris, but certainly throughout Prussia, and there was no reason why it should not be accomplished in this country. The regulation of weights and measures had always been considered an Imperial question; and he had no doubt that the Act would work well when its defects came to be discovered by its practical application.

COMMERCIAL TREATY WITH FRANCE.

  EXPLANATION.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL, on moving the adjournment of the House, said, that he wished to give an explanation of something which was supposed to have fallen from him on a previous evening. He had received a communication from an hon. Gentleman who represented a very large commercial constituency in the other House of Parliament, from which it appeared that certain words that fell from him last night were supposed to be to this effect—that those hon. Members who generally belong to the Conservative party, and who are opposed to the present Government, but who gave their support to the financial scheme of the Government on the late occasion, were influenced not so much by their opinions as by the extreme pressure put on them individually by their constituents. That was not the meaning he intended to convey. He should deeply regret if any words that fell from him should be supposed to convey that meaning. All he meant to say was, that the votes of these hon. Members were not given wholly irrespective of the opinions and the interests of the great industrial and commercial communities which they represented in Parliament, and that he might fairly claim on behalf of the Government
  718
  their votes as indicative of the opinions of the great commercial centres in this country as to the financial scheme of the Government; but he did not mean to imply that against their own opinions they bad been forced by the pressure of their constituents to vote for a measure which individually they disapproved of. So far from feeling that the value of these votes was depreciated by the explanation that had been given him by the hon. Gentleman, the Government attached much more value to them, regarding them as an independent support received from hon. Members who were generally opposed to them.
  House adjourned at Seven o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock,