Sitting of 11 May 1860

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Municipal Corporations (Ireland) Act Amendment.
3° Fisheries (Scotland).

THE INDIGO DISTURBANCES, BENGAL.

  QUESTION.
  MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for India, Whether any and what steps had boon taken by the Government of India for bringing the subject of the repeal of the Regulation XIX. of 1810 of the Bengal Code, and the Regulation VII. of 1817 of the Madras Code, under the consideration of the Legislative Council of India as directed by the Despatch of Lord Stanley, dated the 24th day of February, 1859? He also wished to know whether there would be any objection to the production of the Correspondence which has taken place between the Cultivators of Indigo and the Government in relation to the recent disturbances in Bengal?
  SIR CHARLES WOOD, in reply to the first question of the hon. Member said, he observed that Notice of the Motion had been given for the production of the papers relating to the subject of the repeal of the XIX. Regulation of the Bengal Code, to which he had no objection, and they would give all the information on the subject.
  In answer to the last question, he could only say he should have no objection to produce the Correspondence if he were in possession of it, but at present only a portion had reached him.

THE MADRAS IRRIGATION COMPANY.

  QUESTION.
  MR. SMOLLETTsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India,
  1086
  with reference to a Letter from the India Office addressed to the Manchester Cotton Association, and dated the 16th day of April, 1860, stating that the proposals of the Madras Irrigation and Canal Company for constructing works of irrigation, drainage, and navigation in the Province of Orissa are under the serious consideration of Her Majesty's Government, Whether such serious consideration applies to that portion of the scheme which involves the guarantee of a minimum dividend to I the Shareholders of this Company upon the whole or any portion of their Stock?
  SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, "the serious consideration of Her Majesty's Government" did not apply to that portion of the scheme which involved a guarantee of a minimum dividend. The Government were not prepared to give that guarantee.

FORGERY OF TRADE MARKS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BASSsaid, he would beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, Whether, as no Clause in reference to the Forgery of Trade Marks has been introduced in the Bill for Consolidating and Amending the Law of Forgery, he will at the earliest opportunity, introduce the Measure he has prepared on that question?
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, a measure upon the subject would be introduced shortly, or at least as speedily as the state of public business would permit.

LUNATICS IN SCOTLAND.

  QUESTION.
  MR. E. ELLICE (St. Andrews)said, he rose to ask the Lord-Advocate, Whether he intends at an early period to propose a Bill for establishing greater uniformity in the interpretation of the Law of Scotland as regards the definition of Lunacy; for removing doubts as to the obligation of Counties to provide accommodation for Lunatics; and for giving to the Commissioners in Lunacy extended powers with regard to the custody of Pauper Lunatics?
  THE LORD-ADVOCATEsaid, it was his intention to introduce a Bill to remedy some of the defects which were found to exist in former Lunacy Acts, and he hoped soon to lay it on the Table of the House.
  MR. G. W. HOPEsaid, he rose to say a few words of explanation with reference to a statement he had made when moving for the production of the Civil Service Ex-

  1087
  animation Papers a few nights previously. On that occasion he had said that in the case of the particular candidate of whose rejection he complained, there had been but one single mistake in his spelling. He had since been informed that there was more than one mistake. He had also stated that he was unacquainted with the names of the Commissioners. He had now ascertained that two of them were Sir Edward Ryan and Sir John Lefevre, and he might say that if there were any gentlemen whom he would entrust with the duties of such a position with confidence, those were the two he would select.

COURSE OF PUBLIC BUSINESS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. DISRAELIsaid, he wished to ask what course the Government intend to pursue with respect to the Orders on the Paper?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he had already announced that it was proposed to proceed with the Wine Licences Bill on Monday, and should that not occupy the whole of the evening—he would proceed with Sir John Barnard's Act Repeal Bill.
  On the Motion for the Adjournment of the House till Monday,

CAPTAIN GRANT'S MILITARY COOKING INVENTIONS.—OBSERVATIONS.
COLONEL LINDSAYsaid, he rose to draw the attention of the House to the system of cooking in the army invented by Captain Grant, and to ask the Secretary of State for War, if he intends to recommend that some remuneration shall be given to Captain Grant for the great services he has rendered in improving and economising the system. The hon. and gallant Gentleman observed that before those improvements were introduced the only means employed for cooking soldiers' dinners were boilers, and if the men desired to have their food baked they bad to take it to an oven in the town where they happened to be, and to pay for it out of their own pockets. A Board, presided over by Colonel Franklin at Woolwich, in 1856, by whom the subject was investigated, had borne conclusive testimony to the immense saving in fuel from the use of Captain Grant's apparatus; and a subsequent inquiry, conducted by Lieutenant-Colonel
1088
Travers, R.A., had also established its value in that respect. There was at present no allowance of fuel for cooking in barracks; but the winter allowance of fuel per week was 3461bs. and the summer 1881bs. per mess; of which it was the custom to devote one-third to cooking. The expense of cooking at the present moment varied from ½d. per man per week to 5d. per man per week. But this last was an excessive charge. It occurred at St. George's Barracks, and was caused by the apparatus of cooking by gas, which for military reasons ought to be discontinued. The system which only cost a halfpenny per day per man was that of Captain Grant. The Army Sanitary Commission, of which the right hon. Gentleman the present Secretary for War was president, entered very minutely into this question, and while it stated that there were then no means for cooking the soldiers' rations but by boiling, recommended that the means should be furnished the soldiers of having their rations cooked by baking, stewing, and frying. Now, these facilities bad been afforded them by the apparatus of Captain Grant. The attention of that officer was first directed to this subject, in consequence of the dreadful reports that were received from the army in the Crimea during the Russian war. Being permitted to make experiments at Aldershot, he fitted up a kitchen there for 1,000 men. His plan was so successful that he was allowed to extend his apparatus to the whole of that encampment, and at this moment it was in use throughout the whole of the encampment. It had also been adopted at Woolwich, Shorncliffe, the Curragh, and Canterbury. It had been in full operation for 60,000 men, and the cost had been at the rate of ½d. per man per week. The amount of fuel consumed by it was 51b. per man per week, while under the old system the consumption was no less than 3 7–81b. per man per day. The saving effected to the country by Captain Grant's apparatus on 1,000 men was, in round numbers, no less than £300 a year, and to the 1,000 men £275 a year, making £575. Captain Grant in his apparatus had simply adopted the principle of four flues, radiating towards a common centre, and communicating with a chimney; and the greater the draught produced in that chimney the greater the heat. The apparatus had also been applied to field cooking, with great success. Captain Grant had likewise invented a system of

1089
cooking on the march, which had been extensively tried at Woolwich, and pronounced successful; and the Government had sent the apparatus out to China on a scale calculated for 5,000 men. General Peel, when Secretary of State for War, had spoken of the services rendered by Captain Grant in terms of unqualified praise. In December, 1859, Captain Grant, feeling that he had rendered great service to the army, and was entitled to some consideration from the Government, brought his case under the notice of the present Secretary of State for War, by letter, in which he stated he had been engaged five years in perfecting and practically applying the apparatus, and expressed a hope—not that any Vote should be taken expressly in the Estimates—but that a remuneration to the amount of twelve weeks' saving on two-thirds of the military force might be awarded to him. Seven months afterwards he received an answer to the effect that the cooking waggons were still under experiment, and that his applications for remuneration could not be entertained. He (Colonel Lindsay) thought it was hardly considerate to send so brief a letter to Captain Grant, in which the services he had so recently performed were not even acknowledged. Captain Grant had received applications from the Russian Government to furnish them with a kitchen for 1,000 men, and similar applications from other Governments. An application had also been made from the Indian Army to have it introduced into that service. He (Colonel Lindsay) felt, under the circumstances he had stated, that Captain Grant had been a benefactor both to the public service and to the soldier, and he begged to ask the Secretary of State for War if he intended to recommend that some remuneration should be given to him for the services lie had rendered.
GENERAL BUCKLEYcraved the permission of the House to say a few words on this subject. He had the pleasure of knowing Captain Grant, and he could state that no remuneration whatever had been given him by the Government from first to last for all his services in the army, though his apparatus had now been in use for nearly five years; which alone showed that it had received the approbation of the authorities. He hoped, therefore, that the right hon. Secretary for War, who had already done so much for the good of the army, would take this matter into con-
1090
sideration, and he was quite willing to leave it in his hands.
MR. CAVEsaid, if he also might be allowed to interpose for a moment between the question and answer he would gladly add his testimony to the great practical utility of Captain Grant's invention. He had had an opportunity of seeing it in operation in the North West London Reformatory, of which Captain Grant had long been an active supporter. So simple was the apparatus that the half-taught boys, with the assistance of an ordinary smith, were able to construct it; and so great the economy, that in the article of bread alone, the saving for an establishment of a little over 100 amounted, as compared with the price previously paid to the baker, to 30 s. a week, and the saving in fuel, comparing it with an ordinary range of equal capacity, was upwards of twenty-five tons of coals a year. It was quite proper that a charitable institution should avail itself of Captain Grant's gratuitous services; but it was neither creditable, nor, he might say, politic that a country like England should accept such services without acknowledgment. He thought the principle which seemed to regulate proceedings in such cases a somewhat extraordinary one. If a man invented a method of blowing a whole regiment to atoms, he was amply rewarded, and covered with distinction; but if he merely contrived a means of keeping them alive, he was not thought entitled to distinction or reward by the Government of the country.

HARBOURS OF REFUGE.—QUESTION.
MR. LINDSAYasked the President of the Board of Trade when Her Majesty's Government intend to introduce measures to carry into effect the recommendations of the Harbours of Refuge Commission? He would trouble the House with only a few words in explanation. Three years ago the question of shipwrecks absorbed considerable attention, and it was proved that on an average, a million and a half of property and 780 lives were annually sacrificed by shipwreck. Last year, indeed, the loss of property and life greatly exceeded the losses of any former years, as many as 1545 lives having been lost. This annual sacrifice of property and life had at length startled Parliament, and in 1858 a Committee was appointed to see if any remedy could be devised. In the following Session the Committee was reappoint-

1091
ed, and they came to the unanimous conclusion that it was necessary to establish harbours of refuge all along the coast, and they further recommended that a Royal Commission should be appointed to determine on the sites of those harbours. He had the honour to be appointed one of the Royal Commissioners, lie only accepted the office on the understanding that the Government would do all in their power to carry out the recommendations of the Commissioners; and it was duo to the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir John Pakington) to say that he had shown the greatest anxiety and interest on this subject, and that he had omitted no opportunity to press on the House the recommendations of the Committee and Commission. The Commissioners recommended the erection of certain harbours on the coast of England, Scotland, and Ireland, and the sum of money which they estimated would be necessary for the purpose was £2,360,000. That might appear a large sum; but both the House knew when they appointed a Committee, and the Government when they appointed the Commission, that the harbours could not be erected for a smaller sum than that which he had named. He feared, however, that his question would now be met with the answer that that they; had no funds. It was known from the beginning that those funds would be wanted; I and if there was no intention to carry out the recommendations of the Commissioners, then it was a waste of the public money and of their own time to appoint them. The Commissioners recommended that the expense should be extended over a period of ten years, and that a vote of £250,000 should be taken for the purpose annually, Considering the importance of the object in view they thought this was not a large Bum for the House to vote; and even in the present state of the finances—though he must say those finances had got into a state which even to him, who had generally supported the Government, was really alarming—and the expenses of the country were growing at such a rate as to be still more alarming—still he thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer might he able to spare £250,000 for the important object of saving life, and the large amount of property annually sacrificed. If that could not he done then he hoped facilities would he afforded for the local authorities to raise the money by loan. It was not probable that such a system would result in loss to the country. He found that from 1817 to
1092
1850 the advances of the Exchequer Loan Commissioners to public works had resulted in again to the Government of £1,400,000, being the difference between the interest at which the money was borrowed and the interest at which it was lent. He hoped, therefore, he should receive a satisfactory answer to this question from the Government.

MEDICAL OFFICERS OF THE NAVY.
SIR EDWARD GROGANwished to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty "what steps have been taken since the 24th of February last to carry into effect the provisions of the late Naval Warrant as regards Medical Officers in the Navy?" The pay had been conceded, but for some reason the other and more important advantages of the warrant had been withheld. The question of allotting cabins to the assistant-surgeons had also not received from the Admiralty the attention it deserved.
MORTAR VESSELS AND GUNBOATS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. W. EWARTsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what are the measures adopted for subjecting to a strict system of inspection while they are being built, Gunboats and other Vessels, built on contract by the Government? The subject, he said, was one of great interest to this country, as it was believed that those gunboats, from their light draught of water, were admirably fitted for the defence of our coast. He wished to know what sort of inspection had been exercised over the construction of those gunboats that were now said to be defective. He had occasion to see a vessel built for the Russian Government, and which was inspected by a Russian officer, and he found on inquiry that so vigilant was the inspection that not a screw could be driven into the vessel without the officer being present.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he rose for the purpose of asking the Secretary to the Admiralty what is the real extent of injury by decay which has been discovered in Her Majesty's Mortar Vessels and Gunboats; whether it is true that improper workmanship and fastenings have also been discovered; and what steps the Board of Admiralty have taken, or intend to take, in consequence of the present slate of those vessels? But before he put those Questions he should express a hope that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of

  1093
  Trade would give a satisfactory answer to the appeal which had been addressed to him by the hon. Member for Sunderland on the subject of the construction of harbours of refuge. He coincided in every word that had fallen from his hon. Friend with respect to the immense importance, for the protection of life and property, of establishing better harbours of refuge than those which we at present possessed along our coast; and he trusted that no considerations of economy would deter Her Majesty's Government from carrying out the recommendations of the Royal Commissioners in that matter. He should also say that he hoped his noble Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty would be able to offer to the House a satisfactory explanation as to the intention of the Admiralty to carry out the warrant relative to the medical officers of the navy. He had upon a former occasion mentioned that a statement had reached him to the effect that an assistant surgeon had been unable to obtain a cabin on board the Queen, although there were four cabins vacant, one of which had been given to the band master, and the rest appropriated to stores and other purposes comparatively unimportant. His noble Friend had told him that there was no truth in that statement; but he (Sir John Pakington) had still some reason to doubt whether his noble Friend himself might not have been misinformed upon that subject. He would next proceed to put to his noble Friend the Questions of which he had given notice with respect to the state of our gunboats and mortar vessels. For several weeks past, and almost every day, the public journals had been full of statements with regard to the decay of those vessels; and not only that, but very serious allegations had been repeatedly made with respect to the conduct of the contractors who had undertaken the building of that portion of our naval force. Considering the publicity that had been given to the matter, he hoped his noble Friend would consider that the best course for him to take in that matter would be to tell the truth, lie did not, of course, mean to imply any doubt of the veracity of his noble Friend, but he trusted that his noble Friend would candidly lay before the House the whole of the facts with regard to the state of those vessels, and that he would, at the same time, inform them whether there was any fair ground for casting these serious imputations on the contractors. His (Sir John Pakington's) attention was called to the
  1094
  state of those gunboats in the year 1858; and he, in consequence, felt it his duty to subject to an inspection the boats hauled up on the slips at Haslar. It was then found that a certain amount of the elm planking had decayed; but the decay did not appear to extend any further. The Admiralty gave orders to have the defects made good, and we had every reason to suppose that those vessels had been placed in a sound condition. But they were now told that instead of a few decayed elm planks the whole framework of those vessels was rotten; and within the last few days it had been stated in the newspapers that four of Her Majesty's mortar vessels had been recently examined and found so thoroughly rotten that the Admiralty had no choice but to break them up. That was not, however, the worst part of the case. They were informed, through the same channels, that the workmanship of those vessels was very defective; and he was sorry to have to add that there were charges of what must be called dishonest work—charges to the effect that the bolting of the vessels had been such that they could not go to sea with safety. These were most serious statements, and the time had come when they ought to know what were the real facts of the case. He had not, as far as he was at present informed, the slightest intention of imputing any blame to the Board of Admiralty of the period when the vessels were built; nor, indeed, had he any information which would justify him in imputing any serious blame to the contractors. Great allowance must he made for the haste with which those vessels were necessarily constructed. The contracts were taken up by houses of undoubted reputation, and there appeared to have been no suscipion at the time that they had not been faithfully carried out. But the statement which had recently been made deeply affected the public service, and had an important bearing upon the question how far they could resort to the contract system in the building of ships for the Royal Navy without endangering the public interests. Under these circumstances it was only fair to the contractors that the whole truth should be made known. He begged, therefore, to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what is the real extent of injury by decay which has been discovered in Her Majesty's mortar vessels and gunboats; whether it is true that improper workmanship and fastenings have also been discovered; and what steps the Board of

  1095
  Admiralty have taken, or intend to take, in consequence of the present state of those vessel?
  MR. BERNAL OSBORNE: Before the noble Lord answers the Questions, it will be only fair if he would state whether it is true that any officers connected with the Royal Dockyards from time to time visited, superintended, and gave their opinion as to the efficiency of these vessels.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGET: Sir, I need scarcely say that I will follow the advice of my right hon. Friend opposite, and state the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, with regard to these gunboats, as far as it is known to us at the Admiralty. The first duty I have to discharge upon this occasion is to allay the anxiety which has been created by the apprehension that the whole of the gunboats and mortar-boats now in the Royal Navy are rotten and unfit for sea. Up to the present time we have evidence that a certain number have been more or less decayed, and measures either have been taken or are being taken for their repair. I will state the number of those which have been repaired; but I am not at present able to give the House a correct Estimate of the cost of the repairs, because the accounts have not yet been sent in. The noble Lord the Member for Cockermouth (Lord Naas) has, however, moved for a Return which will show the expense of building each of these contract gunboats, and the expense of repairing them, which will give a fair idea of the decay that has taken place in them. It must be remembered that when shipbuilders were invited to enter into contracts for the construction of those gunboats and mortar-vessels the country was very anxious that they should be ready for the campaign which was to open in the ensuing spring; and it is only fair to the contractors that I should state that some of them candidly and distinctly informed the Admiralty that they had no seasoned timber on hand, and that no seasoned timber could then be procured. I have myself seen a letter addressed to one of them, in which the Admiralty, after they had learnt from him that he had no seasoned timber, desired him to go on building with that which he had. So that, as regards the timber, I am bound to observe that, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, there is a great deal to be said on behalf of the contractors. But when we come to the question of short bolts,
  1096
  I must say that that is a fraud of a most abominable nature, inasmuch as it is manifest that a vessel fastened in that manner going to sea and meeting with bad weather might go to the bottom with all her crow. The House will easily understand, therefore, that the Admiralty make a great distinction between those two defects, of unseasoned timber and short bolts; and I have to state that we are now taking legal advice for the purpose of ascertaining whether it would be desirable that we should take further proceedings in respect to this case of defective bolting. I will now proceed to inform the House what is the number of boats that have been repaired, and what is their present state. Besides a great number of those boats which are now on foreign service we have in the yards twenty-three that were found in a partial state of decay, and that have since been completely repaired, and are now perfectly efficient; and we have now six boats in hand. There remain to be examined sixteen of those hauled up on Haslar slip; the condition of which has not been ascertained. There are forty in the steam reserve. We have no reason to suppose that those forty which are afloat show any serious signs of decay; but I cannot positively state to the House whether or not they will require repairs. I do not think that is a matter which need alarm the public any more than the condition of the sixteen which have not yet been examined on the Haslar slip, but which may be found defective. With regard, however, to those that are afloat, I am rather more hopeful that they will not require such extensive repairs as some persons seem to suppose. With regard to the mortar-vessels, undoubtedly those which have been examined have been found extremely defective. The right hon. Baronet is quite correct in stating that two of those at Chatham have been broken up, in consequence of their timber and planks having been found one mass of decay. But with regard to two others which I find it stated in the newspapers to-day are in a similar condition, we have not yet received any report at the Admiralty. I should state also that some of the boats built in the Government yards have been found defective and that eleven of them also have had to undergo considerable repairs. I now wish to say a few words with respect to the question of inspection. Undoubtedly it is advisable that there should be a very careful inspection by Admiralty offi-

  1097
  cers of all vessels that are being built by contract, and as a general rule the Admiralty always appoint a superior officer, who acts as an inspector in every yard where those vessels are being constructed. One officer, however, does the duty of inspector in a yard where several vessels are built, and hence it is that it is desirable on the score of economy that we should have as many vessels as possible constructed in one yard. We have at this moment twenty-four vessels being built by contract and we have seventeen inspectors attached to the yards in which the works are carried on; but as there are two or more vessels being constructed in some of the yards there is none of them without a Government inspector. This question of inspection, however, is one involved in some difficulty. Private shipbuilders are usually only invited at some period of public emergency to contract for the supply of vessels for the Royal Navy, and at such a time we are at full work in the Royal dockyards, where men are employed during extra hours and on task jobs; and it then becomes a matter of great importance that in the dockyards themselves the most vigilant superintendence should be exercised by the inspectors. The consequence is that it is more than usually difficult at such times to find inspectors for overlooking the work done in private establishments. We are at this moment, however, most careful that an efficient system of supervision should take place with regard to all vessels being built by contract; and we have a variety of checks against abuses in that matter. We have not only an inspector in each yard, but we send clown officers periodically to examine and to report how the work is being performed; and the vessels afterwards undergo a survey when they are delivered up to the Admiralty; and this they have to go through before the contractors receive the certificate that entitles them to payment. We thus take every possible precaution against bad workmanship and bad material. While I am upon this subject I will appeal to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chatham (Sir F. Smith) whether he does not think that the Admiralty have shown great anxiety to arrive at the truth in those cases in which we had any reason to suspect that fraud had been practised by contractors.
  The only other Question I have to answer is that which has been put to me by the hon. Baronet the Member for the City
  1098
  of Dublin, with regard to the position of surgeons in the navy. I have to inform the hon. Baronet that surgeons are now about to receive a new uniform of a more ornamental character than their present dress. The reasons for the delay which has taken place in that matter are, that we have felt it necessary that all the non-executive officers in a ship should have a uniform distinct from that of the executive officers, and that we did not wish to decide what should be the uniform of the first of these classes until the House of Commons bad agreed to grant the sums necessary for improving their general condition, which has now been accomplished. With regard to cabins, I cannot hold out the least hope that the Admiralty will give the surgeons a better class. We are anxious that proper cabins should be provided for surgeons, and also for the assistant-surgeons, but we cannot place them in the same position in that case as captains. My right hon. Friend opposite has stated that, according to the information which he received, a cabin was refused to an assistant surgeon on board the Queen, while that accommodation was afforded to the bandmaster and other inferior officers. Captain Hillyard, however, who commands that vessel, has informed me that he gave every cabin he could for the use of the assistant-surgeons, and that at last one of them wished to turn him out of his own steward's berth, as it was called. He refused to accede to that demand, and that is the only foundation for the story to which my right hon. Friend has alluded.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: Are we to understand that it is the intention of the Admiralty to prosecute contractors in all cases in which there are reasonable grounds for suspecting them of fraud?
  LORD CLARENCE PAGET: We are taking legal opinions for the purpose of ascertaining how far we have the power of instituting such proceedings.
  SIR CHARLES NAPIERsaid, it must be satisfactory to know that the contractors who built the gunboats had frankly told the Government they could not procure any but unseasoned timber. The question then arose whether the Government were to blame for accepting the unseasoned timber. For his own part, he acquitted them of all blame. Considering the emergency that had arisen, they were perfectly right in accepting unseasoned timber when they could not get seasoned timber, though it was no doubt a pity they

  1099
  had not exercised the foresight of getting the right sort of timber beforehand. But he should like to learn from the noble Lord who wore the contractors who employed short bolts, and who had thus shown themselves ready to expose the lives of every man on board their ships to the most imminent peril. He wished to know who it was that had resorted to that fraud in building the Caroline gunboat. The name of such a man ought to be made known to that House, and he was sure they would all feel that no punishment could be half severe enough for men who would so risk the lives of British officers and British seamen. He wanted to know heir names that very night, that the House might judge of their conduct. He should like to know also who were the inspectors; whether there were any, and who appointed them. Why had the Admiralty not sent and examined every one of the gunboats one by one? Why had not the noble Lord the Secretary of the Admiralty, who it was understood was to do wonders with the navy, ascertained the actual state of the sixteen boats at the Haslar slip? He said that he "hoped" things were not so bad as had been supposed. Why, good God Almighty! he ought to know whether it was so or not. We had plenty of men at Portsmouth and Plymouth, and if not, let us send down a junior Lord of the Admiralty to see that the inspectors do their duty. There ought, at all events, to be a regular system of inspection. But there was another point to which he wished to revert. The gunboats built by contractors were not the only boats which were complained of; the Government had built a certain number of boats under the direction of their own officers, and in their own yards. Had those boats been satisfactorily constructed or not? It was well known that they were as bad as had could be. The nation ought not to be trifled with any longer, and he hoped that the contractors, whoever they might be, and the persons under whose directions the inferior gunboats built in the Government yards were constructed, ought to be brought to book. The inquiry would be a very difficult one. Would they get those who built the boats to speak the truth, and say what sort of timber these boats were really built of? At all events, no one could doubt that there ought to be an inquiry, and that it ought to be a very searching one. The noble Lord says he will speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
  1100
  but the truth:—but will others do it? If a Commission was appointed to investigate the matter, he hoped they would not be contented with the mere statement of witnesses before them, but that they would go down and personally inspect every one of the defective gunboats. We were spending millions of money annually on the navy, and it was really disgraceful to find that the work was so deficient as it had turned out to be. Why, he was told that the stern of the Princess Royal, the very vessel which his noble and gallant Friend (Lord C. Paget) himself commanded, had been recently taken to pieces, and had been found to have been originally constructed of very unsound timber. Every one of the line-of-battle ships which were now being converted from sailing vessels into screw steam-ships were being converted, as he was informed, with green and unseasoned timber. It was all very well for the Admiralty to say that they had no seasoned timber. His simple reply to that was the inquiry—Why had they not? They have had plenty of money for it. His hon. Friend on the opposite side (Mr. Bentinck) had pointed out to the House that there was not a sufficient quantity of well-seasoned timber for two years kept in the dockyards? Why was that? Surely it could not be said that they had not money enough voted by Parliament. If they were converting all our ships of war into screw steamers with unseasoned timber, as he was informed they were, no sooner should we have finished the conversion of them than we should have to begin again with the first and repair them. He could tell the House that as long as such carelessness was suffered in the mode of doing the work, it would be quite a delusion to suppose that our Naval Estimates would ever be reduced. He did not say that it was not necessary to convert the line-of-battle ships to steamers; on the contrary, it was absolutely necessary, for, in the present juncture of affairs, and when the whole system of naval warfare had undergone a change consequent upon the introduction of steam, it became more than ever necessary that we should use every available means which science afforded to strengthen our navy, and place it in such a condition that we should maintain our naval supremacy. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire, the other night, said, that the state of Europe was such as to make the boldest man quake and the wisest men tremble. He was neither the

  1101
  boldest or the wisest man, yet he both quaked and trembled, and therefore it was that he was most anxious to take every opportunity of warning the Government of the danger we incurred in neglecting the navy. He hoped the hon. Member would insist either on a Committee or a Commission.
  ADMIRAL DUNCOMBEsaid, that some of the gunboats which were inspected at Haslar slip were quite rotten, and in an absolutely dangerous condition.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGET: What I said was, some of them required very small repairs.
  ADMIRAL DUNCOMBEcould only say, that two years ago when he happened to be at Haslar, and examined the gunboats, he poked the end of his umbrella through the bottom of some of them, and he could not well understand how they could require very small repairs after that. The noble Lord would probably bear in mind that, not only a great many Members of Parliament, but a great many officers and naval authorities were entirely against the system of hauling up vessels on dry slips and exposing them to all the influences of the weather. He believed that the best thing in the world for ships was to keep them afloat, and he should be very glad to see a comparison instituted between those that wore kept afloat and those that were laid up in reserve. There was no doubt that a great deal of the decay was owing to the boats having been originally built of unsound timber; and he thought himself, that so far as the Royal Arsenals went, they should supply seasoned timber to the builders, and for that purpose keep a good supply themselves. It had been mentioned that two of the mortar boats at Chatham were so rotten that it was very doubtful indeed whether they ought to be repaired or not. He hoped that the Admiralty would not throw good money after bad, but that if the boats were found to be very defective they would be broken up at once.
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, that his hon. and gallant Friend had made a statement that he could not possibly believe to be correct—that the Admiralty, from want of seasoned timber, had been compelled to convert line-of- battle ships with unseasoned timber. They really ought to hear whether there was any foundation for that statement or not. He could not himself believe that such had been the case; but the statement was one of snob importance, and was calculated to create so much alarm throughout
  1102
  the country, that they ought to have a full, fair, and satisfactory explanation upon the matter. A great deal had been said with respect to the condition of the gunboats at Haslar. It was stated, two years ago, that the rotten state of these vessels was owing to their being hauled up on slips and kept dry, instead of being kept afloat. Why there was no carpenter's boy commonly conversant with the subject, who could not have told them what the result would be. The simple fact was, that ships which were hauled up invariably became rotten. No less than seventy gunboats had been hauled up into a position in which they could not be got at, and the cost of the operation was £70,000. Everybody who knew anything about the matter, knew that they must rot; and he had no doubt whatever that when they came to be examined, the sixteen remaining gunboats would be found to be in the same state. No doubt a system of inspection was very good; but it required the closest and constant observation on the part of the inspectors, to detect frauds of the description which had been adverted to on the present occasion. Short bolts might be put in without the knowledge of the contractor himself; and it was very easy for a shipwright to cut the bolt in two, put in the two heads, and clinch them. It might be done in five minutes, when the inspector's back was turned; and therefore it would be necessary that the inspector should see every one put in. The rot in timber, after it bad begun, showed itself in a moment; but it was impossible to say that timber was in a perfectly sound state, and would not rot, without examining it in the heart of the wood, in which the rot commenced and extended outwards. He had seen a vessel which appeared perfectly sound, and when the wood was opened no unsoundness appeared for several weeks. As, however, the wood dried by exposure to the atmosphere, the rot in the heart of the wood became perceptible. It was impossible that any system could prevent the occurrence of rot to the frame of vessels; but he believed it was false economy not to have a sufficient number of inspectors to watch every large vessel during the whole time it was being built.

COSTS OF PROSECUTIONS.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. HOWESsaid, he rose to call attention to the Report of the Commission on the Costs of Prosecutions; and to ask

  1103
  the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is the intention of the Government to bring in a Bill, or take any other steps, in relation to the subject of the said Report? In the year 1851 powers were given to the Home Secretary to promulgate new forms for the allowance of these costs, and that power had been exercised so stringently that, though theoretically the cost of prosecutions were defrayed by the Treasury, in fact at least 16 per cent fell on the counties. The Treasury had also assumed the power of defining the items of which the costs of prosecutions should consist. This led to a constant antagonism between the counties and the Treasury, to say nothing of a large amount of delay and uncertainty.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, the subject had been under the careful consideration of the Home Office and the Treasury; but, as yet no conclusion had been arrived at, and he was unable, therefore, at present to promise any Bill on the subject.

MORTAR VESSELS AND GUNBOATS.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  SIR FREDERIC SMITH, reverting to the matter of the gunboats, said, be certainly could not yield to the appeal made to him by the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty, not to press his Motion for a Select Committee to inquire into this subject. All that had fallen from the noble Lord and other Members made him more anxious that this Committee should be appointed. He bad no desire to attach blame to anybody—it was in perfect ignorance as to where the blame lay that he wished for an inquiry. It might be with the Government—though he did not believe it; it might be with the contractors, or it might be with the inspectors; but the House ought to know who was to blame. No doubt there was a great deficiency of seasoned timber, and he quite agreed with the gallant Officer opposite that on an emergency it was better to have gunboats built of unseasoned timber than no gunboats at all; but the House ought to know what sort of designs had been given out; whether proper specifications had been drawn up; whether they had been complied with; whether the terms of the contract would inflict penalties on the contractors for their shortcomings, and whether the inspectors had done their duty. He believed that the whole matter hinged on this question of inspection. The Admiralty might say that
  1104
  it was difficult to get inspectors; but they might be got if they were properly paid. The Secretary of the Admiralty, he had no doubt, would do his best to probe the matter to the bottom; but everybody who knew what a public department was would acknowledge that a Committee of the House of Commons could perform the duty much more effectually. The Government should ascertain where the fault lay, and should then visit the real offenders. They ought to find out the inspectors by whom these vessels were passed, and take steps to punish them if they deserve it.
  MR. WHITBREADwas understood to say that the Admiralty had no objection to furnish a return of the cost of the gunboats, but it was right that the House should know the exact position of this question. The Admiralty had referred the matter to their legal advisers. There was not the least intention on their part to screen any contractor who had been guilty of these practices complained of; but the question which remained for the decision of their legal advisers was whether, having had inspectors to overlook the construction, and having received these vessels, they now had the power to institute legal proceedings against the contractors. It would be singular to have legal proceedings going forward and a Committee sitting at the same time; and the course he would suggest, therefore, was that the subject should be deferred until that day week to ascertain the exact position in which the Admiralty stood. They would then be able to acquaint the House whether they intended to take legal proceedings, and, if not, it would of course be in the power of the House to appoint a Committee if it thought fit to do so. The same answer applied to the proposal of the gallant Admiral, that the names of the contractors should be published. Pending legal proceedings it was not right to do so; but hereafter, if the House thought it necessary that the names of these contractors should be given, it would be in their power to call for them. As to the best mode of keeping gunboat3, whether afloat or hauled up high and dry, it was not yet settled by the authorities which of the two modes was the better. Recently a gunboat which had been kept afloat for a number of years was examined and found to be as defective as any of those which were kept ashore. As to the question respecting the timber in the Government yards, he was not aware that there was

  1105
  any foundation for the statement that the Government were now using unseasoned timber there.
  MR. WARREsaid, that as soon as this discussion went forth to the world every one who had had a contract for the construction of these gunboats would more or less become an object of observation or suspicion. It would therefore be only right that the Admiralty should publish as soon as possible a list of vessels which had been honestly and truly built. While proceedings were taken against the guilty it was due to those with whose vessels no fault had been found that their conduct should be vindicated. The iniquity of driving these short bolts could not be portrayed in too strong characters. In his opinion it was an offence little short of wilful murder to send a ship to sea so constructed that she would probably go to pieces, and it displayed an amount of wickedness for which no punishment that the law could inflict would be too great. With regard to harbours of refuge, he wished to express his earnest hope that the question would be seriously entertained by the Government. The expenditure necessary might be spread over a series of years; but no one could hear of the casualties which took place every year on the shores of the United Kingdom, so many of which casualties might be averted if there were a harbour to run to, without feeling that the question was one of national importance. The four harbours most strongly recommended by the Commission on this subject were one on the north coast of Scotland, another on the east coast of England, a third on the north coast of Cornwall, and a fourth on the west coast of Ireland. Others might be wanted, but as everything could not be done at once the Government might take these four first, and it would be well to set about them immediately.

THE FOREIGN OFFICE.—QUESTION.
SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, he would beg to ask the Chief Commissioner of Works, Whether it is true that it is in contemplation to expend between £20,000 and £30,000 on temporary buildings for the Foreign Office at or near to No. 8, Spring Gardens, and whether the Clerk of the Parliaments has in consequence received notice to quit that house; also, whether it is the intention of the Chief Commissioner to carry out the proposal announced by Lord John Manners when
1106
Chief Commissioner of Works—namely, to cause the plan of the architect and the estimates for the re-building of the Foreign Office to be exhibited in the Library, for the inspection of Members of the House of Commons, before any proceeding is taken or any money is expended? He protested against any expenditure under this head being reserved for No. 7 set of Votes, for he believed that had the vote for cleansing the Serpentine been proposed earlier in the Session the House would never have sanctioned it. It would be remembered that Mr. Gilbert Scott had been selected as the Gothic architect for the construction of a new Foreign Office. The noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) had pronounced strongly against the Gothic style, but Mr. Scott had, nevertheless, he believed, been continued as architect. Under these circumstances he thought the House ought to have an opportunity of seeing what was proposed to be done before any money was laid out.
MR. COWPERsaid, that some temporary accommodation must be found for the Foreign Departments during the time occupied in pulling down the existing Foreign Office and building up the new one; and a plan was under consideration by which the house occupied by the Clerk of the Parliaments would be used in conjunction with other houses for that purpose. Information on the subject had been communicated to the Clerk of the Parliaments but beyond that step nothing had as yet been decided. He could not think that a charge of this sort should be put into No. 1 Miscellaneous Estimates, instead of into No. 7. The ordinary expenditure that occurred every year was put in No. 1, and the things that would not occur again were put in another Estimate, in order that the two classes of expenditure might be separately considered. With respect to the style of architecture to be adopted for the new Foreign Office, be would remind the hon. Gentleman, that in the debate of last year the First Lord of the Treasury told the House, that before requiring any sum to be voted he would take care that the plan of the proposed building and the Estimates should be submitted to the House; and it was unnecessary to say that that promise would be fulfilled. He would rather not enter into any statement respecting the precise sum requisite to make the temporary buildings suitable for the purposes intended, because it must necessarily be a rough estimate.

COLLISIONS AT SEA.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. DIGBY SEYMOURsaid, he wished to call the attention of the House to the state of the Law with regard to Collisions at Sea, so far as Foreign Vessels are concerned, and to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether Her Majesty's Government are prepared to urge on the Governments of other Countries the expediency of establishing some international rule for assimilating the liability of Shipowners in cases of Collision, at home and abroad. The subject was one of great importance to the mercantile marine of this country, especially now that our foreign trade was increasing so rapidly. The question involved principles of international law, and was one on which there was great diversity among the different systems of law recognized by the principal commercial nations of Europe, as well as the United States. By the law of France if a vessel belonging to that country damaged one belonging to another nation, the owner, by abandoning his ship, might save himself from further consequences. A similar rule prevailed in Holland, Sardinia, and other countries of Europe; while the law of the United States of America bore more analogy to that of England. The liability of the British shipowner was fixed and defined by the Merchant Shipping Act; but, while that liability was limited in the case of collision between two British vessels, the limitation did not apply when a collision took place between a British ship and a foreign ship. It was only just that all parties should be placed upon the same footing, and therefore he felt it to be his duty to call the attention of the Government to the subject. He trusted the Government would see the necessity of coming to some international arrangement upon the subject, with which an Act of Parliament was necessarily incompetent to deal.
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, that communications had already passed between the Board of Trade and the Foreign Office in reference to the subject to which the hon. and learned Gentleman had called attention. The Government were quite alive to the importance of this proposal, and were very desirous that some international arrangement should be entered into for assimilating the laws of the different countries, so that a British ship in a foreign country might receive a similar treatment in that country to a ship of that country,
  1108
  and that we should in turn reciprocate that protection to ships of other countries. It was desirable, in fact, that some arrangement should be made by which each country would give national treatment to the ships of the other. That matter was under consideration by the Foreign Office, and so far as the Board of Trade was concerned, they would give their best attention to it.
  He would also beg to reply to a question of the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Lindsay), who had inquired whether the Government intended to introduce a measure to carry into effect the recommendations of the Harbours of Refuge Commission. Of course there could be no difference of opinion respecting the desirableness of having harbours of refuge upon the coasts of this country, and especially upon the eastern coast, which was passed by a much greater number of merchant vessels, because every one must be struck with the loss of life and property that annually took place at sea. The question was, as regarded harbours of refuge, from what source were the necessary funds to be obtained? The Royal Commission and the Committee of the House were not of the same opinion as to the source from which the funds were to be derived. The Committee considered that a portion of the expenditure should be derived from tolls levied on merchant vessels passing those harbours. The Commission recommended that the expenditure should be met by Votes in Parliament, and by the expenditure of the public money. He did not find on inquiry that the shipowners and insurers valued those harbours of refuge sufficiently to be willing to take upon themselves any considerable portion of the charge; and with regard to a large expenditure of public money, it was a matter on which he was not at liberty to speak; it was a question for the consideration of the Treasury, rather than for the Department with which he was connected. The Government were fully impressed with the importance of these harbours of refuge; but no decision had been come to as to whether any plan could be laid before Parliament with the view of carrying out that part of the recommendation of the Commissioners. With regard to the question as to whether the Government were ready to do anything to facilitate the construction of harbours of refuge, and the improvement of such harbours as now exist, he begged to say, that instructions had

  1109
  been given to prepare a Bill to effect that object; and when the state of public business would permit he should state the provisions of that measure to the House. It was a Bill that he thought would materially assist the object in view, though certainly it would not go to the full extent of all the recommendations of the Commissioners. It was proposed to introduce a provision to give facilities for obtaining powers to make improvements without the necessity in each particular case of parties incurring the expense of coming to the House for a special Act of Parliament. The Government were quite alive to the importance of the whole question, and the hon. Member for Sunderland would admit with him that it was a matter that could not be undertaken without more consideration, involving, as it would, a large grant of public money.

FRENCH FORTIFICATIONS AT ST. PIERRE.—OBSERVATIONS.
MR. HALIBURTONsaid, pursuant to notice, he rose to call the attention of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to the state of the French Fortifications at St. Pierre. He said it would be in the recollection of the noble Lord that he (Mr. Haliburton) stated on a former occasion that there were two small islands in the Straits of Belleisle, lying between Newfoundland and the Labrador coast, which having been taken from the French had been restored by treaty with certain fisheries annexed thereto; upon the conditions expressed in the treaty of 1763 they were to erect no buildings but for fishery purposes, were to keep only 50 soldiers for purposes of police, and, above all, were to erect no fortifications. Fortifications had, however, been erected there; and on the former occasion he asked whether his Lordship's attention had been called to that fact, and whether any steps had been taken, either by application from the Governor of Newfoundland or from the Government of this country, to the French Government, to restrain the erection of fortifications at St. Pierre. Unless some step of the kind were taken, in the event of a war these fortifications would be found extremely inconvenient. The island was so situated as to command the whole of the navigation of the Straits of Belleisle and the coast of Labrador; and a cruiser there might at any time intercept the navigation of the St. Lawrence. He had reason to know that in violation of the treaty
1110
a French squadron was kept there, and that the place had been converted from a fishing into a naval station. There were several French men-of-war there; he had himself seen those ships at Cape Breton, where they affected to wait for the mails, and whence they took hack largo quantities of coal to St. Pierre, in the meantime taking charts and soundings of all the coast. They had at the present moment 30,000 sailors there. It was really a matter of deep importance, because the island in question was out of the way. There was no human being to resort to it but those French fishermen and those men-of-war. It had no value except for its political importance and its command of the navigation. That a French squadron was there was a fact within his own knowledge. He had himself seen two ships at a time at Cape Breton; the French flag was constantly flying in that harbour, and that of Her Majesty was to be seen on a small fortification. Many of the inhabitants of the island were Frenchmen; he had nothing to say against them; they were mild and peaceable people, and well-disposed towards Her Majesty's Government; but they were Frenchmen; France was their fatherland; they spoke the same language and were influenced by the unity which was promoted by a common form of religion; they were, in fact, dangerous neighbours to have in that peculiar locality. The answer which the noble Lord gave him arose, he thought, from a misconception of what he had stated. His question applied to fortifications; the answer of the noble Lord was that certain questions had been referred to the law officers relative to the erection of certain buildings on the island in question. He (Mr. Haliburton) did not complain of the erection of any buildings; it was the setting up of batteries and guns, it was the making it a very dangerous point of which he complained. The few English fishermen who had at times frequented the place, seeing those batteries and asking the meaning of them, were told with a shrug, "Oh, this is the morning gun battery, and that is the evening gun battery; and they have been placed there by the Emperor." They make no secret of it at all. It did not become him to question any opinion that might be given by men so distinguished as the law officers of the Crown, but he might be permitted to question the form in which the proposition had been laid before them. In this country it was most difficult to ob-

1111
tain minute information of distant places like that to which he was now referring. Our colonial Governors did not send the minute information that was communicated to the French and American Governments by their officers. He had, therefore, been obliged to send to Washington for a document deposited in the Treasury Department there in order to obtain information which he could not procure in this country. That document he had received, and he certainly regarded it as a very extraordinary thing that more minute and reliable information could be obtained with reference to British North America from Washington than could be found in England. The person by whom the document was written was appointed by the American Government Consul-General for all British North America. Clothed with that authority he went to the Colonies, and was everywhere received with respect and cordiality. The Custom House Offices were thrown open to him; he visited every port and every headland and creek along the coast, and reported everything with great minuteness to the Secretary of the Treasury at Washington. The Report extended to about 1,000 pages, and was full of valuable information, both with respect to the fishing grounds and to the commerce of the country. It was just such a Report as our Colonial Governors should be compelled to send to this country. To his surprise he found in the document drawn up by this official—Mr. Andrews—the copy of a Report of a Committee of the National. Assembly of France on the deep-sea fisheries, in which they had a French opinion of that question, expressed by the Minister of Commerce and Marine. In this Report there occurred the following passage:—
"There was a time when France possessed all the principal fishing grounds in Nova Scotia, Cape Breton, Prince Edward's Island, and Newfoundland. But the treaties of 1713, of 1763, of 1783, and finally of 1814, had reduced our possessions in those quarters to the two islets of St. Pierre and Miquilon—that is to say, to two sterile rocks—destitute of all resources, and on which we are forbidden to raise any fortifications. These treaties reserve to us the right of fishing along the coast of Newfoundland, but only at determined points and distances. We are only permitted to establish ourselves on the northern part of Newfoundland during a few months of the year, without constructing any permanent habitations. The country is uncultivated and savage."
It would scarcely be credited after this that, instead of limiting themselves to the permissive rights belonging to them under the
1112
treaties, the French had assumed an arrogant demeanour towards the rest of the inhabitants, that they were laying claim to a great part of Newfoundland, and that they were driving out the inhabitants, the descendants of Irish families, who were obliged to quit their houses or have them burnt about their ears. They had presumed actually to hold courts-martial upon English fishermen, punishing them by taking away their nets, and committing other irregularities. In a letter which he had received from Capo Breton he was informed that fishing vessels putting into the harbour under stress of weather were fired on by the French and driven out to sea in a severe storm—fired on, it would be observed, from our own territory. This was a matter of the deepest importance. There were no fewer than 30,000 sailors there belonging to France, and, as there were 90,000 sailors inscribed on the books of France, it followed that one-third of the men from which the French navy could be manned were to be found in that distant territory. On this report of the French Minister, Mr. Andrews observed:—
"It will be seen that the cod caught and dried by the French will be introduced into the principal markets of the United States, with a bounty of two dollars per quintal, which is nearly equal to the value of our own fish. It must not be overlooked either that besides this excessive bounty on fish there is another of ten dollars for every man engaged in the fisheries, and a further bounty of 20f. per quintal metrique on cod oil, and an almost total exemption of duty on their salt."
The views he bad formerly expressed to the House on this subject had been published in the Colonies, and he had received many letters thanking him for bringing it under the notice of Parliament and of the Government, and begging him to press it still further upon their attention. Mr. Andrews passed a high eulogy upon the sailors of British North America, which, as it might be gratifying to the noble Lord and furnish useful hints in their future legislation for the Colonies, he should like to read to the House. He had himself lived on the borders of the great Republic, without, however, acquiring the disposition of its citizens to boast, of which disposition lie wished to leave those gentlemen in exclusive possession. Mr. Andrews said:—
"England possesses no nursery for seamen at all equal to her North American colonial trade. Besides training her own hardy sons to the dangers and hardships of the sea, that trade fosters and raises up from among her active, well built, enduring, and intelligent subjects in the northern colonies as fine seamen as ever trod a deck, afraid

1113
of no danger, and perfectly fitted to sustain any reasonable amount of cold, hardship, and fatigue. The vigour of their frames, their sound constitutions, and the habit of facing severe cold, violent gales, and stormy seas in a high northern latitude, aided by quick perceptions and ready intelligence, eminently quality them to navigate her ships to any quarter of the world, either to uphold the honour of their country in fighting her battles upon the seas, or, bettor still, to extend and enlarge her commerce to every part of the habitable globe. To her colonial seamen England may well look with honest pride."
It was natural that a citizen of the United States should put himself at the head of all creation. They said that "The English whipped all the world, and they whipped the English." So Mr. Andrews went on:—
"Save our own citizens they have few equals, and none others are their superiors. Whether in war or in peace these British North American sailors, cradled on a stormy deep," &c.
The rest of the sentence he need not read to the House. They had heard much of the protection of the Colonies by this country. Our North American colonists were told that they were a great encumbrance and that it cost a great deal to protect them. If the Government wished to protect our Colonies, let them protect their fisheries, for they were the mainstay of these Colonies. People at home had talked so much of protecting the Colonies that, like other people who told marvellous stories, they began to believe it themselves. It was an amiable delusion; but let them, at all events, protect the North American fisheries. He trusted that the noble Lord would not allow the French, contrary to the stipulations of treaties, to erect fortifications at St. Pierre, when the people of the Colonies, at a great expenditure of blood and treasure, would try to drive them out; and drive them out they certainly would. He also wished to ask the noble Lord whether there would be any objection to lay upon the Table of the House Copies of all Questions submitted to the Law Officers of the Crown with regard to the French Fortifications of St. Pierre?
LORD LOVAINEasked whether the noble Lord could state the general position of the negotiations relative to the Fisheries Convention of Newfoundland?

CASE OF MR. SPITZ-GOLDSTEIN.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. ROEBUCK, in rising to call the attention of the House to the case of Mr.
  1114
  Spitz-Goldstein, said that during the Indian outbreak the English Government and the East India Company bought some horses in Candia. They treated with various persons for this purpose, and the British Consul at Aleppo, Mr. Skene, applied to Mr. Spitz-Goldstein, a Turkish subject, to buy some horses and camels for service in India, at the same time acknowledging the services he had rendered to the Allied Army in the Black Sea. Mr. Spitz-Goldstein accepted the offer, and on the 8th of June, 1858, Mr. Skene wrote to say he was glad he had undertaken the affair and that the matter might now be considered as settled. Mr. Spitz-Goldstein accordingly bought a number of camels and horses. A change of Government at home meanwhile took place, and while lie was waiting for the officers to come and receive the animals he was told that the whole matter was referred from Aleppo to Bagdad, that he had no claim upon the British Government, and that the British Consul had transcended his powers. Now, he wished to know whether the Government were prepared to stand upon their power as a Government and do nothing for Mr. Spitz-Goldstein, or whether they would consent, to refer the matter to arbitration, and say what claim, if any, this gentleman had upon the Government. Mr. Spitz-Goldstein was a Turkish subject, unsupported by powerful connections, and the Government had the power to be unjust, but he appealed to the noble Lord to submit the matter to arbitration. He wished therefore to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will consent to submit that case to the decision of an arbitrator to be chosen by the Government?

FORAGE CONTRACT IN IRELAND.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. POLLARD.URQUHARTsaid, he wished to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War to the case of the Contractors for the supply of Forage to the Troops quartered in the counties of Dublin and Kildare. The case of these contractors was one of great hardship and severity. In the month of May, 1859, those contractors entered into an engagement to supply the horses of the troops with hay at £3 10 s. per ton, which seemed at that time a fair price, the usual price of hay in Ireland averaging from £2 10 s. per ton to £3 10s.; but in consequence of the unfavourable state of the weather during the summer of 1859

  1115
  the price of hay in Ireland rose to £5 or £6 per ton, and in November last it reached the extraordinary price of—7 10 s. The contractors went on supplying the troops at a daily loss of—70, and they had actually lost lay the contract no less a sum than—9,000. He was fully aware of the danger which might result from not compelling persons to stand by their contracts, and if this were an ordinary case, he should not have asked the Government to do anything in the matter. He found that in the year 1846 the Government did compensate certain contractors for losses which they unavoidably sustained. The present case was one which could not be construed into a precedent. If the Government enforced the contract strictly, it would inevitably ruin these contractors. He trusted he had shown that the circumstances of this case were not of an ordinary nature. The contractors might have thrown up the contract, as the bonds were not actually signed, but they preferred executing it and trusting to the mercy of Her Majesty's Government to compensate them for the great loss which they would sustain, and they followed that course the more freely as they had been given to understand by the Commissary-General that their case would be taken into consideration.

THE REFORM BILL.—QUESTION.
MR. EDWIN JAMES: Sir, there is a feeling in the country that there is no sincere desire on the part of the Government to proceed with the Bill for the Amendment of the Representation of the People; and I do not wonder at it, for appearances are certainly a little against them. Parliament met on the 24th of January, and I think as early as the 25th the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stroud (Mr. Horsman) and myself, both suggested to the Government that any delay in the introduction of the Reform Bill might be subject to misconstruction. The noble Lord the Member for the City of London then announced that he would introduce the Bill on the 20th of February. He was again asked on both sides of the House on the subject; and then he said he would postpone the Bill from the 20th of February to the 1st of March, which he said was an auspicious day for the introduction of such a measure. The Bill was introduced by the noble Lord on the 1st of March, in a speech which did not give him much trouble to make:—indeed, it could not well
1116
have been otherwise, for there was not much to say upon the Bill on the table. The noble Lord made a short and able statement—not a longer statement than it would take a country gentleman to make in introducing a Bill for the diversion of a footpath. The second reading was agreed to on the 3rd of May, and the Committee on the Bill is postponed to the 4th of June; and yet we find that Her Majesty's Government are constantly bringing in Bills to which this great and important question is to give place. We find the Highways Bill constantly set down among the Orders of the Day, and the repeal of Sir John Barnard's Act constantly taking the place of this great measure—we find a Bill called in mockery the City of London Corporation Reform Bill, which is an official curiosity—we find all these Bills taking the place of the Bill introduced by Her Majesty's Government for reforming the representation of the people. I think, therefore, I am justified in asking the noble Lord whether he sincerely means to proceed with the Bill in Committee on the 4th of June, in order that Members may be able to apply themselves to the details of the Bill, so as to make it a great measure worthy of the House and the country. I beg to put the following question to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs:—Whether it is the intention of the Government to proceed continuously with the Reform Bill, the consideration of which in Committee has been postponed till the 4th June, so as to afford to the other Branch of the Legislature the opportunity of passing into Law that Bill during the present Session?

CHABLAIS AND FAUCIGNY—QUESTION.
MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he would beg to ask the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he is now able to give any assurance that no French Troops will be moved into the Provinces of Chablais and Faucigny until the question of the dispositions to be adopted as to those neutralised Provinces shall he finally determined upon by diplomatic consultation and agreement? He did not wish to make any attack upon the noble Lord, for he acknowledged the difficulty of his position, and whoever had occupied that position would have found himself surrounded by the same difficulties:—but he wished to point out that if France were allowed to occupy those provinces before any settlement took place she would not

1117
withdraw her troops afterwards; and therefore he desired the British Government to make their proceedings intelligible at this stage of the matter. He thought it would be better for Switzerland that they should withdraw from the matter at once than that they should be drawn into a proceeding which would be delusive from the beginning. He would just remind the noble Lord that M. Thouvenel bad said in one of his despatches that, in case of the annexation of Savoy to Prance these provinces would be given to Switzerland, and he (Mr. Griffith) only expressed the feeling of this country in the matter when he asked the noble Lord whether he could give any assurance that that arrangement would be carried out, and that France would not be allowed to occupy those provinces.

THE IRISH REFORM BILL.

  QUESTION.
  MR. VINCENT SCULLYsaid, he rose to ask the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government will agree to introduce provisions applicable to Ireland into the Representation of the People Bill for England and Wales? He said the noble Lord ought to feel indebted to the hon. and learned Member for Marylebone for giving him an opportunity of disavowing the charge of insincerity which was made, not only against the noble Lord, but generally against the House of Commons. The hon. and learned Member for Marylebone had made one of the most damaging speeches against the Reform Bill which had yet been delivered. He had done a great service by culling attention to facts and figures, and he had also given notice of his intention to move the insertion of a clause which would confer the franchise upon lodgers, and the omission of the provision which made the payment of poor-rates a condition precedent to the exercise of the franchise. It was said that nobody wanted this Bill, and that if a vote by Ballot were taken upon it, only two Members would be found to support it—the noble Lord and his backer, the hon. Member for Birmingham. He wanted to know how they were sure that if it were put to the Ballot there would be two votes in favour of it at all. They were all accused of being insincere, and be confessed himself guilty of that very soft impeachment. But if there were no sincerity about passing the English Reform Bill, there was no insincerity about the Irish Re-
  1118
  form Bill. The Chief Secretary for Ireland, in reply to a question, had stated that he would not take up the Irish Reform Bill until the English Reform Bill was passed through Committee. He, therefore, asked the noble Lord last night, whether he would postpone going into Committee on the English Reform Bill until after the second reading of the Irish Bill; or, if he would not do that, whether he would incorporate the Irish in the English Bill. The noble Lord took no notice of the second branch of this question, and as he could obtain no answer to a question put in a very quiet and modest form, he thought he was justified in using the privilege of a Friday night to draw the distinct attention of the noble Lord to it. It was not a new idea, I because so long since as December last he had written to the Chief Secretary suggesting uniform legislation for the two countries, and the omission of the provision which required payment of poor-rates as a condition precedent to the enjoyment of the franchise. He knew how injuriously that provision operated in Ireland, and he believed it was found even more injurious in England. He bad long been of opinion that it was better to have a bad law for Ireland incorporated in the same Bill for England than to have it exclusively applicable to Ireland, because a bad law which affected England would soon be changed, but if it only affected Ireland there was not the same certainty of a speedy alteration. The country imputed insincerity to the House of Commons, but what was the sincerity on the part of the country itself? The whole of the petitions for and against and about reform did not bear 90,000 signatures, and only 9,711 signatures were in favour of the Representation of the People Bill. The signatures in favour of the Representation of the People Bills were only two—that was to say, in favour of all the three Bills of the Government. There were only 23,670 signatures to petitions in favour of Reform from England, while there were 27,620 signatures to petitions from Ireland. He saw a right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Whiteside) shaking his very learned head at that statement, and he knew that the right hon. Gentleman meant to say that the people of Ireland cared nothing at all about Reform. Well, he was inclined to agree with the right hon. Gentleman, for he had lately visited his own constituents, and found they were very well satisfied with their present representatives; but still it appeared from their petitions

  1119
  that the people of Ireland cared more about Reform than the people of England. The noble Lord said yesterday that until he had consulted the Cabinet he could not tell whether there would be any Scotch or Irish Reform Bill at all, and there seemed so much uncertainty that they might perhaps safely make up their minds there would be no Irish or Scotch Bill. He did not deny that a Reform Bill was wanted; but, if there was to be legislation for England, for the reason he had given, he thought Ireland ought to be included. There were important principles in the English Bill which Irish Members had a right to discuss. The Irish Members had taken very little part in the discussions hitherto, lest it should be said, "Why do you intrude? There will be time enough for you when we come to the Irish Bill." But if the Bill was to be deferred to the Greek calends there would be no opportunity to discuss the important principle of the franchise being based on population alone, which was acknowledged in the English Bill, and was of vital interest to the Irish people. The English Bill also conferred the elective franchise upon the principle of clear yearly value or rent, whilst the Irish Bill was based upon poor law rating. Where there was a will there was always a way; and the noble Lord, if so inclined, could easily have clauses applicable to Ireland introduced into the English Bill. An hon. Member who had supplied the House with some statistics had informed them that the English Reform Bill had already occupied them seven tiresome nights, upon which about eighty speeches had been delivered, so that it might be truly said of it:—
  "Seven nights, nine times nine,
  Did it dwindle, peak, and pine;"
  and very small it had shrunk. He might continue the quotation—
  "Though the Bill may not be lost,
  Yet it shall be tempest tost."
  All kinds of complimentary epithets had been applied to the measure. It had been compared to a bread-pill, which would do neither good nor harm; and the hon. Member for Birmingham had expressed a hope that it would not prove to be like a Spanish repast, at which there was very little of meat, but a great deal of table cloth. It appeared to him (Mr. Scully) that that exactly described the character of the noble Lord's scheme. In the meantime it had stopped the way of a great deal of useful legislation. More important measures,
  1120
  such as the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Bill and the Transfer of Land Bill, which the Attorney General had fifteen times placed on the paper without finding an opportunity to proceed with it, ought not to be delayed for a Bill which no one believed would he passed in the end. India and China, too, were waiting for them, and as yet nothing had been done for Ireland. He should recommend the noble Lord to withdraw his Reform Bill, and re-introduce it in a better form next Session. Some people said that if the Bill were thrown over, then they would see what sort of a measure would be demanded. For his own part, he should like to have the country roused to demand a good Bill. He did not wish to see a repetition of the old scenes at Nottingham and Bristol, but he should be glad to see a more earnest feeling excited in the minds of the people upon this subject. The Reform Bill was started as an express train, and all the other traffic had been shunted to let it pass; but, after all, it had turned out to be a mere Parliamentary train, going at the slowest possible pace; and, therefore, the best thing that could be done would be to shunt the express and get on the useful trains, in the progress of which the country was interested. Let the noble Lord throw the blame upon that House, upon him, if he pleased; but let him cease to obstruct legislation with this measure, which no one expected would be passed.
  MR. O'BRIENrose to appeal to the Government not to go into Committee on the English Reform Bill until the Irish and Scotch Reform Bills had been considered. He ventured to ask some Member of the Government the course they meant to take with reference to each of the Reform Bills.
  LORD JOHN RUSSELL: The hon. and learned Member for Launceston (Mr. Haliburton) on a former occasion called my attention to the question of the fortifications at St. Pierre, and I am very sorry that the answer which I then gave was not satisfactory to him, because I can now do little more than repeat what was the substance of that answer. In the year 1856—I think in the month of January—an order was sent to the Governor of Newfoundland, directing him to inquire what were the fortifications which the French were erecting upon the island of St. Pierre. In the month of April following the Governor replied, and stated that there were fortifications commanding the entrance to the harbour—namely, a battery, mounting four

  1121
  84-pound guns and two 42-pound guns, commanding the roadstead, and another battery at the entrance, commanding the south-east passage and mounting eight 42-pounders; that there was also a third battery, and a barrack capable of holding between 300 and 400 men. The whole of this Report was submitted to the law officers of the Crown, who were asked, not as to any particular fortification, but whether that state of things was conformable to the treaty or was at variance with it. The hon. and learned Gentleman has stated very truly that from 1713 to 1814, with respect to fortifications at St. Pierre, the answer of the law officers of the Crown was, that the fortifications mentioned by the Governor of Newfoundland did not amount to an infraction of those various treaties. The hon. and learned Gentleman asks me to produce the question submitted to the law officers and their answer; but to do so would be quite contrary to the rule which has always been acted upon in these cases. It is not considered right to produce the opinions given by the law officers of the Crown. I believe that practice to be founded upon very good reasons, and, therefore, I cannot comply with the request of the hon. and learned Gentleman. The subject of the fisheries is an entirely different one. The hon. and learned Gentleman states, and, I dare say, very truly, that there are 30,000 Frenchmen engaged in these fisheries. It is, as he says, the practice of France, and he might have added also of the United States of America, to give large bounties to promote their fisheries; and that is done, I believe, rather with a view to the training of a large number of seamen, than to any commercial profits which arise from the prosecution of those fisheries. That is a matter of policy with regard to trade, not relating to treaties at all, with respect to which it would not, at this moment, be convenient to enter into a discussion. Of course, the hon. and learned Gentleman can, if be thinks fit, upon some future occasion find fault with the policy according to which, some years ago, the giving of bounties was discontinued by the Government of this country.
  The noble Lord opposite (Lord Lovaine) asked me a question with respect to the convention concerning the fishery off Newfoundland. That is a matter of very great importance. The negotiations have lasted considerable time; but I hope that they are now approaching a termination. Cap-
  1122
  tain Dunlop, who was sent to Paris to assist in conducting them, has returned to England, and has had an interview with my noble Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies. I am told that the explanations which he gave were satisfactory to the noble Duke, and that he is about to return to Paris with the hope of bringing the negotiations to a satisfactory conclusion. The opinion of the Commissioners has been that it was not necessary to have any new treaty upon the subject, but that the treaties at present existing, with proper interpretations and proper measures for carrying them into effect, would suffice for the regulation of the fisheries of the two countries. I need not, therefore, enter any further into that matter; but I hope that we shall soon be able to announce the conclusion of these negotiations.
  The question of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield will be answered by the Secretary of the Treasury, to which department the subject properly belongs.
  To go on with foreign affairs, the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Darby Griffith) asked me whether we had any assurance that no French troops should be inarched into the districts of Chablais and Faucigny. I think I have, upon former occasions, stated to this House that the French Government entirely refuse to enter into any engagement upon that point. They have stated that they should not send any troops into the neutralized districts of Savoy until the Vote of the Parliament of Sardinia had completed the Treaty of the 24th of March, and entitled them, as they conceive, to the possession of Savoy; but after that time they would enter into no engagement whatever. I think the hon. Gentleman is so far right that any prospect of making a difference in the arrangements after the French troops should have occupied the provinces would be very much governed by that event. I did not understand at first what it was the hon. Gentleman proposed that we should do. I did not give any assurance to the House that has not been fulfilled. I stated to the House the arrangement which the Government wished to see carried into effect; but I did not state that we felt sure of attaining our object. The hon. Member thinks we ought to withdraw from all further negotiation in the circumstances to which he refers. That is certainly a matter for very grave consideration, and I will not at present give any engagement to the House on the sub-

  1123
  ject. The hon. and learned Member for Marylebone has asked me a question with regard to the Reform Bill. That hon. and learned Gentleman has shown great candour in admitting that the Government have given some ground for the charge of insincerity which has been made against them. I will be equally candid with respect to his conduct. I think the hon. and learned Gentleman has given considerable ground for the impression that he is neither favourable to this Reform Bill nor willing to give it a fair consideration. The 1st of March was not a very late period of the Session for bringing forward such a measure. But the hon. and learned Member supposes we have postponed it to the Highways Bill, the London Corporation Bill, and other measures. That is a total misapprehension on his part, arising, I think, from his want of experience as to the proceedings of this House. If I had said that, instead of the Highways Bill coming on, we propose to go into Committee on the Reform Bill this evening, being a notice evening, I think the Members of this House generally, and with reason, would have said that the measure was far too important to be left to the chance of being taking at 9 or 10 o'clock at night, and that it ought to stand as the first thing for some clay on which Orders of the Day have the precedence. Many measures of great importance and likewise of great urgency have been introduced into this House by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in connection with the financial arrangements of the year; and everybody knows that nothing can be more inconvenient than to have fiscal questions and matters touching duties of Customs or Excise postponed till a late day, thereby keeping all the trade of the country in suspense. Therefore it appeared to me that there was good reason for not bringing on the Reform Bill till the decision of the House had been taken on the principal portions of the Budget. To enable my right hon. Friend to proceed with those measures—one of which certainly did not progress at a very rapid rate in Committee last night—I fixed the Committee on the Reform Bill for the 4th of June. It is our intention then to bring it on. Of course, with regard to days we must be a good deal dependent on what may be the pleasure of the House, because on Notice nights, as the hon. and learned Gentleman must be aware, we cannot take the Committee on a Government Bill without the consent of those hon. Members who properly have the pre-
  1124
  cedence. But we certainly wish to have as much time as the House may be willing to give us for proceeding with this measure. The hon. and learned Member for the county of Cork asked me whether I would introduce a clause making the Bill applicable to Ireland. I thought, when I said we should postpone the second reading of the Irish Reform Bill, he would have understood that we could not adopt the course he recommended, because if we were to do so it would almost be necessary to discharge this Bill and bring in another. The Chairman of the Committee would naturally say that provisions relating to Ireland could not find a fit place in a measure to "amend the representation in England and Wales." It is impossible, then, for us to propose such a clause as the hon. and learned Member suggests. We mean, as I stated the other night, to proceed with the Reform Bill for England; and, the question respecting the franchise having been decided in this Bill, that would make the discussion of the Irish Bill much more easy than if we had to debate the same point over and over again. The hon. and learned Gentleman does not seem very friendly to this Bill; but he has only to take the course which is the direct one, however much hon. Gentlemen who dislike the Bill may be averse to pursue it—namely, to vote against the measure altogether. What we have done is to bring forward a Bill which we believe will be useful. If other Members of this House think it a useful measure, let them support it. If they think it mischievous and dangerous, let them throw it out and take upon themselves the responsibility of such a step. But at one time to say it is a very small Bill, which does nothing at all, which is totally ineffectual and futile because it attempts so little, and at another moment to say it is a most dangerous and revolutionary Bill, calculated to overthrow the whole constitution of the country—surely there is a striking inconsistency in such double criticism. I shall propose that we go on again with the consideration of this measure, and then the House can, in Committee, discuss what is the best franchise and what the best distribution of seats to adopt. The hon. and learned Member for Marylebone proposes to introduce a lodger franchise. That is a very fair proposal; and I can assure him, on the part of the Government, that it shall be discussed, like all other Amendments—with a due consideration of all the reasons which may be advanced for or

  1125
  against it; and then let the House decide whether or not it shall be adopted.
  MR. EDWIN JAMESsaid, he had never thought and he had never stated that the noble Lord was insincere in that matter. What he had said was, that there was an impression in the country that the Government were not sincere in their mode of dealing with the question.
  MR. VINCENT SCULLYsaid, he protested against the term inconsistency being-applied to his conduct. He had never charged the Bill with being revolutionary.
  LORD JOHN RUSSELLhad not said that the hon. and learned Gentleman had made such a charge. He by no means intended to refer to the hon. and learned Gentleman.

MEASUREMENT OF GAS.—QUESTION.
MR. H. B. SHERIDANsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury when the Copies of Correspondence, which was moved for on the 30th March and 23rd April last, in reference to the Measurement of Gas Act, 22 & 23 Vict., c. 66, will be laid on the Table of the House, and, also, when the Models of Gasholders required by the same Act will be deposited at the Exchequer, according to promise? The officials of the Treasury, who ought to be first to give effect to the intentions of the House, seemed to direct their whole attention to the best methods of preventing the Act coining into operation. The country was in a state of doubt and uncertainty with regard to the gas measures. For instance, Sheffield had sent up some gas-meters to the Treasury with a view of having them stamped, but the parties were told that her Majesty's officers had not had time to carry out the provisions of the Act, and that there were no gasholders deposited.
MR. SIDNEY HERBERT: I am sorry that I should be separated by so long an interval from my questioners, but it is an accident over which I have no control. I regret not to be able to give an entirely satisfactory answer to the question of the gallant Officer opposite (Colonel Lindsay) with regard Captain Grant's inventions. Nobody can attach greater importance to the question of cooking in the army than I do, and the Commission over which I presided gave great attention to the subject, as may be seen from the Report. Captain Grant, no doubt, has proposed a great improvement in the system, but his is only one of many
1126
inventions which have been laid before the Government as means of enabling the soldier to bake as well as boil his food with a great saving of fuel. I have not the least wish to detract from the merits of Captain Grant's apparatus; but I believe that where it has been long in use—at the London Tavern, for instance, and other places—it is not approved, and it is gradually falling into disuse. When it was first introduced into the army it was undoubtedly the best apparatus, and effected the largest economy of fuel. But it has its drawbacks. It is a largo apparatus. As long as you have 500 men to cook for it cooks with great economy; but for every 100 men you have under that number the cost of fuel per man is proportionately increased. In fact, it requires always to be used at its full extent. It has also this disadvantage, that it cooks unequally; the meat which is close to the fire gets too much cooked and has to be removed, while that which is farthest off has to be brought near; and there are great complaints from the men that in shifting the pieces they get their shoes burned by standing on the hot plates, and their clothes injured by the fire. There are other apparatus at Woolwich, which have the disadvantage of being more costly and more complicated, but with which there is a great economy of fuel. The old boilers reset on Captain Gallon's plan are those which effect the greatest economy of fuel. The following figures, I think, will give the House some idea of the relative economy of the different apparatus. The old barrack boilers unaltered cost, for 100 men, from 16oz. to 18oz. of fuel per man, for 300 men from 16oz. to 18oz., and for 500 from 16oz. to 18oz. Captain Grant's apparatus cost, for 100 men 32oz. per man, for 300 men 16oz., and for 500 men 12oz. and a fraction. This is with the boilers alone. With the ovens the cost runs 40oz., 18oz., and 14oz. respectively. The complicated apparatus at Woolwich of which I spoke costs for 100 men 20oz., 800 men 12oz., and for 500 men 8oz. per man. With the boilers reset on Captain Gallon's plan the cost is only 4oz. of fuel per man, whether for 100, 300, or 500 men. For the ovens the cost is 4oz. per man for 100 men, 2oz. for 300 men, and so on. The difference is so great that I think the Government would not be justified in adopting Captain Grant's as the universal apparatus. The late Secretary for War offered Captain Grant a royalty of £35 for every apparatus

1127
to be set up. This, however, he refused. I proposed to him to take £500 as a compensation for the trouble which he had incurred—and I must say that he has devoted great pains and labour to the matter; he was the first person to turn his attention to it, and to lead others to take it up. He accepted my offer, but simply as a compensation for the expense and trouble at which he has been, and not as a recognition of the merits of his invention. As regards the field apparatus, the Select Committee were ordered to turn their attention to that, and apparently it was the only apparatus they did inspect. They highly approved it, and I believe the Commander in Chief was greatly pleased with what he saw of it. We have sent out a set for 5,000 men to China, and we have sent another set to Aldershot, so that its merits will be fully tested. At the same time we have thought it fair to place it in competition with another field apparatus, invented by the late M. Soyer. I shall be glad to do anything agreeable to Captain Grant, who has devoted a great deal of time to this subject; but as guardian of the public purse in military matters, while other inventions have been brought forward to compete with his, and some of them successfully, it would be difficult to give a reward to him, and not to the others.
With regard to the case to which my hon. Friend the Member for Westmeath (Mr. Pollard-Urquhart) directed our attention, the case is, no doubt, one of considerable hardship. The price of hay rose, and having lost considerably by their contract, the contractors applied to the Government for some compensation. They did not apply for any compensation for their oats contract, by which I conclude it was profitable to them. It is a remarkable thing, however, that throughout Ireland, where we have many contractors who must have suffered in common from the increased price of the commodity, these were the only contractors who applied to us for compensation. Clearly, if Government allows it to be understood that in dealings of this sort with persons engaged in trade and commerce they are not to be bound by the bargains made, because it may turn out to be less remunerative than the contractors anticipated, it would be impossible to insure that the contracts would be fulfilled. Suppose the reverse had happened, that there had been a most extraordinary produce of grass, and hay had fallen £1 or £2 per ton, I very much doubt whether these
1128
parties would have given the Government the benefit of the reduction. Under the circumstances, however much I lament the position of these gentlemen—and I think their position rather a hard one—I do not see how, consistently with my duty, I could do otherwise than hold them bound by the contract into which they originally entered.

INSURRECTION IN SICILY.

  QUESTION.
  MR. GRANT DUFFsaid, that before asking the Question of which he had given notice, he wished to explain why he put it in the fewest possible words. It had been suggested to him that if he put this question he might be asked why he did not rather put a question with respect to the recruiting that was going on in Ireland for the troops of the Pope. His answer was a very simple one—that recruiting was so perfectly illegal that he could only suppose the reason why the Government did not interfere to put a stop to it was that, while other countries were sending the sweepings of their gaols to reinforce the cutthroats of Perugia, they might allow the example to be followed in Ireland. But the Sicilian insurrection was an entirely different affair. The Sicilians were really fighting for a noble cause, which, as far as possible, should be untainted by any illegality. If the Government were disposed to treat the recruiting for the Pope in Ireland with contempt, they could not so treat the expedition to Sicily of General Garibaldi. Once let him penetrate into the interior of that island, and the contest would become a very serious one indeed. It was true that the great towns of Sicily lying on the seaboard would be in the power of the Neapolitan Government so long as they could keep the sea; but it must not be forgotten that there were large parts of that country most admirably adapted for guerilla troops. Even in the most fertile districts the villages stood almost always on rocky eminences; they were built with narrow streets; and altogether they were of that character that a mere handful of men could defend them against better troops than could be sent against them by the King of Naples. If this turned out a long struggle, the attention of Europe would be drawn very much to the subscription which was getting up in this country. Not that he believed that subscription would ever amount to any sum that would be a very considerable assistance to the Sicilian

  1129
  cause; but it would be so considerable as at least to attract attention; and if there was anything illegal in it, he thought it wise and proper that the Government should declare it to be so. Our position with regard to Sicily was a very peculiar one—for two reasons. In the first place, not only in France, but over the whole Continent, we were suspected of having views of our own with regard to Sicily. Now, although our temporary occupation of it might be of immense advantage to the island—although it would soon recover its prosperity, and become again the granary of the Mediterranean—yet he was perfectly sure that before five years passed the English rule would become unpopular, and the country would become the greatest possible burden and nuisance to us. There was another reason why we should disavow all connivance with illegal assistance given to the Sicilians. It seemed to him that the true and wise course for this country to take, as the head of the constitutional Governments in Europe, was to strive that the principle of national boundaries should be respected, and that every nation should settle its quarrels within its own territory. They might be certain that the Liberal cause in all countries was steadily gaining ground, and, if they only prevented one despotic Power from assisting another despot, before long the Liberal party would be able to completely crush their oppressors. His object in asking the question of which he had given notice was most friendly to the Sicilians. He wished success to their revolt. He wished it might spread into the mainland, and before long overwhelm the King and Government in utter destruction. Still, he hoped he had made it clear that the Government should do nothing to support the insurrection, and that English subjects, as individuals, should do nothing illegal to promote it. He begged to ask Mr. Solicitor General whether his attention has been drawn to an Advertisement which appeared in The Times of Wednesday, the 9th of May, announcing that a Subscription had been opened in London in aid of the Sicilians; and whether Persons in this Country who contributed to the Fund which it was proposed to raise would render themselves liable to any legal proceedings?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he hoped he should not be considered wanting in respect to the House, or to the hon. Gentleman, if he confined himself to giving a precise answer to a precise ques-
  1130
  tion, and abstained from following the somewhat discursive strain of observation, in which the hon. Gentleman had considered it right to indulge. He had therefore to state that his attention had been called to the advertisement, by the Notice of the hon. Gentleman's Question. He had a copy of that advertisement before him; he had read it, and, as he thought the hon. Member had not stated the substance of it, his observations would be rendered more intelligible, if he referred to it more particularly. The advertisement solicited subscriptions in aid of the Sicilians, and requested that the sums, which persons in this country might be disposed to give, should be paid into the hands of certain persons living in this country, whose names were published; and the proposal, was that the subscriptions, so paid into the hands of those persons, hero, should, as money, be transmitted to Genoa, to be there disposed of by a committee, stated to be presided over by General Garibaldi. The Question was, whether the subscribing of money in this country, by paying it into the hands of foreigners or others, living here, with the purpose and object described by the advertisement, infringed any rule of common law, or was an offence against any prohibitory statute? Now, it appeared to him that, so long as what was done was kept within the bounds of a mere subscription in this country, such as this advertisement described, no law of this country would be violated. The only statute in any way bearing on a case of this description was, the 59th George III., commonly called the Foreign Enlistment Act. It prohibited two things—the enlisting of soldiers, and fitting out or equipping vessels of war for service, under or against, foreign Governments. It did not in any way touch subscriptions. As far as he was able to form an opinion, any man who thought proper might put his hand into his pocket, take out his money, and put it into the hands of another, on the faith of its going to Genoa, to be disposed of by General Garibaldi; without violating either the common, or statute, law of the country.

RECALL OF SIR CHARLES TREVELYAN.

  QUESTION.
  MR. DANBY SEYMOURsaid, he had given notice of an important Question, the answer to which would be looked to with interest throughout the whole of India; it

  1131
  was to ask the Secretary of State for India, Whether it be true that he has recalled Sir Charles Trevelyan from the Governorship of Madras. He might be permitted to express a deep interest in this question, because he was personally acquainted with the state of the Madras Presidency. Six or seven years ago, under a former Government, he had the honour of detailing to the House what were his observations with regard to a state of things that ought never to have existed—a most chaotic state of things—Government abdicating its first functions in providing for the security of life and property, grinding the ryots by the most oppressive taxation, and compelling the cultivators to pay 50 per cent—one-half of their gross produce—following in the track, but with more than the severity, of the Native Governments that preceded them. On the other hand, there was a province where, in the short reign of one year, through the personal influence of the Governor, the population was reconciled to the Government it before hated; in which an assessment was equitably carried out; and land for the first time, contrary to all the traditions of the old East India Company, principally through the influence of Sir Charles Trevelyan, had been sold in fee simple to anybody who wished to purchase it. This was but a small portion of the benefits which the right hon. Gentleman had conferred upon the country; and it was with the very deepest regret, with feelings of astonishment and great pain, that he now said that the right hon. Gentleman had committed acts which cut him off, if he might so speak, in the middle of his most beneficent career. It was only that evening he understood that Sir Charles Trevelyan had for certain been recalled from Madras, and that his successor had been appointed. The ground upon which that recall was based was, he believed, the Minute which Sir Charles Trevelyan had written in reference to the financial statement which Mr. Wilson had laid before the Legislative Council at Calcutta; and he must say that, having read both, he fully agreed in the general principles which in the Minute were laid down, and regarded Sir Charles Trevelyan as being justified in taking the decisive step which he had adopted if he were in a position to prove that no further taxation was required in India. In saying he was justified, he might, perhaps, be employing language which was somewhat too strong; but he should endeavour to assign a good reason
  1132
  for the use of that expression by entering into a brief explanation of what he believed to be the motives by which Sir Charles Trevelyan had been actuated in taking the course which he had pursued. He had not, he felt assured, adopted that course in a fit of petulance, or without being fully alive to the fact that he would thereby he likely to incur the displeasure of a Government who could mar or make his fortune. Before, however, he entered into an explanation of the motives of Sir Charles Trevelyan's conduct in the matter, he should like to state what the stop was which he had actually taken. Mr. Wilson, in proposing his Budget to the Legislative Council, setting forth the financial difficulties under which the Government of India laboured, and in stating the views which he entertained as to the best mode of meeting them, informed the Government that he had discovered a deficit for the year of upwards of £9,000,000, and a prospective deficit for the year after of £6,000,000. He however, admitted that his calculations with reference to the subject were extremely vague. In order to meet the deficit he stated that it would be necessary to impose three new taxes, one of which, the tobacco tax, had already cost three rebellions in that part of the country in which it had been levied. And although in favour of the other two taxes Mr. Wilson might quote the institutes of Menu—which, as Sir Charles Trevelyan said, had no more weight than the common law would have in this country—it was quite evident that he took rather a European than an Indian view of the subject. Those two taxes would, he might observe, be extremely heavy in their incidence on the population of India. The licensing tax, for instance, like the old moturpha tax, which had been condemned by the Court of Directors ever since 1846, was one of the most oppressive which had ever been collected. The other tax to which he referred was the income tax, which, as the House was aware, was to be levied in India upon incomes of £40 per annum, which would probably correspond to £150 in this country. Now, he did not feel disposed to quarrel with the imposition of these taxes if it were actually necessary to levy them, even though, as was proposed, they were levied upon that part of India which had exhibited the greatest loyalty during the late rebellion of our overgrown Bengal army, and which since then had shown the strongest signs of attachment to the Government. Be

  1133
  that, however, as it might, Sir Charles Trevelyan, who when the taxes in question were projected had been engaged in a tour of inspection of his Presidency, immediately stopped short in his progress, returned to Madras, and penned that able Minute the publication of which was the cause of his recall. Now the House, he felt assured, would not, when they became thoroughly acquainted with the principles which were laid down in that document, and the manner in which Sir Charles Trevelyan therein considered the proposals of Mr. Wilson, fail to perceive that its author had displayed a very largo knowledge of the subject with which lie dealt, of the principles of taxation, and of the condition of the country; and that it was desirable the Legislative Council should have seen, and been able, if possible, to refute his arguments before they resorted to so heavy an increase of taxation as that which was contemplated. In his Minute Sir Charles Trevelyan contended that that increased taxation was unnecessary, that the military expenditure in India was far greater than was requisite; at the same time he declared that, after the experience of years, he looked to the simple method of cutting down her expenditure as the best mode of removing the financial difficulties by which India was beset. Entertaining those opinions, and believing that great danger would result from the contemplated increase of taxation, he felt that he could not do otherwise than place upon record his disapproval of a policy which he was unable to avert. He understood that the motive which bad induced Sir Charles Trevelyan to make public his Minute was the fear that unless he did so he should be unable to stop this increased taxation. His friends in India remonstrated with him, and told him that he would offend the Government here: his reply was that his views were fixed, that he thought the proposed scheme would be ruinous; and he sacrificed himself for the good of India. Such were the heroic motives which bad caused Sir Charles Trevelyan, to his own prejudice, to take the course which he had adopted; and when full information on the subject had been laid before the House they would, he was convinced, see that there were good grounds for entertaining the opinion that no additional taxation was required in India, and that its expenditure might very well be cut down to the amount at which it stood in 1857. He could not, under these circumstances, help regretting the hasty step in
  1134
  recalling Sir Charles Trevelyan which the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for India had deemed it to be his duty to take. Let hon. Members for a moment call to mind who Sir Charles Trevelyan really was. It had been stated that he knew nothing of India; but those who made that statement must be ignorant of his career. He had lived in India among the last of those great men who had won for us an empire which we seemed determined to lose. He had, under the auspices of Lord William Bentinck, become familiar with the policy of that eminent statesman, one of whose main features was to avoid increasing taxation, and to cut down the expenditure to correspond with the income of the country. Sir Charles Trevelyan, having served his Sovereign in India for a period of nearly twenty years, and having earned for himself the friendship of its foremost men, returned to England, where, instead of enjoying a life of otium cum dignitate. he entered into the service of the Treasury, and did much towards the adoption of the system which had made our public accounts a model for the imitation of foreign nations. In that position he remained until the sagacious eye of the noble Lord opposite (Lord Stanley) marked him out for the Governorship of Madras—an act which was, perhaps, one of the brightest of the noble Lord's intelligent administration of Indian affairs. In his now capacity Sir Charles Trevelyan united with the most exact knowledge of details, views the profoundest and most comprehensive, and in one short year showed himself capable of mastering difficulties by which many statesmen had been perplexed, standing out in distinguished contrast to those by whom he had been preceded. This was the Gentleman the Secretary for India had thought proper to recall: these were the grounds on which he had done so. Sir Charles Trevelyan was opposed to the enormous military expenditure in India; his opinion was that they should make the expenditure and the income meet, and he believed that in two years it might be done. Sir Charles Trevelyan had been intimately acquainted with India for a quarter of a century, was a high authority in the Treasury at home, and master of its system of accounts; he had been in intimate communication with all the statesmen of the present generation; this was the man who said he could make the expenditure and revenue of India meet in two years. Was that a man to

  1135
  recall? Why, the Government ought rather to send for him to Calcutta, to the fountain head of authority in India, and, if Mr. Wilson could not answer his arguments, let his plans be carried out. If increased taxation in India was not only unnecessary, but deeply prejudicial to their empire, there was reason to pause, and not decide on the instant, as the Secretary for India had done. He should have paused to hear what was doing in India, and give all who were equally interested in its government time to confer together on the differing views placed before them. The recall of the Governor of Madras bore out the views of the hon. Member for Birmingham, that the centralization of the Government of India was carried too far. He did not share the hon. Gentleman's extreme opinions on its decentralization, but no doubt some degree of it was necessary. The Secretary of India also approved of decentralizing the power of the Government to a certain extent. But the right hon. Gentleman only gave them a mass of words, never a single act. India could no longer bear this "hope deferred" that "made the heart sick;" they must have action; they must have decentralization immediately carried out, or what men of ability would they get to be minor Governors in India? There was the form, but not the substance of a Legislative Assembly; the Governors were tied so that they could not move hand or foot; and none but inferior men, willing to pocket their £12,000 a year without carrying into effect the plans they knew to be right, would accept such a post. These were the only men they would get under the present system; or if they did get able men they would be likely to kick over the traces. It was not Sir Charles Trevelyan who was to blame for this; the home system was imperfect, and the recent change had done nothing to remove the defects of the Government of India. But Sir Charles Trevelyan did not stand alone among the high officials in India in denouncing Mr. Wilson's Budget. If Sir Charles Trevelyan said he could govern the whole South of India without the troops the Government forced on him, why not let him do it? If he could do with £500,000 less than had before been considered necessary for the Government of Madras, and still pay a quota into the Imperial Treasury, common sense would say—let him do it. The public did not want to hear of the quarrels of officials; it
  1136
  did not care whether Sir Charles Trevelyan published his Minute prematurely or not. The question was, did it show a way out of the difficulties? Was it right or not? Did Indian stockholders and Indian railway shareholders wish to see the revenues of India spent on a large military force, or go into their own pockets as dividends and legitimate profits of enterprise? The people of England wished to see India well governed; they cared nothing for the redtapist reasons for dismissing one of the best men the Government had had in India for a quarter of a century because he had—injudiciously, he thought—sent his Minute to the newspapers before the Secretary for India received it. But were the opinions it contained only those of Sir Charles Trevelyan? The Commander-in-Chief of the Forces fully agreed with him. Another gentleman, a thorough official, who had served thirty years in India, and now held the position of Member of the Council of Madras, in endorsing the Governor's Minute as to the danger of carrying out the views of the Central Government, said if an income tax was to be introduced into India it would be politically wise to try it first in the part of India that afforded the greatest facility for the experiment; they would thus avoid the danger of raising a flame of discontent throughout the whole of the Empire; he stated also that, unless they were content with such a military force as the Treasury could maintain, their difficulties would not cease. This was the opinion of one of the ablest civilians in India, Mr. Maltby. He supported the views of Sir Charles Trevelyan. He would ask, therefore, if it was true that Sir Charles had been recalled, and that his successor had been appointed? He understood he was to be Sir Henry Ward, the present Governor of Ceylon. If that were true, the Government intended to send another Colonial Governor to India. He warned the House that the last Colonial Governor sent to India was not a success. Though an able man, Lord Harris was not a success in India; he was an admirable man, but not fit for the post. A Colonial Governor must be an exceptional character if he succeeded in India; and now the right hon. Gentleman was going to send them another. When he before addressed the House on a similar subject he had compared the whole of the south of India to a hive of bees that the Government would not permit to make honey. They would have enriched the Government; by its absurd

  1137
  management it seemed determined they should not do so. The system of Government had denuded the province even of silver spoons; the foolish and infamous system of the Government had reduced the whole of that unhappy country either to beggary or emigration. They had now got a man who had restored confidence to the people and increased the revenue by half a million. He had had the courage to do what Lord Harris had only written about. When Lord Harris was sent there his intentions were good; and lie wrote the most admirable Minutes in the world on what ought to be done, but what, unfortunately, he never attempted to do; or, if he did, there was a feebleness in the attempt, to which the state of the Government of India proved a successful obstruction. It was the system of Indian centralization that prevented Lord Harris from carrying out his intentions. Now they had a gentleman with energy enough to break through its trammels, and do what ought to have been done by the Government at home. Here was a man of sufficient energy and powerful intellect to accomplish the undertaking and they refused to back him up! It was but seldom a citizen was found who had shown such distinguished talents as Sir Charles Trevelyan, and who to enormous experience of detail added such wide and comprehensive views; every year of such a man's life ought to be treasured up, and now in the fulness of his years—for he was of ripe age—his services, which were so precious to the State, ought not to be wasted in deference to any red-tapist notions of the Secretary of State for India. If it were true that he had been recalled and that the right hon. Gentleman was about to leave India, his memory would be treasured by those he left behind; and he would receive such a greeting from his friends in England, as would make him rejoice that he had only quitted Indian soil to return with still greater honours; for either in the capacity of Governor General, or Secretary of State for India, he would not fail to distinguish himself as highly as any of his predecessors.
  SIR CHARLES WOOD: I certainly was not prepared by the notice of a simple Question as to whether Sir Charles Trevelyan has been recalled from the Governorship of Madras, for the earnest declamation of my hon. Friend, in which he has raised questions of very considerable importance. Through those questions I shall not attempt to follow him, because the re-
  1138
  call of Sir Charles Trevelyan does not depend in any way in the opinion which he chose to profess—and professed most ably—but simply on the fact of his publishing that opinion most improperly, most unnecessarily, and as we think most dangerously for the welfare of India. While, however, I abstain on this occasion from going into any other question than the simple grounds of the recall of Sir Charles Trevelyan, it will be necessary for me to refer to one or two points which my hon. Friend has stated most inaccurately, and with great injustice, to a nobleman who lately occupied an important position in India. My hon. Friend says Lord Harris only issued Minutes for the reduction of the land tax, but effected no reductions; and that Sir Charles Trevelyan on going out accomplished in one year what his predecessors had for a long period failed in doing. Any Gentleman who hears me, I am sure, must see that Sir Charles Trevelyan, who only entered on the government of Madras for the first time a year ago, has not had time, and could not possibly have had time, to effect reductions of the land assessments. Those reductions were carried into effect years ago by Lord Harris, acting by my instructions; the results had shown themselves before Lord Harris quitted Madras, and the same good results have continued to manifest themselves during the rule of Sir Charles Trevelyan. I am not going to enter into an eulogium on Lord Harris, whose character as an able administrator was established by his Government of Trinidad, neither do I wish to say anything derogatory to Sir Charles Trevelyan; who is an old friend of mine; but I can not allow such accusations as those that have been made by the hon. Gentleman without any foundation to go forth uncontradicted. The hon. Gentleman talks now of the abominations of the moturpha tax, of the licence tax, and others of that description; but it is not a year ago since he himself recommended the more extended application of the moturpha tax, and upheld the very system which he now so strongly condemns. The hon. Gentleman having pointed out certain things which ought not to be done, recommended the House, on that occasion, "To have recourse to forms of taxation which would not offend the Oriental mind in Southern India," he said, "There was the moturpha, a collection of small taxes. No doubt some of those were bad ones, but there were some of them that were not. Again,

  1139
  why not adopt a tax which has existed in every country in the world—namely, a poll tax?" When the hon. Gentleman now talks of a tax which ought not to be imposed because it presses on the population of India, what on earth am I to understand by his recommending a poll tax, which must reach and press on every man, woman, and child in the country? His views on taxation vary so strangely, and seem to be so very loose, that I really hope the House will not be led away by his eloquent declamation to adopt his statement as matter of authority.
  MR. DANBY SEYMOURexplained, that his arguments had only been intended to apply to the house tax.
  SIR CHARLES WOOD: I do not think this is the proper time for entering into any discussion on the merits of the scheme of taxation proposed for India; and I have already said that the grounds for recalling Sir Charles Trevelyan are quite independent of his opinion on the question of finance. But I shall certainly be surprised if the House does not agree with me that in the measure which Her Majesty's Government have taken with regret—and by no one with greater regret than myself for I have always entertained the greatest, the highest regard for Sir Charles Trevelyan—the grounds on which we have acted are such as to justify us in the opinion of the House and the country, and to free us from the reproach which has been cast upon us of having acted in the spirit of red-tapists. In order that the House may clearly understand the question, it will he requisite for me to give a few details. It may be remembered that the financial condition of India exhibited for last year a deficit of £13,000,000, and for the present year of £9,500,000. With a view to meet this deficiency, the Government of India last year proposed a licence tax, which was very soon modified into a quasi income tax and also a tax on tobacco. The Governors of the different provinces of India, including the Presidency of Madras, were all invited to send to the Government of India their opinions on the subject of taxation, and in the autumn Sir Charles Trevelyan stated broadly and distinctly the views which he entertained against the imposition of these taxes; and his opinion not only that no additional taxation was necessary, but that the expenditure might be reduced within the limits of the revenue. The hon. Member has asked why we do not do what Sir Charles Trevelyan recommends. There is
  1140
  a wonderful difference between saying and doing. Before the financial measures of the Government were proposed a return was called for of the estimated and actual military expenditure of the several Presidencies; and the military expenditure of Madras which had been reported to the central Government—who alone are responsible for the government of India—at less than £3,000,000, was found in December, when they received the reports of their own accountants, to have considerably exceeded the sum of £4,000,000, so that, instead of the reduction in the military Estimates of which my hon. Friend has spoken, there was an increase on the military expenditure in Madras of nearly £1,500,000. Those responsible for the financial arrangements of the Government must be guided rather by facts than by promises; and it is accordingly upon facts that their financial measures have been based. After full consideration, and having not only the opinions of all the best authorities in India before them, but knowing likewise the feeling of the Home Government, the Budget was introduced on the 18th of February in a very able statement by Mr. Wilson. And here I must beg to correct a misstatement of my hon. Friend, who is under the impression that the financial plans of the Indian Government were arranged with Mr. Wilson before he left this country. He is entirely mistaken in that supposition; and the mistake which I presume he has fallen into is this:—Before Mr. Wilson left this country, a plan was discussed and substantially arranged for introducing a paper currency; Mr. Wilson, the Governor of the Bank, and myself were the principal parties to that discussion, and it was agreed not only that a plan for establishing such a currency should be carried out, but the details were pretty well arranged before Mr. Wilson's departure. But on the subject of finance no arrangement of any kind took place; Mr. Wilson did not propose his scheme till he had been up the country and had communicated with the Commissioner of Oude, the Lieutenant Governor of the North-West Provinces, the Lieutenant Governor of the Punjab, and all the principal local authorities; and it received the full and entire concurrence of the Governor General, of every Member of the Council, and of all the principal officers. It was then introduced on the responsibility of the Supreme Government, It was introduced on the 18th of February, and was trans-

  1141
  mitted to Madras. On the 4th of March an open telegram was sent to Calcutta indicating the opinions of the Governor of Madras against the financial scheme, and asking for time. On the 9th of March a confidential letter was sent to Madras, stating the views of the Central Government and objecting to the use of an open telegram, on the ground that it was not right that communications between one Government and another on such a subject should be known to the public. On the 17th of March a letter was sent to the Central Government, acknowledging the receipt of that letter, and stating that though the Government of Madras saw no objection to an open telegram they had in consequence of the letter of the 9th sent a telegram in cipher. On the 21st of March a telegram was sent from Calcutta informing the Madras Government that a Bill would be introduced on the 24th of the month, and would be referred to a Committee, who probably would not report for five weeks from that time. From the 20th to the 26th of March the opinions of Sir Charles Trevelyan and the Members of his Council were recorded in Minutes, and the publication did not take place of course till after the 26th. I place these dates before the House to show that at the time Sir Charles Trevelyan's Minute was made and published he knew that in the opinion of the Government of India it was not for the public advantage to give these views to the world, and that he also knew that ample time would be afforded for any remonstrance which he might choose to address to them on the subject. I quite admit that the Minute of Sir Charles Trevelyan is a most able production. It contains forcible arguments against the views contained in Mr. Wilson's speech; and if it had been made on the other side of the House in answer to views expressed upon these benches, I do not know that a better answer could have been given than is contained in the Minute. But whether it is a document which ought to be published to the world is quite another matter. It was forwarded to the Supreme Government of India; it was sent to the Madras Member of the Legislative Council, who was desired to move that it should be printed. No doubt it would have formed a remarkable speech if made in the Legislative Council by the Madras Member; and if the majority of the Council had thought it prudent to publish the speech, it was in their discretion to have done so. The Madras Mem-
  1142
  ber of the Legislative Assembly is not a mere delegate, and, of course, is free to exercise his own discretion as to the course which he thinks best calculated to promote the interests of India. But Sir Charles Trevelyan published this Minute without the knowledge, without the concurrence, and, I am justified in saying, against the opinion of the other Civil Members of his Government. To their utter surprise, those Gentlemen saw his Minute and theirs in a public newspaper of Madras. At first it was supposed that the documents must have got into circulation through misconduct or negligence on the part of some of the clerks of the Council. Inquiry was instituted; no such misfeasance could be discovered; and, application having been made to the Private Secretary of Sir Charles Trevelyan, he admitted that he was responsible for the publication. In a recorded Minute Sir Charles Trevelyan most honourably avowed and justified his act. "I take the earliest opportunity of stating," he says, "that, acting upon my sole responsibility, I freely distributed copies of the Minutes of the Members of the Government upon Mr. Wilson's financial statement, with a view to secure for them the greatest publicity." The Supreme Government of India, as I have said, were in possession of the views of the Madras Government upon this portion of the financial scheme. That is also stated by Sir Charles Trevelyan in the same Minute. "All three taxes proposed by Mr. Wilson," he declares, "had previously formed the subject of correspondence with the Supreme Government, and we had made earnest representations against them." He had been told that ample time would be afforded him for making any remonstrance; and, no doubt, he was perfectly justified in remonstrating. Indeed, it was his duty to state his views to the Government of India for their consideration before they came to any final decision. But he went further, and took a step which in his position in any country, but above all in India, seems to mo utterly indefensible. He appealed to the people of India against the measures of the Supreme Government. He avows this distinctly. "The key-stone of the budget," he says, "was English public opinion in India and in England." And again, "This mistaken state of public opinion had to be corrected in order to influence the budget, and I therefore accepted Mr. Wilson's challenge to public discussion, and disregarded the subsequent

  1143
  injunction to secrecy." Mr. Wilson challenged the fullest public discussion in the Legislative Assembly; but he stated that he thought it undesirable that the Government of India should be engaged in public discussion with one of it subordinate Governments; and I confess I shall be surprised if my hon. Friend thinks it was a seemly act, or one calculated to maintain the authority of the Indian Government, or the character of any Government at all, that the Governor of Madras, the head of a subordinate Presidency, should invite opposition to the measures of the Supreme Government, and should constitute himself the leader of the Opposition. It would be impossible to maintain the authority of any Government if such conduct were allowed. I think of late years we have seen mischief enough from insubordination in India to induce us to prevent it from extending further, if it be possible to stop it. We have had a mutiny in the Native army, and of the Local European army; we now have the mutiny of one Government against another; and, much as I regret the person upon whom this decision falls, much as I regret the loss of Sir Charles Trevelyan's services, I think we should have been wanting in our duty if we had for one moment hesitated to take the most prompt notice of an act so insubordinate and so dangerous to our rule in India—if, in short, we had left Sir Charles Trevelyan in his position. To have sent him a severe reprimand, which no man of honour could have received without throwing up his office, would, I think, have been a shabby course. The responsibility rested upon us, and it seems to me that it was more just, and, in point of fact, more kind to Sir Charles Trevelyan, at once to recall him. The question was brought before the Government, and the Government decided that it was their painful but imperative duty to recall Sir Charles Trevelyan from the Government of Madras. It was necessary to support the authority of the Supreme Government, and no other course was open to us but to deprive Sir Charles Trevelyan of his office. I cannot sit down without saying that in much which my hon. Friend has said respecting Sir Charles Trevelyan's personal merits I entirely concur. He is a very old personal friend of mine. I have acted with him for many years in office; and I may say that in the course of a long public life I never had a more painful duty than that which I performed yesterday in recalling him. A more honest,
  1144
  zealous, upright, and independent public servant, I believe never existed. I gladly admit that he had many great qualities for the post which he was selected to fill; in many respects I believe he was doing exceedingly well for the Presidency, and I have no doubt that, if he could have abstained from a course so mischievous to the authority of the Indian Government he would have made a most able administrator. In recalling him, I have recorded the approbation of the Government as to the general course he has pursued during his tenure of office, and the loss of his services will, I am sure, be a public loss; but still greater danger would have ensued if a public servant in his position had been allowed to remain in office after taking a stop so utterly subversive of all authority, and so likely to weaken our rule and excite insubordination and disaffection in India. These are the grounds on which we thought it our duty to recall Sir Charles Trevelyan. In doing so, I think it was equally our duty to take care that as little delay as possible should occur in providing a successor to him in the Government of Madras: it is not a state of things in which an interregnum is desirable; and therefore, last night's mail, which took out the recall of Sir Charles Trevelyan, also conveyed a commission to Sir Henry Ward as Governor of Madras. Sir Henry Ward has administered with great success the Government of Ceylon, between which and the Presidency of Madras there is an intimate connection. He has improved the Government and increased the revenue of Ceylon, and I do not think I could have found a more fit person to succeed Sir Charles Trevelyan at Madras.
  It is desirable that hon. Gentlemen should know what I learnt by telegraph last night—namely, that upon receipt of this intelligence Lord Canning left Simla for Calcutta. The conduct of Sir Charles Trevelyan has of course greatly aggravated the difficulties of the Indian Government, and it is indispensable, therefore, at such a time that the Governor General should he on the spot to meet any emergency. I was very glad, therefore, to hear that Lord Canning had disregarded the personal inconvenience—I might almost say the danger—of travelling at this time of year, and that he left Simla on Monday last to resume his duties at Calcutta.
  MR. BRIGHT: I am not quite sure it is wise to take up the time of the House on an incidental discussion like this, when

  1145
  there are other matters to come before it; but possibly the strong interest I have taken in Indian affairs for many years, and the real importance of the question, will be a sufficient excuse for delaying the House for a few minutes. I think the question that has been introduced to the House by the hon. Member for Poole is of a somewhat painful character, and places the House in considerable difficulty. I quite understand the pain which must have been experienced by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for India in taking the step which he has felt it his duty to take. We should all view the question dispassionately, and I hope, if there be a discussion, that it will be conducted with the greatest moderation. The finance of India is a question of almost transcendent importance;—it is a question of greater importance than the House has hitherto been able to realize. The state of the finances of India is a state, I was going to say, of absolute chaos, utterly disreputable to the past Governments of India, and presenting great difficulties to every one engaged in the attempt to restore it to a sound condition. We have more than 1,000 civil servants in India, and we have frequently heard it said in the House that there is no service in the world which so abounds with able men as the civil service of India. I never gave a flat contradiction to that statement, though I never for one moment believed it. If we required any proof to show that there is no truth in it, it is furnished by the fact that the noble Lord the Member for Lynn (Lord Stanley) could not find anybody amongst the 1,000 able men in India who understood his multiplication table so far as to be able to conduct the finances of the country, and the present Secretary of State for India sent out Mr. Wilson to undertake that which no man in the civil service of India was found competent to undertake. I would be the very last person to say a word against Air. Wilson in connection with this matter. I know no man better acquainted with matters of finance and taxation as they are found in this country, and I never have known a man possessing such capabilities for persistent laborious work as Mr. Wilson always exhibited in this country. I am sure he went out to India with the honest intention of devoting all the powers of his mind and body to effect the great object which the Government has committed to his care. The right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary
  1146
  for India, has characterized the speech of Mr. Wilson, in the Council at Calcutta, as an able performance. I have read it with attention, and have studied it with the greatest care; I also examined the details of his Budget, and have given such consideration as I am able to it. I do not deny the ability of it at all. I think there is a great deal of courage—approaching almost to rashness—in some of the propositions he has made; but I should be disposed to find fault with it, because it went on the principle of balancing the income and expenditure by increasing the income by the imposition of new taxes, instead of reducing the expenditure, which we all must feel is enormous, and which I believe most of us think is, to a considerable degree, unnecessary. I shall refer to one only of his propositions—that for the imposition of an income tax throughout all parts of India. So far as I can learn, the general opinion seems to be that that tax is not practicable, and that it will be impossible throughout the whole of India to levy that tax. I do not say that it will be impossible to levy it throughout Lower Bengal. That may be so or not; if it be so, the attempt to impose such an unusual tax on the whole population of India, without reference to the different conditions of different portions of that vast country, is a very perilous undertaking. I must not be understood as making any charge against Mr. Wilson, because I think a man sent out to India under the difficult circumstances in which he went there, having as it were to elicit order from chaos, should be judged with the utmost fairness; and no kind of prejudice or hostility should induce any one to look with an unfavourable eye on any one of his propositions. So much with regard to Mr. Wilson. Not long ago a Governor was sent out to Madras, after many years of previous experience of Indian affairs, and, judging from his former career in India and at home, probably no man could have been found in this kingdom more competent to go out as the Governor of an Indian Presidency, or whose appointment would be likely to do more credit to the judgment of the Secretary of State. During his short reign at Madras I believe Sir Charles Trevelyan has conducted his Government in a manner which has done more to heal the wounds that previously existed among its population, and to bring that population to regard the English rule with favourable feelings, than any Indian governor since the time of Lord

  1147
  William Bentinck. He would seem to have been of opinion that the projects of Mr. Wilson and the Calcutta Government were not applicable to the whole of India; if he made any exception it would probably be of Lower Bengal; but as for the 30,000,000 of people whom he governs, he is distinctly and clearly of opinion that the proposition is not a wise one, and that it may be attended with consequences disastrous to the peace of the country. He says it is not necessary for the Government at Calcutta to raise new taxes in India, and he strongly recommends that the military expenditure should be reduced, chiefly by a large diminution of the Native army. The House knows that when the mutiny was afloat everybody who had paid attention to the subject said that all that mischief had arisen from our maintaining an enormous Native military force; but, although at that time there was a very penitent feeling in this House, throughout the country, and in the press, no sooner is the mutiny suppressed than we find the Native army growing to higher dimensions, and the patronage and expenditure connected with the establishment and maintenance of that army on a much larger scale, than at any former period. I can understand Sir Charles Trevelyan saying that any proposition to raise new taxes in India is a very dangerous experiment. We have heard of "the ignorant impatience of taxation" in this country; but in India it is an experiment a hundred times more perilous to introduce new descriptions of taxes, and to add to the already overburdened condition of the great bulk of the population. This is the simple case. Sir Charles Trevelyan believed—I may say what the conclusion is to which I have arrived—that the course about to be taken by the Government of Calcutta was a course full of danger to the peace of the country, and absolutely unnecessary for the purpose of restoring a balance in the finances of the empire; and he, with a courage and a determination which I greatly admire, wrote—I confine myself to the exact words I am using—a Minute which is a most able argument against the proposition of the Calcutta Government, and in favour of the other principle which is explained in that Minute. We have before us the two schemes—one of the Calcutta Government, and one of the Governor of Madras; and the question to-night is not whether the House shall uphold the one or the other; but judging from the course of the Calcutta Govern-
  1148
  ment and that of the Government of Madras, I hold that Sir Charles Trevelyan, in his views on this question, has shown himself to be much more of a statesman than those who have announced this new scheme in Calcutta. There is another question, which, after all, is the point, and that is the course which Sir Charles Trevelyan has taken in publishing this despatch. There are cases in which the publication of a despatch, although officially wrong and contrary to official etiquette, may still, after all, looking at the matter from a high point of view, be perfectly justifiable. The House will recollect that Lord Ellenborough, when in office as President of the India Board, wrote a despatch which obtained great celebrity, enouncing great principles, and written in powerful and unmistakeable language. He was blamed very much at the time for the course he took in permitting that despatch to be published, and the consequence of that blame was that he retired from the Government, and Lord Derby had no longer the benefit of his services. I approved that despatch, believing it, though it was condemned by some over-fastidious people, to be of great public advantage, though it might be open to the condemnation of those who think that an adherence to official etiquette is of more consequence than a great public service. In this case you have two bodies in opposition—the Government of Calcutta and the Governor of Madras. Sir Charles Trevelyan sees a great emergency, and he takes a step, I admit, altogether unofficial, in publishing this despatch; but I think I understand the feeling under which he acted, and see some excuse for his conduct. The Calcutta Government itself has served the Secretary of State for India very much in the same way. In a couple of years we have had two Secretaries of State for India who could not get an answer to a despatch from Calcutta. Sir Charles Trevelyan, acting with a similar spirit of independence, has shown that he was not hound absolutely by the orders of the superior Government at Calcutta. But I think the recall which the right hon. Gentleman (Sir C. Wood) states that he has now decided upon is not without justification. I have not risen for the purpose of blaming that course. I see all the difficulty, and, if you like, even the danger of the course which Sir Charles Trevelyan has taken—at the same time, I believe he has been actuated by this motive,—that he knew if he had sent the

  1149
  despatch to Calcutta nothing more would have been heard of it; and that if he had sent it to the Secretary of State at home it would have been thought—I would not say a piece of impertinence—but I think it would not have had much weight as against the united opinion of the Government of Calcutta. Sir Charles Trevelyan believed the project of the Calcutta Government to be a perilous experiment, and he determined, at all hazards, to invoke what he could of the public opinion of; India against it, although he knew that course of action on his part must result, as it has resulted, in his being recalled from the high office he has filled with such distinguished ability. I have some reason to believe—at least to suspect—that before the recall of Sir Charles Trevelyan reaches India he will have resigned his office. I believe he will see that the issuing of that Minute must be incompatible with the retention of his office. Holding these views, I am unable to join the hon. Member for Poole in any language of condemnation which he may have used with reference to the course taken by the Secretary of State for India. But still I am not sure that the right hon. Gentleman might not have taken some other course than that which he has taken; though no doubt he says that had he issued a reprimand it would have been more humiliating to Sir Charles Trevelyan than the fact of his recall. I am in this difficulty. I must say that I think there is no Governor in India at all to be compared with Sir Charles Trevelyan for the services he has performed to the Presidency under his control. I regret more than I can express that a state of things has arisen that justifies, if it does not render necessary, his recall; but I wish the right hon. Gentleman had been able to discover some other course than he has seen it his duty to take, and had retained Sir Charles Trevelyan for the service of India. But there is one other point which is really the question to which I desire to allude. There is a moral to be drawn from this event. The House, or at least some Members of it, will recollect that I have on several occasions addressed it at considerable length with regard to the Government of India, and urged the House to change the whole system of that Government—to abolish the supremacy of the Government at Calcutta, to separate India into several Presidencies, to give to each Governor of a Presidency equal rank with the rest, to put each in
  1150
  direct communication with the Secretary of State at home, and to give to each Presidency the enormous advantage of a direct power in its own Government to watch over, to protect, and to foster the prosperity of its own population. Admit, for the sake of argument, that the propositions of the Calcutta Government are possible in Lower Bengal; we have the authority of Sir Charles Trevelyan, and not his only, but that of those associated with him in the Government, that the propositions are not practicable, are even very perilous, in the Presidency of Madras. But yet, if you pass an Act in Calcutta, it spreads over the whole of India. Bengal, in which it may be possible, is included, and Madras, in which it may be, if not impossible, at least very perilous, cannot be excluded. I argue that this is a case which proves to the House—and ought to prove to the right hon. Gentleman on the Treasury bench—that it would be far better to have five or six separate Governments in India, and that the laws to be passed should be passed by each Government for each Presidency, with reference to its own condition and its own wants. I believe we should have an infinitely better Government under that system, partly national and partly municipal, than we can ever have with one unworkable Government in Calcutta, pretending to legislate for 150,000,000 of people, comprising not less than twenty nations, speaking twenty different languages, not one of which languages, probably, is accurately known to any single Member of that Government. I said before that I have not risen to say anything in blame towards the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for India. I hope the time may come when the services of Sir Charles Trevelyan may again he employed in India. I am quite sure, from all I have heard through private sources, that his withdrawal from the Government will be felt as a positive calamity by the great body of the Natives of Madras—and that is just the state of things which we ought to cultivate—which every Governor ought to aim at; and, if it be possible, every Governor who has attained such a result ought to receive the support of the Home Government in every just and practicable way. I believe that although Sir Charles Trevelyan has not proved himself by what he has done to be a judicious subordinate, yet he has proved himself to be a wise Governor of Madras; and I only hope that in the measures which the Govern-

  1151
  ment at Calcutta are prepared to carry out none of those calamities may follow that Sir Charles Trevelyan has anticipated. I ask the Secretary for India that he will study that Minute of Sir Charles Trevelyan's with great care; and, if he cannot adopt it, it may at least induce him to modify and greatly improve that project of legislation which is described to be so perilous, and which the Calcutta Government is about to establish all over India.
  MR. BUXTONsaid, the House ought to know that it was not Sir Charles Trevelyan, but Mr. Wilson, who first published to the world the fact that Sir Charles Trevelyan disapproved his financial views. In a speech delivered in the Legislative Council at Calcutta, and which was published and circulated all over India, Mr. Wilson stated that men of high position in Madras were opposed to the financial scheme which he had announced. Of course, everybody knew that this could apply only to Sir Charles Trevelyan, and those associated with him in the Government, and it was natural that Sir Charles Trevelyan, after such an intimation, should have taken the liberty to express his own views in his own way. He rejoiced to hear the expression of regret for the recall of Sir Charles Trevelyan which had fallen from every speaker that night. He had in every respect shown himself to be a statesman, and had shown more energy, ability, and zeal in the public service than any official that had gone to India for the last twenty years.
  SIR HARRY VERNEYsaid, he thought that the expressions of the hon. Member for Birmingham as regarded Sir Charles Trevelyan were perfectly just, and wished to know whether it was by the Indian Council in this country that Mr. Wilson's measures had been approved of and adopted. Formerly India, was represented in that House by Members of the Court of Directors; but the Members of the present Indian Council were prevented sitting in the House, and therefore they were now peculiarly called upon, and more than ever, to legislate for that country in a spirit of the utmost forbearance, and to try and ascertain the opinions of those who really represented the opinions of the people of India.
  MR. LYGONsaid, that the question of the relations between colonial Governors and the home Government had now assumed a character of the deepest importance.
  1152
  This was not the first instance in which a Colonial Governor had been dealt with by the Government. In the course of the last year, Sir George Grey, the Governor of the Cape of Good Hope, had been recalled by the late Government for an undue exercise of his authority. The present Secretary of State, however, reinstated him, stating in his despatch that though they approved the grounds on which he had been recalled and that such a repudiation of the authority of the home Government, in matters of general policy could never be tolerated, yet that the home Government were unwilling to interrupt the good work which he had begun in the colony in establishing amicable relations between the natives and the colonists, and that therefore they had determined on reinstating him. He (Mr. Lygon) was puzzled to find any distinction between the case of Sir George Grey, and that of Sir Charles Trevelyan, upon whom such high encomiums had been passed, and he could not understand why a different measure of justice should he meted out to the latter. If anything, the case against Sir George Grey was the strongest, because he acted in defiance of instructions from the Colonial Secretary; while all Sir Charles Trevelyan did was to record his dissent from the financial measures of the Calcutta Government in what was perhaps a too public manner. Supposing it to have been consistent with Imperial authority to restore Sir George Grey to his post, then Sir Charles Trevelyan must feel that a scanty measure of justice had been dealt out to him. Looking to the admirable manner in which Sir Charles Trevelyan had discharged his duties he thought that Her Majesty's Government had far better reconsider their decision; and he hoped that in future all relations between the Home and the Colonial Governments would be placed on an intelligible and satisfactory basis.
  MR. VANSITTARTsaid, he had carefully read Sir Charles Trevelyan's protest, and he could assure the House that no document could have been couched in more respectful terms. Sir Charles being responsible for the tranquillity and well-being of 30,000,000 of Her Majesty's subjects and anxious to govern them through their sympathies, and appreciating the loyalty of the Madras army and of the people, both he and his Council were very much alarmed at the tremendous taxes which Mr. Wilson proposed to impose. He did not attribute much importance to Sir

  1153
  Charles publishing his protest in the Indian journals; but the protest had done a great deal to allay the excitement which had been caused among the Native population by Mr. Wilson's financial scheme. Sir Charles Trevelyan could not be accused of any disrespect or insubordination, because his protest was not directed against Her Majesty's Viceroy, Lord Canning, but was notoriously directed against that entirely ignorant body the Legislative Council of Calcutta; and they ought to be very much obliged to him for such practical and sound suggestions. Though he seldom agreed with anything that fell from the hon. Member for Birmingham, yet he certainly did agree with him on the present occasion that at the present moment the absence of Sir Charles Trevelyan would be a great calamity at Madras. He had dealt with the enam, or rent question, in a prompt and satisfactory manner. When he arrived there he found 350,000 claims which had never been looked into; and within six months afterwards he had made arrangements for the adjudication of those suits in a way agreeable and satisfactory, not only to the Government, but to the rent freeholders themselves. He also appointed a Commission to consider the advisability of uniting the Supreme and Suddur Courts. Comparing his energy with that of the Secretary of State for India he found that though twelve months had elapsed since the Royal Commission had reported upon the organization of the Indian army the right hon. Baronet had not yet made up his mind as to what he should do on the subject; nor had he made up his mind about the union of the Supreme and Suddur Courts. Under all the circumstances, he thought Sir Charles Trevelyan had been treated with undue severity and harshness—more than enough to curb his spirited devotion to the cause of his country, but which he trusted would not impair his future career.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEwished, as a personal friend of Sir Charles Trevelyan, and for other reasons, to say a few words on this subject. He did not wonder that an event of so much importance as the recall of the Governor of Madras, had provoked a question at the earliest opportunity; but for public reasons be regretted that the question had been brought forward on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House, and before any papers had been presented to the House, and in the absence of the late Secretary for India. It was hardly
  1154
  to be expected that such a discussion could have arisen, and those who felt a warm interest in the character of Sir Charles Trevelyan, could not but think that nothing said to-night ought to be allowed to prejudice him, before the House had the whole case before it, and was able to judge of its merits. In judging the conduct of public men, their individual characteristics must be taken into consideration; and those who knew Sir Charles Trevelyan, knew that he was not only a man of great energy and ability, but of a very warm and courageous character; and the House must be prepared to find, combined with the merits, the faults of such a character. The act to which reference had been made, was, no doubt, au unfortunate one, but as to how far it was blameable he suspended his judgment. At all events, it was consistent with that character which induced a man to sacrifice himself under all circumstances for what he considered the public good. Though he was far from saying, until he had an opportunity of seeing the papers, that the conduct of the Government, in recalling Sir Charles Trevelyan, was wrong; yet one could not help regretting that the matter had been put in such a way before the population of Madras, as to make it appear that, their Governor was recalled for standing up for their interests. He thought that the House should, by and by, have an opportunity of discussing this matter, with all the papers before it.
  COLONEL SYKESrose to express his very deep regret, in common with many others, at finding they were to be deprived of the services of a man of the ability and independence of character, and resolution in purpose of, Sir Charles Trevelyan, which characteristics were not common in India. Sir Charles, with chivalric devotion, had sacrificed himself to a conviction that the tranquillity of India at the present moment was at stake by a mode of taxation proposed by the Supreme Government of Calcutta, in which the Governor of Madras had had no part whatever. But this chivalric devotion was no new thing in India. At the battle of Satabuldee, near Nagpoor, a battery of the enemy was thinning the ranks of the brigade of Sepoys and a squadron of Native regular cavalry, commanded by Captain Fitzgerald. Captain Fitzgerald sent to the Brigadier to be allowed to charge the battery and the enemy's line. The disproportion of numbers was so great that the Brigadier would not allow the risk to be run. With his

  1155
  men falling, the Captain again sent to the Brigadier, and the reply was "At his peril if he disobeys." "At my peril be it then," said Fitzgerald; and putting his squadron to the gallop, carried the guns, saved the brigade of infantry, and was made a C.B. for his successful disobedience! Nor would any Englishman forget Nelson at the battle of Copenhagen who could not see the signal of recall with his blind eye, and who was made a Peer for his successful disobedience! If he understood his right hon. Friend right, Sir Charles Trevelyan was challenged by Mr. Wilson as to the merits of the two systems, that of reduction without taxation, or that of keeping up those large establishments in India with taxation. Under these circumstances, how was Sir Charles Trevelyan to blame for coming forwar and saying "these are my convictions, let them be tested by the public as between us two." He trusted that, after discussion had taken place on this subject, they would find Sir Charles Trevelyan's character come out with that degree of éclat that should ensure to him the continuance of that respect which his distinguished services had hitherto associated with his name.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I think the character of this discussion cannot be otherwise than satisfactory to Sir Charles Trevelyan and his best friends, because all who have spoken have borne testimony to his great merits and abilities, to the honesty and integrity of his mind, and to the firmness with which be performs what he considers his duty, regardless of any consequences that may arise to himself. I entirely concur in all those opinions. It is impossible for any man who has had the advantage of knowing him both personally and officially not to be deeply impressed with his merits as a public servant. But, at the same time, there are occasions when all personal considerations must yield to a sense of public duty on the part of those who are responsible for the conduct of public affairs. Certainly, the decision the Government has been compelled to come to was one of a very painful nature; because Sir Charles Trevelyan is a public servant who has discharged with eminent success important duties to his country, and whose continuance in this appointment would have been most desirable to the Government, and most advantageous, no doubt, to the public interests. But on the other hand, an act of insubordination and of the violation of official duties has been committed
  1156
  which is calculated to entail consequences of the most dangerous character to the interests of India, and I hold it would have been a breach of public duty on the part of the Government if we had not taken the steps that we have felt it to be our duty to adopt. There has been one great mutiny of the Sepoys; there has been dissatisfaction and discontent among a portion of the Native troops; there has been something like insurrection, or disturbances, at all events, in various parts of India; and yet here was a publication, made by an officer in a high and responsible situation, the tendency of which, from the very nature of the document itself, was to create the utmost dissatisfaction on the part of the Native population of India. I am not going to enter upon a comparison of the merits of the two systems—of Lord Canning and Mr. Wilson on the one hand, and of Sir Charles Trevelyan on the other. Sir Charles Trevelyan was perfectly right, if he entertained the opinion that the former's system of taxation would be productive of the most disastrous consequences to India, and would create the greatest dissatisfaction and discontent among the population of India, in stating that opinion in the strongest possible language and the utmost possible detail. It was his duty to explain all the disastrous consequences that in his opinion would follow the adoption of that system; but those explanations should have been addressed to the Governor General, to the Council at Calcutta, to my right hon. Friend and the Council of India here, to the Executive Government, with whom it rested to determine whether that system proposed should he adopted or not. But I hold that to make an appeal to the people of India—to tell the people of India that that system would lead them to revolt—was a course so disastrous in its consequences as to be subversive of the British authority in India. I say it was a step so extraordinary that I cannot bring myself to imagine how a man so versed as Sir Charles Trevelyan is in official duties, who has been so long a public servant, and therefore was so distinctly aware of the consequences of an act of that sort—I can hardly persuade myself how he could have brought himself to commit such a violation of duty as that act implied. The only explanation is that which has been given—namely, that Sir Charles Trevelyan, being honestly and strongly convinced of the correctness of his opinions, and being reckless of personal consequences, was so impressed

  1157
  with the notion that to prevent by any means the execution of those plans would be a great advantage to the country that, as the hon. Member for Poole freely avowed, he voluntarily, and with his eyes open, sacrificed his official situation in order to accomplish what he thought a public good—although it was a course, as I think, calculated to produce the greatest possible public evil. I, as one of those who concurred in the decision, should have felt that I was shrinking from my public duty if I had not acquiesced in the recall of Sir Charles Trevelyan. Now, if that recall was to take place at all, it was important that it should take place at once. It has been suggested in the course of this discussion that the Government might have sent a reprimand to Sir Charles Trevelyan. But in order that this reprimand should have had any effect in counteracting the bad consequences of the publication, the reprimand must have been made as public in India as the offence of which it was a censure. And if that had been the case I would put it to any man whether, under such circumstances, Sir Charles Trevelyan, as a man of honour, could have continued to hold his situation if a severe reprimand, explaining especially the evils that his act was calculated to produce, had been published all over India, and his authority, therefore, entirely destroyed for any useful purpose. Painful as the decision was, it was one which I hold the Government had no option but to take; and though it was painful and undoubtedly conveyed a strong censure upon one public act of Sir Charles Trevelyan's, yet Sir Charles Trevelyan has merits too inherent in his character to be overclouded and overshadowed by this single act. And I concur with those who hope that Sir Charles Trevelyan may, in his future career, be useful to the public service, and do honour to himself as well as service to his country. I must pay a tribute of acknowledgment to the hon. Member for Birmingham for the temperate manner in which he addressed the House on this question. I must, however, also say, if my hon. Friend the Member for Poole will allow me to do so, that the speech of the hon. Member for Birmingham formed a very advantageous contrast to that which he (Mr. Danby Seymour) delivered. The hon. Gentleman on the opposite side (Mr. Lygon) attempted to draw a parallel between the case of Sir Charles Trevelyan and that of Sir George Grey. But the two cases are essentially
  1158
  and fundamentally different. What was the offence of Sir George Grey, and what was the offence of those gallant officers to whom my hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Sykes) adverted? Their offence was disobedience of orders issued by a superior authority. The Secretary of State for the time being felt it his duty to recall Sir George Grey. But that disobedience of orders did not entail any danger to the colony under his command—it was, on the contrary, if I recollect aright, a measure of over energy for the defence of the colony. That was totally different from the conduct of Sir Charles Trevelyan, who, by the publication he had made, tended to disorganize, to disturb, and to distract the internal peace and security of India, and to endanger the authority of the Government in that vast and extensive part of Her Majesty's dominions. Therefore the two cases are wholly different. No one will think, on reflection, that Her Majesty's Government had any other course to pursue than to recall Sir Charles Trevelyan. On the other hand, I am quite sure that no one will impute to Sir Charles Trevelan anything but an exaggerated belief in his own opinions, and a recklessness of consequences which I feel was a great fault in a person occupying so responsible a situation, but a fault which, nevertheless, does not detract in any degree from those eminent qualities which every one who knows Sir Charles Trevelyan must acknowledge he possesses.
  MR. LAINGsaid, in answer to the Question put to him four hours ago by the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield, he believed that a short statement to the facts of the ease would put the subject in a very different light before the House. In 1857 the British Consul at Aleppo received an intimation from our Ambassador at Constantinople that the Government contemplated making considerable purchases of horses, mules, and camels, in that district, and that officers were about to be despatched from England for that purpose. The Consul communicated with Mr. Spitz-Goldstein, and that gentleman made an arrangement with an agent to purchase a large number of horses, mules, and camels, on commission. Shortly after, the Government altered their views, and there was no necessity for any purchase. Mr. Goldstein then sent in a claim for £68,000 being the amount of his loss upon the purchase of from 8,000 to 10,000 horses, camels, and mules. The Consul

  1159
  at Aleppo had no authority whatever to enter into any contract, and he had only informed Mr. Spitz-Goldstein of the intention of the Government, in order that that person might do something in the way of a private speculation for his own advantage. That was the state of things in the autumn of last year; and at that time, to use a phrase which had almost become classical on these occasions, "from certain information" which had reached the Treasury, it was resolved that a Commission, consisting of a Secretary of Legation and an Assistant-Commissary general, two highly respectable and competent gentlemen, should proceed to Aleppo to make inquiries into the case. The result of the investigation was to bring to light a more astounding transaction in the history of horse-dealing than had ever come to his (Mr. Laing's) knowledge. It was established on the most incontrovertible evidence that not a single animal out of the whole number had a real and bona fide existence. The manner in which that transaction was effected might be interesting to hon. Gentlemen who approved of the provisions of Sir John Barnard's Act. It appeared that there was a sort of Horse-Exchange in Aleppo, similar to the Stock Exchange of this country, with the sole difference that, whereas in the latter people speculated in what were technically known as "bulls and bears," in the former horses and camels were bought and sold; and the whole of the transaction now before the House was effected by the simple process of time bargains. From the Report of the Commissioners it would appear that Mr. Spitz-Goldstein's agent, for the purpose of establishing his principal's claim on Her Majesty's Government, effected a series of simulated purchases of horses, with persons in a low condition of life; that fictitious receipts and contracts were entered upon the register of the American Consulate, and legalized copies were furnished to Mr. Spitz-Goldstein, on payment of the usual fees. The evidence in support of this statement was very voluminous, and of a thoroughly unimpeachable character, and included that of the Consul of Aleppo, who said that no purchase could have been effected without his knowledge, that no such purchase was effected, and that the whole nature of his communications with Mr. Spitz-Goldstein had been to put him up to a good speculation, and not to enter into any contract. The Vice-Consul also said that no purchase was made, and can-
  1160
  didly admitted having signed one of the documents lodged with the American Consul, being a receipt for £650, nominally for a commission of £1 per head for 650 animals, without any consideration whatever. The evidence of Mr. Walsh, one of the most respectable merchants in Aleppo, and of the Consuls at Antioch, and other places, corroborated those statements. Under these circumstances the proposal to refer the claim of Mr. Spitz-Goldstein to arbitration was perfectly out of the question. Her Majesty's Government would simply contest the claim, and if the parties by whom the transactions were attempted should come within the reach of British law, he believed an indictment for conspiracy to defraud would very soon bring the question to an issue.
  With regard to the Question of the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Sheridan), he would say that the papers in reference to the Gas Act had been laid on the table of the House ten days ago, and would, he hoped, shortly be in the hon. Member's own hands. With respect to the models, he had merely to exonerate the officials of the Treasury from the blame imputed to them. The Act was not a Government measure, and was passed through the House without the knowledge of Ministers; but as it required a model to be deposited to measure a cubic foot of gas, the Treasury had referred to the Astronomer Royal, who had kindly given them his assistance, and the result was that a model was deposited within the three months required by the Act. The trade, however, was of opinion that although the model might have been constructed on the most scientific principle it was not practically what was required, and a great deal of discussion arose on the point. The result was that the Treasury, although of opinion that the Act had been fully complied with, thought it would be preferable to strain the letter of the law, and agree to have a model constructed according to the wishes of the trade. The work, however, had been found one of great difficulty and nicety, and though he had hoped that the new instrument would have been deposited in the Exchequer by the beginning of the present month, he had been disappointed. He believed, however, that it would be in its place by the first week in June.
  MR. DEEDESthought it was the duty of the Government to watch every Bill to which the assent of the House was asked; and if the Government had paid the neces-

  1161
  sary attention in this instance, he felt convinced that this particular measure would never have passed. He wished to state that in default of any other Member doing so, he himself should call the attention of the House to this act, and ask for leave to introduce a Bill to amend or repeal certain of its provisions which were found to be exceedingly objectionable.
  LORD CLAUD HAMILTONcomplained of the general tenor of the remarks of the hon. Member for Wick (Mr. Laing), in reply to Mr. Roebuck, in which the hon. Member spoke disparagingly, and in an uncalled-for manner, of the honour, honesty, and social character of the Oriental nations.

PRACTICE OF THE HOUSE.

  REPORT OF RESOLUTIONS FROM COMMITTEES OF WAYS AND MEANS.
  MR. BOUVERIE: Sir, I am anxious to draw attention to a question of considerable importance connected with the forms of the House which regulate the order of our business. I have observed with great surprise in the Votes that last night the House having gone into a Committee of Ways and Means, and certain Resolutions imposing licence duties upon refreshment-houses having been adopted by the Committee, those Resolutions were, contrary to the universal practice of the House, reported forthwith, and without the usual interval of at least a day. I cannot but conceive that this course of proceeding was taken entirely by inadvertence. I believe I am correct in stating that no precedent whatever can be found for the Report of Resolutions to the House immediately after their adoption in Committee of Ways and Means. I beg the House to observe this is not a mere matter of form; there is a great deal of substance in this as in many another form of the House. I must beg the House to observe that these Resolutions in Committee of Ways and Means are the first step taken towards the imposition of a tax, and we all know that in the case of certain taxes the moment the Resolutions imposing them are reported to the House the Revenue Department at once begins to make the levy. So that by reporting such Resolutions to the House forthwith—immediately upon their passing the Committee—no opportunity is afforded to the House, or to those hon. Members who were absent from the Committee—of reconsidering the matter, and finally determining
  1162
  whether it is expedient to levy a tax of the kind proposed. As I said before, I cannot help thinking that these Resolutions were so reported by mistake, and I hope the House will agree with me in holding that the respect which is duo to our forms renders it necessary that in reference to the future we should revert to this proceeding and perhaps declare the Report null and void; so that it may appear on our Journals that this irregularity is not to be established as a precedent.
  MR. DISRAELI: Sir, I wish to make a few remarks on the subject to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred, and which is certainly one of the most important which can possibly engage the attention of the House. It is one of the gravest possible questions. It is unnecessary for me to dilate at all on the value of the forms of the House, which have been devised by the experience of our predecessors for the welfare of the public. It may sometimes be a question whether some of these forms may not be insisted on too closely, and whether they may not be unnecessarily multiplied; although I believe that all those in this House who are most experienced in the conduct of public affairs are of opinion that we should approach the revision of them with the utmost caution. But there is one point upon which it is impossible there can be two opinions, and that is, that when a question of taxation is concerned it is incumbent on the House to observe with the greatest nicety, and even reverence, the forms which have been devised to prevent any rash decision on a subject which may involve the most vital interests of the country. It always has been the rule in all questions of Supply and Ways and Means, where the House has come to a decision in Committee, that decision should not be reported on the same day. If there were no formal Standing Order to that effect, the spirit of all our Standing Orders goes to that effect; but we have among our Rules one which positively directs that "Any Report of Resolutions from the Committees of Supply and Ways and Means, is ordered to be received on a future day." I believe there is no precedent upon our Journals of a contrary course having been taken; and I think every Gentleman who has given any consideration to the subject will agree with me that a more prudent regulation was never adopted by this House. I recollect a case, if my memory does not deceive me, in which even the prorogation of Parliament

  1163
  was postponed one day in order that a Resolution agreed to in Committee of Ways and Means that the Government were rather unexpectedly called upon to enter into should be duly reported. I was aware of the circumstance to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred, and it was my intention to have asked the House to consider it this evening; but in consequence of the interesting, though rather various nature of the business that has engaged us, I thought that on the whole it would be better to delay the matter till Monday, which was the first Government day after the thing complained of happened, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer should ask us again to go into Committee on the Wine Licences Bill. I should have been unwilling on that occasion to make any observations which might have conveyed any censure even by implication upon any Member of this House, whether on the Treasury bench or elsewhere, and the only reason why I should have brought forward this very grave subject would have been that the House should take steps to prevent the course which was followed last evening from being hereafter quoted against us as a precedent; because there probably might be circumstances in which, with such a precedent, public business might be hurried through in a manner which would have a very injurious effect upon even the public fortunes. But, as the right hon. Gentleman has brought forward the subject, it is impossible for me to pass it over in silence. I agree with him that it is not sufficient that the Government should express their opinion that the course taken last evening was an inadvertence, and should not be drawn into a precedent:—I think we ought to have some record of the opinion of the House itself upon the point, because an expression of opinion on the part of the Government, however satisfactory to us, would not at all influence our successors, and upon our Journals this very dangerous precedent would appear without any countervailing record. I think, moreover, that where there is no doubt that a mistake has been committed merely from inadvertence it is more suitable to the dignity of the House and more agreeable to all of us that the remedial course should be undertaken by the Government themselves. I do not at all wish to take the matter into my own hands, and I dare say the right hon. Gentleman who, with his knowledge of the forms of the House, has properly introduced the question is
  1164
  equally averse to undertaking it; but if the noble Lord, the leader of the House, would on Monday take some steps in the matter, I think it would be satisfactory to the House. I think that it should be recorded that the proceedings of last evening, so far as they relate to the Resolution adopted in Committee of Ways and Means, are null and void, and that care should be taken that in future such Resolutions should be duly and properly reported to the House.
  MR. MASSEY, the Chairman of Committees of Ways and Means, said, if there was any irregularity in our proceedings last evening, I am bound to say that I am primarily responsible for it. It will be fresh in the recollection of the House that last evening there were on the paper two Orders of the Day, one preceding the other. The Order for a Committee of Ways and Means stood first, and in that Committee there appeared upon the paper a notice of the intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to move certain Resolutions imposing a duty upon wine licences. The next Order was the Wine Licences Bill. It was necessary, in order to pass that Bill through Committee, that the preliminary Resolutions imposing a duty upon wine licences should, in the first instance, be adopted in a Committee of Ways and Means. The Committee of Ways and Means sat, and the Resolutions, which were discussed at considerable length, were framed by the Committee after more than one division. After they were passed, and after I vacated the Chair, I asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as is the usual course, upon what day he proposed that the Resolutions should be reported. I do not at all wish to convey to the House that the right hon. Gentleman expressed a desire that the usage and practice of the House should be departed from; but I understood him to intimate that it would be convenient if the Resolutions could be promptly reported, in order that they might be inserted as clauses in the Wine Licences Bill, which stood next upon the list of Orders of the Day. I said—not having at the moment any opportunity of consulting the Journals or the authorities of the House—that upon principle, and with reference to the practice of the House in cases of emergency, I saw no objection to that course. I was aware that there was no Standing Order against it, and therefore I thought, if circumstances existed which rendered it desirable to depart from the ordinary practice of the

  1165
  House, that the House was the master of its own proceedings. But at the same time I did say that the Motion was one which I could not make on the steps of the Speaker's chair in the usual manner, and that the Minister who desired to have it made should himself state his wish to the House, and I did intimate—not, I think, to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—that in my opinion, if any hon. Gentleman objected to the course proposed to be taken, it should not be insisted upon. I considered that with that precaution there could be no objection to the immediate reporting of the Resolutions adopted in Committee of Ways and Means, with a view to their insertion as clauses in the Bill which stood as the next Order of the Day. It is not for me to say whether it is incumbent upon the House to suffer no departure whatever, under any circumstances which may arise, from its ordinary practice. My own private opinion is, that for the House to impose such a restriction upon itself would be to create an unnecessary impediment to the despatch of public business; and not having any opportunity of consulting the Journals or the authorities of the Douse, I certainly did, upon principle, and with regard to the practice in the case of ordinary Bills, which are sometimes passed through their several stages without the usual intervals, intimate my belief that if the House consented, upon the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to the prompt reporting of the Resolutions passed in the Committee of Ways and Moans, there could be no objection to that course being taken. However, I am free to say that if I had had an opportunity of consulting the Journals, and if I had found that they were entirely destitute of precedents, I should not have advised such a step to be taken. But at the same time I trust the House will not assent to the extreme measure of declaring the proceedings of last evening null and void. They are not null and void; they are perfectly valid. In the absence of any Standing Order prescribing a particular mode of procedure, it is competent for the House to vary its own practice. Putting it as high as you please, this is merely a matter of practice. The practice of the House is departed from when a sufficient emergency arises; nay, the Standing Orders of the House themselves are suspended for the purpose of facilitating public business; and
  1166
  therefore to say that the proceedings of last evening are null and void is to make an assertion contrary to the rules and the practice of the House. They may have been inexpedient; the emergency may not have been sufficient; but, in the absence of any Standing Order bearing upon the point, it is not competent for the House to say that they are null and void. I contend, without fear of contradiction, that, however inexpedient it may have been for the House to depart from its ordinary practice in this particular instance, the prompt reporting of the Resolutions of the Committee of Ways and Means was perfectly regular and in accordance with our Standing Orders, and that the action taken upon that Report cannot be impeached. I am prepared to admit having had an opportunity of consulting the authorities of the House and of examining the Journals, though not very carefully, and not having found an instance of a similar departure from the ordinary practice of the House, that the course taken last evening should not be drawn into a precedent; but, at the same time, I confidently maintain that it is perfectly valid and cannot be impeached.
  MR. CARDWELL: I do not propose to enter at present into any argument as to what ought to be done on a future occasion, because I think that should be deliberately considered by the House. But I rise to express, on the part of the Government, their concurrence with my hon. Friend who has just sat down, with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock, and with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire, that adherence to the Orders and Rules of proceeding in all matters of Supply and Ways and Means is much to be desired, and ought very carefully to be observed. In the Book which contains the Rules and Orders of Proceeding, at page 94, I find it stated that any Report of Resolutions from Committee of Supply or Committee of Ways and Means is ordered to be received on a future day. Everybody is aware that that is not only the usual, but the uniform practice. My hon. Friend who has just sat down has correctly stated what occurred last evening. When the Committee was concluded, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked what day the Resolutions should be reported. A suggestion was passed down that if he thought proper it might be reported immediately. On the spur of the moment, feeling the

  1167
  convenience of putting the clause in the Bill as soon as possible, he adopted that suggestion, but he called attention to the circumstance; so that there was no concealment. Therefore, at the moment, there was no practical inconvenience in the departure from the rule; but I quite agree that it is unfortunate there should be any departure from an established rule of that kind. Having so stated my opinion, the House will see that it is far from the desire of the Government that this departure should be drawn into a precedent or occur again. I am extremely sorry that this discussion should have arisen after my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had left the House; but before he left I had a conversation with him, in which I expressed my own opinion with regard to the irregularity, and he stated to me he entirely agreed with me, and he would consider whether on Monday he should not take the course which the right hon. Gentleman opposite has suggested—namely, make a statement to the House on the subject at the commencement of business.
  MR. SPEAKER:—I wish to address the House on the subject of the order of their proceedings last night, which has just been brought under discussion. There is no doubt whatever about the correctness of the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman of the force of the rule which he has mentioned, that no Resolution should be reported to the House on the same day that it has been passed in the Committee. I think that, whether our Standing Order actually extends to that point or not, there is no doubt that the practice and the spirit of the Standing Order does so extend, and ought to have the same force in our proceedings. When I returned to the House, after an absence of some time, the Chairman reported to me in' the usual way that the Committee had come to certain Resolutions, and that it should be reported forthwith. I did not put the Question. I said to the Chairman "What can the Resolution be which should make it fitting to report it forthwith?" I was in fact discussing that point with the Chairman when the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer rose and moved that the Report should be received forthwith. I understood that the matter had been previously spoken of in the House, and I imagined that the House was aware what was to be done, and that it was done by general consent. I did not feel that
  1168
  it became me when a Resolution was proposed to the House to decline to put it. No observation was made, and no objection was raised, on either side. I put the Motion to the House that the Report should be received forthwith; and as it passed, the Report was accordingly received. But I must express my opinion that the course was irregular; and I think that it will be better for the general conduct of business that we should not pass by this irregularity with simple observation, but that on a future occasion and on the earliest occasion—I see no objection myself to this evening—it should be corrected.
  MR. HENNESSY, referring to some observations which had been made by the Solicitor General at an earlier period of the evening, said that there was a case reported in 2 Bingham, page 13, which established the principle that it was illegal to raise loans in this country to carry on war against a sovereign who was in amity with England.
  MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURT:—I am sure, Sir, that the whole House listened with great attention to the observations which you addressed to us with regard to the irregularity of our proceedings last night; and I took particular notice that, among other matters, you suggested that it was competent to us to amend that irregularity without further notice this evening.
  SIR GEORGE GREY: Not until this Motion has been disposed of.
  MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURT:—Quite true, and I am not about to conclude with any proposition; but after the highest authority in the House has suggested to us that an irregularity has been committed in our proceedings, and that it is competent to us without further notice to amend it to-night, I think that it is a duty incumbent upon those who lead the House not to allow it to separate this evening without the correction of that irregularity. The leader of the House and the Gentlemen around him will advise as to the mode of proceeding proper to be adopted, and will, no doubt, consult the highest authority in the House upon the subject; but I do think that, after such an intimation from the Chair, it would not be becoming for us to separate without the irregularity being corrected.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON:—If the House will permit me, it will, perhaps, be better that I should make a single observa-

  1169
  tion with regard to the irregularity committed last evening. I quite admit the propriety of your suggestion, Sir, that some proceeding should be adopted to mark that it was an irregularity, and to prevent any similar irregularity occurring in future. At the same time I think that in what we do no blame ought to be imputed to any persons who were parties to that irregularity, because no blame properly attaches to any of them. It was an inadvertence, and as such it ought to be treated. I think that the best course would be for the House to allow us till Monday to consider what will be the best course to adopt; and I will undertake on that day to propose something that will attain the object which we have in view.
  Motion agreed to.
  House at rising to adjourn till Monday next.

ARMY (PENSIONS FOR WOUNDS).

  ADDRESS MOVED.
  COLONEL NORTH, in rising to move that an humble Address should be presented to Her Majesty, praying that she would be graciously pleased to reconsider the Warrant granting Pensions and Allowances to Officers of the Land forces, limited to Wounds and Injuries received in Action, disclaimed any intention of impugning the manner in which the Secretary of State for War had carried out the warrant; and said that his only object was to extend the powers of the right hon. Gentleman in regard to the granting of pensions to wounded officers. The warrant was dated the 13th of June, 1857, and contained eleven clauses. At that late hour he would only refer to two or three clauses, and particularize one or two cases bearing upon each. The first clause to which he would call attention was that which permitted the recommendation for a pension of an officer who had lost a limb or an eye, or had totally lost the use of a limb, or had sustained a severe injury in action equal to the loss of a limb. The officer whoso case he would mention with reference to this clause served with that gallant band of heroes which was commanded by the late Sir Henry Havelock. At the outbreak of the mutiny in India he found himself in command of the light company of his regiment, and was sent to keep open the communication between Allahabad and Benares—a duty which he performed with the greatest success. When Mr. Moore, a ma-
  1170
  gistrate of the district, was murdered, he proceeded with only forty men to the scene of the murder, defeated a body of 1,500; rebels, and destroyed the village. He afterwards escorted a battery of artillery a distance of 150 miles, and then joined the force under the command of Sir Henry Havelock, and assisted in the relief of the Residency of Lucknow, during which operation he prevented the rebels from carrying off a gun which they were most anxious to secure. In that service he was wounded in the elbow. It was a day or two before the wound could be attended to, and the amputation was at last performed in a house in Lucknow through which shot and shell were falling at the time. The operation was performed with an instrument so blunted by use that hospital gangrene ensued, and on his arrival in England he was obliged to undergo another amputation of the arm. Nor was that all, for after the greatest suffering, he had had within the last six weeks or two months to undergo the same operation for the third time. That officer—like the others he had alluded to—with a modesty that did him great honour, had requested that his name might not be made public. The commander of his regiment had recommended him to the favour of His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief as a young officer who had charge of the light company for a period of two years, and had commanded it in six actions, in each of which he had acquitted himself with a quickness and intelligence deserving of the highest praise. Wishing to obtain further compensation for having to undergo all the suffering incident to so protracted a cure, that officer made an application to the War Department. The answer he received from the Secretary of State was, that the pension awarded to officers sustaining injuries in action only commenced one year after the date of their wounds; and that, as the applicant had had awarded to him the utmost amount to which he was eligible under the regulations in consideration of the wound he had received on the 25th of September, 1857, the Secretary of State for War was precluded from complying with his application. It must have been very painful for a man of his right hon. Friend's kindly feelings to write such a letter as that to so meritorious an officer. The next case he had to mention was that of a young officer who distinguished himself very much in the attack on the Redan, and was severely wounded on the 8th of September, 1855.

  1171
  The wound was followed by partial paralysis, but he was able to rejoin his regiment in the following year. He was examined by a medical board at Gibraltar, who reported that his wound was equal to the loss of a limb, and he received a pension. He came home to England, and was again examined by a medical board, who reported that his wound was nearly, but not quite, equal to the loss of a limb. On that report his pension was taken away from him, and he was told that he must go on half-pay before he would be allowed a pension. But to go on half-pay would be to deprive himself of all prospect of professional advancement. He was at present the second captain in his regiment; if he were on half-pay, and supposing he ever got back again on full pay, he must go to the bottom of the list. The last case he would mention was that of an officer who was shot in the thigh at the battle of Inkermann. A medical board reported in his case that his wound was nearly equal to the loss of a limb; that his leg had been shortened four inches, and that he was incapacitated from performing the duties of an officer of infantry. He applied for a pension, and the answer he thought went far to prove that the notorious Shylock must at one time have been War Minister, and that the forms he instituted kept their place to the present day. The reply stated that Mr. Secretary Herbert was prepared to recommend him for a pension of £70 a year for two years, from the date of his retirement on half-pay, and on his expressing his willingness to refund six out of the eighteen months' gratuity he had already received. This, he thought, was Shylock's pound of flesh without the penalty of the one drop of blood. He could scarcely believe that this application had come under the notice of the Secretary of State, for, with his kind heart, he never could have directed such an answer to be written. It certainly never could be the desire of Parliament or the people that such bargains as this should be made with men who were ready at any moment to sacrifice their lives for their country. He had spoken to many officers on this subject, some of whom had themselves been wounded—the Duke of Richmond, for instance—who all agreed that the working of this warrant was most unjust. All he wished was that the Secretary of State should have the power of dealing with distressing cases, such as these be had quoted, and in order to secure responsibility, he
  1172
  would propose that all cases dealt with beyond the terms of the warrant should be entered on the Estimates every year, as in the case of officers receiving good-service pensions. The hon. and gallant Gentleman concluded by moving the Address.
  MR. DEEDESseconded the Motion.
  SIR CHARLES NAPIERsaid, it was time some specific regulations were made on this subject, both as regarded the army and navy. He read the regulations as to pensions with respect to the navy, from which, he said, it appeared Her Majesty reserved to herself the right of granting annual pensions; but it was provided that if there was a wound equal to the loss of a limb the party should receive a gratuity equal to one year's pay, and the expense of his cure. Upwards of a hundred years ago the Admiralty made an order that no officer whose wound was not equal to the loss of a limb should receive a pension. His was a case in point. He received a severe wound, and made application for a pension; but the answer he received was that his wound was not equal to the loss of a limb. The men were in a worse position than the officers. They did all they could to get men to enter into the navy; and was not one of the inducements to enter that if they got wounded they would be provided for? and yet there was no provision for that.
  COLONEL DUNNEthought these warrants were not Acts of Parliament, and might easily be altered by the Secretary of State with the assent of the Commander-in-Chief. He hoped, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman would take the matter into consideration, with the view of framing a warrant better calculated to meet the jus-tics of the case. He could multiply the instances of hardship, such as those that had been so well detailed by his hon. and gallant Friend in respect of officers; and the grievance was, if possible, worse in the pensioning of soldiers.
  MR. SIDNEY HERBERT: It is extremely difficult in cases of this kind to oppose the feelings of generous men, after listening to descriptions of cases of great affliction endured by officers after long service; but I must put it to the House, and to the gallant Officer opposite, whether it is quite just and fair to bring forward cases of this description in the House of Commons before any notification has been made to the military authorities of the cases to be adduced, and the facts by which they are to be supported. We are

  1173
  told that warrants are not Acts of Parliament; and that they can be altered by the Secretary of State and the Commander-in-Chief; but if I am to adopt proposals such as that now submitted in deference to the feeling of this House, what becomes of the authority of the Commander-in-Chief? He has not been consulted; his opinion has not been taken; and I, as a civilian, should have altered a regulation without going to the military authorities for their opinion at all. In all cases of this description you must have rules laid down by which those in authority are to be guided, and those rules must be founded on some intelligible principle. I take the case of the very gallant officer mentioned by my hon. and gallant Friend, and who underwent three amputations of his arm. He has done eminent service—his service is not to be rewarded by the amount of pension for wounds—pensions are not given in compensation for the suffering or amount of pain that may have been endured, but for the disability consequent on the loss of a limb, or equivalent to the loss of a limb. An officer cannot receive the pension unless he goes on half-pay, because the fact of his being on full pay shows that he is able to follow his profession. In this particular case the officer received, and most justly received, at the hands of the Commander-in-Chief promotion to a company in another regiment without purchase. The question is simply whether under the peculiar circumstances of the loss of a limb, aggravated in his instance by the increased personal suffering of throe different amputations, you can apply a different principle to this particular case; not that I undervalue suffering, but the principle being that you compensate not for suffering, but for disability consequent upon suffering. The gallant Officer asks how I could make such a bargain, awarding two years' pension if the officer gave back six months' gratuity. I am bound while the warrant exists to act upon it. I have no power to depart from it. Either a year's gratuity may be given or, in an aggravated case, 18 months' gratuity; but, if that be followed by a pension, the gratuity must be confined to a year's gratuity, and six months of that gratuity must be refunded. The other ease mentioned by the hon. and gallant Officer is one, I am ashamed to say, I am unacquainted with. But on the whole of this subject let me say that it is impossible for me, on a Motion made in this House, to give at once an opinion as to
  1174
  what should be done. I am bound to consult others—I am bound to let others have the full weight of their authority. I am against giving an unlimited authority or enlarged powers to an official in the situation I hold. I have no objection to take the responsibility of these decisions, but you will not find two Secretaries of State whose decisions are the same. I find in a particular case unlimited discretion given as to the giving of pensions to the widows of general officers. I am very much perplexed as to the amount of those pensions. I have tried to frame a rule that should be followed; but here is the result. I looked back to the decisions of several Secretaries of State, and find that they have never been guided by the same rule. One said, "Such and such a general officer's widow was born in a high rank in society; her requirements, therefore, are greater;" and she would be awarded a pension on a higher scale than another general officer's widow, who had not been so high-born. I have not acted on that rule. I thought the sole rule should be not the rank of the lady but the rank of the deceased husband—military, not social rank. There are numberless decisions, however, proceeding on exactly the contrary principle; and I also find pensions given to ladies without children larger than those given to widows with a numerous family to support. And what is the consequence? Why, nobody knows on what principle you act; one person is refused, and another in a similar position has her claims allowed—and such different treatment is imputed to partiality. It is dangerous then, I say, to give great discretionary powers without strict rules being laid down as to how the discretion should be exercised. There is undoubtedly a disposition to give all you can, but in dealing with a large department and a large profession that is impossible. I do not think large discretionary powers would work well; yet I quite admit that there are points in the warrant that might be improved. But as to what we should do, and to what extent we should go, I must consult others before forming or giving an opinion. I trust, after what I have said, the gallant Officer will not press the Motion to a division, or I shall be obliged, from the duty I owe to myself and the service, to resist it.
  MR. DEEDESsaid, that the Motion was merely for a recommendation of the reconsideration of a warrant which was the cause of cases being treated with undue

  1175
  severity. As that was the only object, and as the right hon. Gentleman had admitted that the warrant was not perfect, he thought it would be better that the Motion should be withdrawn, and the matter left in the hands of the Government.
  COLONEL DICKSONsaid, he could not agree with the recommendation of the hon. Gentleman, and he considered the explanation of the Secretary of War most unsatisfactory. A great deal of injustice was done by the present system. If, therefore, the hon. and gallant Member went to a division he should vote with him.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will take the advice which has been given him by an hon. Gentleman on his own side of the House, and withdraw his Motion, resting satisfied with the assurance which he has received from my right hon. Friend near me, that he will communicate with the officers of those departments concerned in this question, and endeavour to find out whether the existing regulations may not be improved, in reference to the particular points under our notice. For my own part I confess that I should, even if this Motion were carried, feel very much at a loss how to act upon it, inasmuch as I was unable to understand from the hon. and gallant Gentleman what the special matters are in reference to which he wishes the existing state of things to be altered, and to what extent that alteration, if we agree to make it, should be carried. I myself have had some experience in this question, and I may state that when I was at the War Office I found it extremely difficult to frame regulations which should include every case which ought to be included, and to exclude those with respect to which allowances ought not to be made. The temper of the House itself, I may add, interposes no small obstacles in the way of dealing satisfactorily with the subject. At one time it is disposed to make the most liberal grants of every sort and kind, while at another time a different mood comes on, and it complains of the great expense which is incurred, and urges the Government to limit the amount laid out in the shape of grants and pensions. This has happened, for instance, in the case of pensions for wounds; for, when first the warrant with regard to them was established, the pension allowed increased with the promotion of the recipient, so that the pension granted to a lieutenant became augmented as he reached the ranks
  1176
  of captain or major. Subsequently the House relapsed into a more economical frame of mind; that regulation was altered, and the pension continued to be of the same amount as that which was originally conferred. The House will, I think, under these circumstances, perceive that it is hardly dealing fairly with a Government to make such alterations as are now proposed without specifying more particularly in what those alterations are actually to consist. I trust, therefore, that hon. Members will be disposed—seeing that they give my right hon. Friend credit for being anxious to adopt as far as possible the existing: regulations to meet the claims preferred by officers in consequence of the wounds which they may receive—to look upon it as the wisest course to pursue to allow my right hon. Friend to take the matter into consideration in conjunction with the officers of the several Departments interested in the subject—receiving also any suggestions which the hon. and gallant General opposite might wish to make to him in private with all the attention which they deserve. That being done, my right hon. Friend would then on a future occasion be in a position to state to the House what, upon full consideration, and with a due regard to public economy, he would be able to effect in the matter. A more satisfactory result would, in my opinion, by that means be brought about than by the adoption of an Address which points to no specific objects.
  COLONEL NORTH, in reply, said that when he brought the subject under the consideration of the House four years ago, a promise was made that the warrant should be reconsidered. As, however, nothing had since been effected in that direction, he felt it to be his duty to persevere in his Motion.
  Resolved,
  "That an humble address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to reconsider the Warrant granting Pensions and Allowances to Officers of the Land Forces, limited to Wounds and Injuries received in Action."

THAMES EMBANKMENT.

  COMMITTEE.
  SIR JOSEPH PAXTONproposed that—Sir Joseph Paxton, Lord John Manners, Mr. Cowper, Sir John Pakington, Mr. Alderman Cubitt, Sir John Shelley, Mr. Stirling, Mr. Tite, Lord Robert Montagu, Mr. Walter, Sir Morton Peto, Mr. Philipps,

  1177
  Mr. Roupell, Mr. Yorke, and Mr. Beamish—be appointed Members of the said Committee.
  LORD FERMOYthought the Metropolis was not fairly represented on the Committee, and moved that the name of Sir James Duke be substituted for that of Alderman Cubitt.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, the hon. Member could not suggest the insertion of another name on the Committee without due notice.
  LORD FERMOYwould move that the name of Alderman Cubitt be omitted.
  MR. CONINGHAMthought it quite necessary that the Metropolis should be fully represented.
  LORD CLAUD HAMILTONhoped that the name of Alderman Cubitt would be retained.
  MR. CUBITTbegged, on the part of his absent relative, to say that Alderman Cubitt was by no means disposed to encourage an unnecessary expenditure of the public money.
  MR. BERNAL OSBORNEmoved that the debate be now adjourned.
  SIR JOSEPH PAXTONwas astonished that any person should object to retaining the name of Alderman Cubitt on the Committee. If the advice of the noble Lord were taken, they would have eight Metropolitan Members on the Committee, and he should like to know what respect would be paid to a Report emanating from such a Committee?
  MR. JOHN LOCKEcomplained that the inhabitants of London, upon whom it was plainly intimated that, if this plan for embanking the Thames were carried out, the expense would mainly fall, were by no means adequately represented, although I the Committee was largely composed of contractors, engineers, and others, whose interest it was to promote expensive undertakings.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONreferred to the names of four or five Gentleman intimately connected with the Metropolis, for the purpose of showing that its claims had been very fully considered in the formation of the Committee. Considering that the functions of that Committee were only to inquire as to the practicability of the embankment, he did not think there were grounds for any serious opposition to its appointment.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, it was perfectly understood that the Committee was only to be appointed for the amusement of its Members, and therefore the nomination of
  1178
  individual Members was of no consequence whatever. No practical results were to follow.
  Motion by leave withdrawn.
  Question put and agreed to; Power to send for persons, papers, and records. Five to be the quorum.
  House adjourned at half after One o'clock, till Monday next.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—2a Ecclesiastical Courts Jurisdiction.
3a Pawnbrokers Act Amendment.

CENTRAL AMERICA.—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, he wished to put a Question to his noble

1063
Friend the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, of which he had given him private notice—namely, Whether his noble Friend had any objection to inform their Lordships in what state of progress the important negotiations with the Central States of America were at present? These negotiations were not of so much importance as regarded the relations between those States themselves and Great Britain as they were in respect of the settlement of the long-vexed question of the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty, which would probably be affected by them. These negotiations were commenced by the late Government and continued by the present. When the late Government went out of office there were three questions under consideration. First, the settlement of the boundary; secondly, the cession of the Mosquito Protectorate to Nicaragua; and, thirdly, the cession of the Bay Islands to the Honduras, on conditions which would ensure the safety of the subjects of Her Majesty resident in those islands. He should like to know the progress which the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had made in settling these questions—for he had seen in a newspaper a statement to the effect that the Bay Islands had been ceded to the Honduras. If that were so, and if the cession had taken place on the conditions first laid down by Lord Clarendon, and afterwards by himself (the Earl of Malmesbury), he thought it would be a subject of great congratulation; those conditions being a complete and entire recognition of the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty by the United States, and the entire security of Her Majesty's Government in those islands from any interference on the part of the United States or any other Power whatever. He should like to know whether the negotiations were in such a position as that the Government were able to produce the correspondence relating to them.
LORD WODEHOUSEsaid, that the questions which his noble Friend had asked related to matters of very great importance, not only as affecting our relations with the States of Central America, but also with respect to the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty. He would remind the noble Earl, as he had alluded to the negotiations under the late Government, that before that Government left office, the Clarendon-Dallas Treaty had fallen to the ground in consequence of a difficulty raised by the Secretary of the United States. After-
1064
wards negotiations were resumed and Sir William Ouseley was sent out to Central America. In reply to another Question asked by his noble Friend he had to state that his noble Friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs had continued the negotiations; and a Treaty had been concluded by which the Bay Islands were ceded to the Honduras. That treaty had been received in this country and ratified by Her Majesty. His noble Friend (the Earl of Malmesbury) had adverted to the conditions on which the negotiations for that cession had formerly been conducted, and which had been laid down by Lord Clarendon. These conditions had been considerably modified; but stipulations had been made which would, he thought, secure the safety of Her Majesty's subjects in the Bay Islands: and, moreover, a condition had been inserted that those islands should not be ceded by the Honduras to any other Power. The stipulations Treaty with Nicaragua had also been agreed upon, but, so far as Her Majesty's Government knew, it had not yet been ratified by the Congress of Nicaragua, nor had it been ratified by Her Majesty. When it should have been so ratified the ratifications would be exchanged; but until the entire matter was completed he could not produce the correspondence.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, that the answer of his noble Friend was satisfactory so far as it went; but as regarded the Treaty for the Cession of the Bay Islands to the Honduras, everything must depend on the terms upon which the Cession had taken place. His noble Friend had not answered one of the questions which he had put to him. He wished to know whether the United States recognized completely, fully, and fairly the spirit of the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty?
LORD WODEHOUSEsaid, that the Clarendon-Dallas Treaty was at an end, and there was no other treaty between this country and the United States but the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURYobserved, that Her Majesty's late Government had declared to the Government of the United States that an indispensable condition of the cesssion of the Bay Islands to the Honduras, was the recognition by the United States, without further dispute, of the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty. If that condition had not been preserved, the object of the late Government had not been obtained.

RELIGIOUS LIBERTY (OTTOMAN EMPIRE).—PETITION.
LORD STRATFORD DE REDCLIFFE: The paper, my Lords, I now have with me is the Petition of which I gave notice several days ago. It was placed in my hands by persons of high respectability, animated by the best intentions, and having in view a most laudable object. On this account I readily undertook to present it to your Lordships. The gentlemen, with whose request I have thus complied, are the committee of an association formed in the general interest of Christianity, taken in its purest acceptation, with the hope of softening religious asperities and promoting the great ends of Christian benevolence. This Society is known by the name of the Evangelical Alliance. The immediate object of their petition is not so much to bring forward any special complaints as to draw your Lordships' attention to the state of Protestantism in some parts of the Sultan's dominions, and to obtain, with your Lordships' countenance, a more effectual security for those who have exposed themselves to danger by an open profession of its principles.
With your Lordships' permission, I propose to offer a brief statement of some leading circumstances, which relate to the growth and present condition of Protestantism in Turkey. The Protestants in that country may be divided into two principal classes—namely, those who are the subjects of Powers in amity with the Sultan, and those who owe allegiance to the Sultan himself. The former, with few exceptions, are natives of Germany, Sweden, Holland, Switzerland, and Her Majesty's dominions. They reside in Turkey under the acknowledged authority of their respective Sovereigns, represented in most cases by Ministers accredited to the Porte. They are protected by treaties actually in force, and they have no reason to fear molestation on account of their religious faith. The latter are natives of Turkey, subjects of the Porte, converted to Protestantism from other forms of worship, which have the misfortune to be tinctured with error either in whole or in part, It is for this class of Protestants that I have to solicit the attention and sympathy of the House.
If we look, in the first instance, to their origin and progress, we shall not greatly err if we assign a considerable share of both to the circulation of the Holy Scriptures. Some thirty or forty years have elapsed since the Bible Society, as it is
1066
popularly called, succeeded in first introducing into the Sultan's dominions those translations of the sacred volume which have since been diffused through many parts of Turkey, both in Europe and Asia. The light was not offered in vain, and many, no doubt, have found their way, by its aid, to the fountain-head of truth.
In proportion as knowledge was obtained, the superstitious errors and gross abuses which had crept into the established form of worship throughout the East, became apparent, to reflecting and conscientious minds. That smallest of seeds, which is capable of a mighty growth, began to take root and spread; nor has it ceased to work its way through all the obstacles opposed to it by an alarmed priesthood and a fanatic population. The persecution which often attended that progress served only to stimulate the zeal of the converts. Their cry of distress was heard in other countries, and missionaries, summoned by its appeal, hastened from distant lands to their relief. Whatever merit may be due to those devoted auxiliaries, the greater share of it belongs to the United States. Whether we look to the funds, which their religious societies have so liberally supplied, or to the agents by whom those funds have been administered, it is impossible not to recognize in the amount of the former and in the conduct and character of the latter, what is calculated to do the highest honour to our transatlantic descendants. Other nations, and our own in particular, have laboured in the same cause, but the American missionaries stand almost alone in the extent of their personal exertions and the results which they have obtained. In the union of zeal, perseverance, and discretion they are unrivalled.
Your Lordships may possibly listen with interest to some particulars illustrative of their success, and affording a summary view of the present condition of Protestantism in Turkey. I have found them in a printed report, bearing the date of 1859, and published under the sanction of a respectable society. It appears from this statement that 45 churches have been founded; that above 1,500 members are in full communion; that those who attend public worship on the Sabbath may be averaged at more than 4,000; and that the Protestant community, as legally enrolled, comprises from 6,000 to 7,000 souls. Sixty-three ordained American missionaries, 67 female missionaries, 74 native preachers, and 178 native assistants, la-

1067
bour in the same field. Their stations and out-stations, scattered principally through Syria, Asia Minor, Armenia, and Bulgaria, amount to more than 100. The free schools attached to them exceed the number of 150, and 4,000 scholars, 900 of whom are females, avail themselves of the instruction they afford. In addition to these schools, there are seven higher seminaries, having 150 male and female students. The expenditure of the American Board for the collective missions amounted in the year to more than £28,000, and the aid from England to upwards of 2,300. Nearly 70,000 volumes and 20,000 tracts proceeded from the Protestant press at Constantinople in the same year.
It cannot be denied that, considering the shortness of the time, these facts are indications of no small zeal and of no small progress in that good work to which the missionaries have devoted their labours and their lives; but justice requires that, while assigning to them the praise which they have so fully earned, we should not withhold the expression of our gratitude from the Sultan, whose powerful authority has impressed a character of strength and permanency on the results of their exertion. If your Lordships will bear in mind the peculiar circumstances which surround a Turkish Sovereign, and limit the range of his ideas, you cannot fail to admire that soundness of judgment and generosity of feeling which has been so remarkably displayed by the reigning Sultan in all his dealings with the Christians. To him the Protestants, in particular, are indebted for the great Charter which recognizes them as a separate religious community, and gives them the enjoyment of privileges equal to those conceded in earlier times to the Greek, the Latin, the Armenian, and the Jew. From him they derive that free exercise of their religious creed, that security from molestation on the score of religion, which the Imperial Proclamation of 1856, the celebrated Hatti-Humayoun, has solemnly and permanently assured to every class of his subjects, without exception. I was myself a witness of the difficulties which His Majesty had to encounter in yielding to the entreaties of this country; and of all the incidents in my long diplomatic career, there is not one to which I look back with so much pleasure and surprise as to his gracious approval of that concession which, in carrying out the views of our Government, I had so long and so earnestly recommended.
1068
My Lords, I willingly believe that the Turkish ministers have fairly accepted their Sovereign's injunctions to give effect to the great principle of religious freedom. It can hardly, indeed, be otherwise, when we bear in mind that the Sultan's Proclamation was solemnly recorded in the same treaty of peace which guaranteed the independence and integrity of his dominions. But the Forte is not remarkable for the vigour and constancy of its proceedings. Though the Sultan's authority is irresistible, his Government has all the weakness which belongs to the individuals who compose it. The remains of religious prejudice with some, indifference or personal interest with others, impede the course of justice, and, but too often, produce those delays which amount to a denial of it. In the provinces, at more or less distance from Constantinople, seceders, whether from the Greek or the Latin Church, or from any other established form of worship, are exposed to insult and ill-treatment from the populace, and to acts of persecution emanating from ecclesiastical authority. Converts to Protestantism have less to apprehend from the Turkish Governor than from the Christian Bishop, except when the Pasha or the Cadi, acting under the influence of the Prelate, or swayed by some foreign Consul of kindred orthodoxy, neglects the instructions of his Government, and connives at illegalities which he ought to repress and punish. It may also happen, more particularly in the case of any conversion from Islamism, that the fear of local troubles—of a riot or a murder—may induce the magistrate to temporise at the expense of the convert, and deter even the Porte itself from redeeming its pledges in his favour with a prompt and determined hand.
My Lords, it is the more important on this very account that the influence of a Government like that of Great Britain, friendly to the Sultan, and sympathetic with the objects of his enlightened policy, should be steadily and vigorously exerted on behalf of the Protestants in Turkey. The natural tendencies to a lax application of that policy require to be counteracted by a vigilant impulsion of a friendly Power. Every act of persecution left without redress, every infringement of the Sultan's charter allowed to pass with impunity, must necessarily have the effect of encouraging persecution and deterring those, who are awake to the love of truth, from

1069
avowing that purer doctrine which in their consciences they believe.
I do not, my Lords, intend to insinuate any reproach against Her Majesty's Government for remissness in this respect. I have no reason to suppose that the head of the Foreign Office, either under the present or under the late Administration, has shown any want of vigour in supporting the cause of religious freedom in Turkey. The difficulty of supporting it with equal effect at all times is, no doubt, considerable. Individuals who secede from long-established forms of worship and modes of faith are unavoidably exposed to the malice of those whom their new profession condemns, and their own inconsiderate zeal may possibly at times betray them into acts of provocation and offence. Tour Lordships will, however, remember that, while it may be said of these Eastern converts to Protestantism that "suffering is the badge of their tribe," they are legally entitled to the full benefit of the Sultan's charter, and that it is the bounden duty of a Government which has placed them by solemn enactments on a level with other Churches, to enforce on all its subjects, and more particularly on its official agents, the execution of every measure required for their protection. The right and the obligation may both be admitted, nor, indeed, are they open to dispute; but it may still be asked, on what ground we can justly interfere on behalf of converts who are subject to the Sultan's laws, and resident in countries which acknowledge his rule. My Lords, it is not necessary for me to affirm that we have any express right by treaty to interfere on their behalf; but I appeal with confidence to the admitted practice of other Powers, to the solemn obligations incurred by the Sultan in presence of all Europe, and to the vast debt of gratitude which his whole empire has contracted towards this country, whose sympathies operate so powerfully in favour of Protestantism. In calling upon him to carry out his promises, we manifest the sincerity of our friendship and a becoming regard for his honour and authority; we encourage his perseverance in a course of enlightened humanity, which accords with his own interests; and, at the same time, we not only satisfy the requirements of a great moral duty, but strengthen the foundations a policy which virtually ministers to our own advantage, identified, as it is, with the general advantage of Europe.
Such being the case, my Lords, I lay this
1070
Petition on your Lordships' table without further explanation, and confidently hope that its value will not be determined in your Lordships' judgment by the weakness of its advocate, but rather by the intrinsic importance of the object to which its prayer is more immediately addressed. The terms of that prayer are:—"That your Right Honourable House will be pleased to sustain Her Majesty's Government in their efforts to cause Religious Liberty to be maintained, and the Protestant Churches to be really and fully protected in the exercise of their just rights, throughout the whole of the Ottoman Empire."
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he had at first thought that this Petition had emanated from certain subjects of the Sultan in reference to disputes between themselves and the Turkish Government, in which case it would have been a serious question whether their Lordships could receive the document. It now however appeared that it was a Petition from British subjects, praying that the good offices of Her Majesty's Government might be exercised in making representations to the Government of Turkey for the protection of Protestants generally in the Sultan's dominions: and that being so there would be no impropriety in entertaining it.
THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYexpressed his thanks to the noble Viscount for the great interest he had taken in this question of religious toleration in Turkey, and thought, whether they considered the interests of religion generally or the unexampled triumphs of which they had proof that Christianity had achieved in Turkey, the noble Viscount was entitled to the deep gratitude of every friend of religious liberty throughout the world. It was impossible not to sympathize with the noble Viscount in the high terms with which he had spoken of the liberality of the Sultan, or to over-estimate tire labours of those Societies to which the noble Viscount had alluded. Notwithstanding the immense difficulties that existed in Turkey it was most gratifying to observe the progress which Christianity had made in the dominions of the Sultan. But the noble Viscount had omitted all mention of the most effectual means to which this progress must be attributed—namely, his own unceasing exertions in the cause, which have been crowned by a degree of success which could hardly have been otherwise attained.
LORD WODEHOUSEsaid, that although he had no reason to offer anything on be-

1071
half of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the Petition just presented, because the noble Viscount had been kind enough to state—what was, indeed, perfectly just—that the Foreign Office had never been slack where its exertions could be usefully employed in aid of the Christian subjects of the Sultan, yet he could not refrain from making one or two remarks. Certainly no one was better qualified than the noble Viscount to bring this subject under their Lordships' consideration. Everbody who had paid the least attention to foreign affairs was well aware that during the whole time the noble Viscount represented this country at Constantinople his great influence was continuously and unsparingly used on behalf of all classes of Christians throughout the Turkish dominions. He might also add that everybody knew the exertions of the noble Viscount to that end had been happily attended with considerable success. The noble Viscount had paid a just tribute to the benevolent intentions of the present Sultan. Persons in this country could scarcely understand to what an extent the Sultan had to contend against the prejudices of his people in the measures he had recently taken. Those measures had announced complete religious liberty to Christians all over the Sultan's dominions—a proceeding that was regarded by many of the most highly-placed Turks as inconsistent with their creed and position. Under such circumstances to have proclaimed, and to some extent also carried out, those principles, reflected great honour upon the Sovereign of Turkey. But, unfortunately, in that country, more, perhaps, than any other, the measures that were formally announced were not always put fully into operation or completely carried out. The Christians might, indeed, have been placed almost on a footing of nominal equality with the rest of their fellow subjects; yet, undoubtedly, they were exposed to oppression in various parts of the Sultan's dominions. Some cases of persecution had been brought under the notice of Her Majesty's Government, and the complaints had been accordingly brought to the knowledge of the Ottoman Government. They had received satisfactory assurances that orders would be given by the Porte to its different governors in the Pachalics where these grievances had occurred; and he trusted that those orders would be carried with effect. Indeed they had every reason to
1072
believe that it would be so, since an officer of high rank had been appointed to see that they were carried into effect. But what was most deserving of remark was that these complaints were made in a very great number of cases, not against the Mussulmans, but against other Christian subjects of the Sultan. So great a jealousy existed among the different Christian Churches throughout the East that scenes constantly occurred which did very little credit to the Christian profession of those who took part in them. The most lamentable religious feuds had not only prevailed at Jerusalem, but at present there existed among the Greeks and Latins very great jealousy respecting conversions to Protestantism. In one instance a Greek priest, and also some Armenians who had embraced Protestantism, were persecuted to such a degree that even in spite of the assistance of the authorities they were obliged to leave their native part of the country altogether. Similar cases had occurred in other places. All this exemplified the great difficulties of a very peculiar kind which the Turkish Government had to encounter in enforcing the principles of religious liberty and toleration which they had announced, and which he believed they were honestly desirous of giving effect to. He could, however, assure his noble Friend that Her Majesty's Government, without wishing to interfere with the internal affairs of Turkey—because they ought to make some allowance for the difficult position of the Sultan, and not press hard on that Sovereign, except in cases of absolute necessity—were disposed to give such advice to his Government as they hoped might secure to Protestants as much safety and freedom as were extended to other Christian denominations throughout the East. Her Majesty's Government had been invariably assured of the good intentions of the Turkish Government in respect to the carrying out of internal refrrms, but beset as the Porte was by the frequent representations of all the States of Europe, it had the hardest conceivable task to carry out any efficient plans of reform. They ought to take care that in any course they took they did not trench on the independence of the Sultan, lest while endeavouring to improve the condition of his empire they should add to its weakness, and prevent by the measures they employed the realization of their best wishes for its prosperity.
LORD BROUGHAMhoped he should receive from his noble Friend some satisfactory information as to the steps which had been taken to put down, as far as we had authority to put down, but at all events to make our Consuls aid the Turkish Government in punishing, instead of interfering to protect, the British subjects guilty of those outrages which lately were committed so scandalously in one of the mosques in Egypt, in a spirit of mere wantonness. If these outrages had been committed in consequence of a perverted religious enthusiasm, that would have offered no sort of defence, but it would have been comparatively an extenuation of the offence. But according to the information he had on the subject, the outrage in question arose from the mere wantonness of English travellers in that country he hoped and trusted, therefore, not only that our Consul did not interfere to protect the offenders from the law and the police of the country to which they had rendered themselves amenable, but that he had rather encouraged the authorities in executing the laws against them. Nothing could possibly tend more entirely to frustrate all the good that had been done by religious societies here, and by his noble Friend the noble Viscount when he filled that office, which he filled—and which by common consent he most ably filled—in the East, for the promotion of the Christian religion, and the propagation of the Gospel in those parts—nothing could tend more completely to render inoperative all that had been done, and to make progress, so to speak, retrograde, than such outrages committed, he was sorry and ashamed to say, by British subjects. The only course that should be taken in such cases was to instruct our Consul, not only not to interpose, which he was not likely to do, in favour of those who were guilty of these outrages, but show his zeal to bring them to justice, and encourage the Ottoman Government in executing their own laws against them.
LORD WODEHOUSEsaid, he entirely agreed with his noble and learned Friend that it was the duty of the British Consuls not merely not to give encouragement to those who were guilty of outrages so gross as that to which reference had been made, but that they should do all in their power to bring such persons to condign punishment. The circumstances of that most disgraceful proceeding—for it could be characterised by no other term—were per-
1074
fectly well known; but, in justification of our Consul, he might state that he was entirely ignorant of the transaction until the parties were beyond the reach of justice; and he would say that the conduct of the Viceroy of Egypt and of the Egyptian authorities, did them the highest credit, and it was satisfactory to find that the progress of religious toleration in that country had rendered such an occurrence comparatively harmless. The individuals in question had interrupted in a most unseemly manner religious ceremonies which were proceeding in one of the principal mosques on a solemn occasion; but instead of tearing them to pieces on the spot, which would have been the case a few years ago, the people allowed the officers of police to quietly remove the offenders. Her Majesty's Government had taken measures to discover the perpetrators of this outrage, and they had given directions to the Consuls, that on the future occurrence of any such cases, they should take immediate measures to bring the offenders to justice.
LORD BROUGHAMhoped his noble Friend (Lord Wodehouse) would not be charged, in consequence of adopting such steps, with favouring the Mahomedan religion, as he himself and others had been charged with favouring the Popish religion because they objected in the East London case to decide a question of ecclesiastical discipline by the mob in the streets, which they had protested against, without saying one word as to which party was right or which was wrong.
LORD CRANWORTHthought, while pressing on the Porte the protection of our own countrymen, entertaining religious opinions totally at variance with those of the Sultan, it was extremely important his Government should understand that the blame imputed was not attributed so much to the Mahomedan as to the Christian subjects of His Majesty.
Petition to lie on the Table.

ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS JURISDICTION BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD CRANWORTH, in moving the Second reading of the Bill, stated that it was founded on the Report of a Commission issued in the year 1832, when his noble and learned Friend opposite (Lord Brougham) occupied the woolsack. That

1075
Commission recommended the abolition of the ecclesiastical jurisdiction on two subjects—defamation and brawling, and to render persons charged with those offences amenable to the common law courts; and his noble and learned Friend five years ago introduced a Bill to carry the recommendations of the Commission into effect, so far as regarded defamation. That Bill, however, was confined to England; it did not extend to Ireland; and one object of the present Bill was to extend the provisions of that very useful Act to the sister kingdom. With regard to brawling there was no very exact definition of that offence that satisfied his own mind. According to the 6th of Edward VI. it consisted in making a riotous disturbance in any church or churchyard; and the punishment to be inflicted for the first offence was, that the party guilty was to be prohihibited ingressu ecclesiœ—a punishment, he feared, not very likely to deter those who were guilty of such an offence from its repetition—the punishment for the second offence was that the party guilty should lose one of his ears; but there might be those who had lost both ears, having been punished in this way more than once, and then they were to be branded in the face. This Bill, which had been introduced in the Commons and by them sent up to their Lordships, made the offence a civil one, and enabled the civil authorities to deal with it.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, that the Bill to which his noble and learned Friend had alluded, was the production of his hon. and learned Friend, Dr. Phillimore, than whom no one could be better fitted to legislate on this subject, from great experience in the Ecclesiastical Courts, and who had most ably performed his duty by carrying the Bill through the other House of Parliament. His noble and learned Friend had done perfectly right in extending its provisions to Ireland.
THE BISHOP OF EXETERsaid, he rose to oppose the Bill, and in the first place to complain that it had been introduced into the other House without the slightest explanation of its provisions or its grounds. He understood the noble and learned Lord (Lord Cranworth) to say that the object of the Bill was to carry out the recommendations of the Ecclesiastical Courts Commission of 1832; and it was true that that Commission recommended the extinction of the jurisdiction of the Ecclesiastical Courts
1076
over laymen; but he wished his noble and learned Friend had stated more fully and more satisfactorily the recommendation of the Commissioners. It might be inferred from the statement of the noble and learned Lord that the recommendation, of the Commissioners was simpliciter to get rid of the jurisdiction over the laity on these subjects of the Ecclesiastical Courts; but his noble and learned Friend must forgive him for reminding him that this recommendation was accompanied with a condition that with respect to the laity there should be given, in lieu of the jurisdiction of the Ecclesiastical Court, an indictment by which a person found guilty was to be liable to imprisonment; and he thought it would have been more satisfactory if that recommendation or some equivalent had been adopted in the present Bill—they ought not to remove the present remedy without some substitute. But he must frankly say that it had been his misfortune never to be able to see the reason for the recommendation so far as concerned the laity. It ought not to be expected, and could not be expected, that the Church would forego her right and her duty to tell the laity what was their duty; and, although it was a very disagreeable thing, when they departed from that duty in any important particular, to visit them with the censure of that Church. He was not desirous that these censures should be backed by any temporal penalties. The censures of the Church were intended pro salute anima—were intended to operate not on the body but on the soul. He did not coincide with the definition given by the noble Lord of "brawling." Violent and indecent behaviour did not constitute "brawling." Brawling was the interruption by words only of Divine service, and acts of irreverence in the course of the prayers of the Church. That was a very grave offence—it was a sin of a very high nature when wilfully and especially if pre-meditatedly done. The State at present gave the Church the power of pronouncing its own censure, which, in the first instance, was an admonition not to repeat the offence. If that was not effectual, and the party was contumacious, then they went on even to excommunication. It was true that that sentence of excommunication was followed up by an act of the temporal Legislature, which imposed grave punishment. He for one deeply regretted that any such punishment attended such excommunication—it weakened rather than

1077
strengthened the Church's authority. The punishment was six months' imprisonment. They ought, indeed, to be glad that the Legislature in the time of George III. had introduced a change and an amelioration in the term of imprisonment as formerly carried out; and he could wish that the Legislature of Queen Victoria would go further and relieve the Church altogether from the scandal of being practically prevented, in the present state of society, from exercising its proper spiritual powers by having the temporal penalty of imprisonment appointed to enforce them. They did not wish to be assisted in their jurisdiction by any penalties imposed by the State; they wished only to tell sinners that they were sinners, and to exhort them to repentance; and if they refused to repent, then to tell them further that they cease to be members of the Church of Christ, and must not be permitted to join in the communion of the faithful. He was astonished that the Commission of 1832 should have gravely proposed to give up that jurisdiction, though he wished it were totally freed from all temporal penalties. He had said that the sentence had been actually inflicted by the Ecclesiastical Courts in one recent instance, and that it had had a beneficial effect; and he must remind their Lordships that the ecclesiastical jurisdiction which was to be removed if this Bill passed was the only means by which it had hitherto been found possible to reach any one of the offenders connected with the riots in St. George's-in-the-East. That offender was not of the lowest class. He was known and summoned, and proceedings having been taken in the Ecclesiastical Court, the sentence was that he should be admonished not to offend again, and should pay a sum nomine expensarum—the costs of the proceedings. This sentence was passed on the 17th April, and by a coincidence which it is difficult to believe merely accidental, on the 19th the present Bill, abolishing all such jurisdiction for the future, was laid en the table of the House of Commons, but with absolute silence as to any of its objects, and it had been now introduced into their Lordships' House without any statement of the provisions of the Bill, or of the reasons which had made it necessary. He doubted, indeed, whether the noble and learned Lord had even once read the Bill he now wished their Lordships to read a second time. When he considered that the existing law to which he had adverted was the only one
1078
that could reach these and similar riots in St. Georgo's-in-the-East in a spirit of law, justice, and religion, it was monstrous to be now told that such a remedy was to be removed. He did not agree that the Church should be relieved of the duty of visiting sin with censure; and if the offender said, "I do not care for that," of telling him that he should no longer be allowed to be a member of the Church. They had no right to say that the Church should not proceed in her own courts to exercise purely spiritual jurisdiction. It had been stated that this Bill provided that the offender might be brought before the magistrate; but in truth there was no such provision.
LORD CRAWORTH: Before a justice of the peace.
THE BISHOP OF EXETER: That statement made him the more confident that the noble and learned Lord had not read his Bill; and he wished that he would do them the kindness of looking at it. Such a provision was just what he wanted. The statute of Mary enabled any one to bring such an offender before a justice of the peace, having first apprehended him upon the spot; and why this statute had not been had recourse to in reference to the scandalous proceedings in St. George's-in-the-East it was not for him to say. To him this was utterly unintelligible, particularly as they had heard that the Government functionaries were desirous to use all their means to put an end to such proceedings. By the present Bill the offender might be "convicted before two justices of the peace;" but how could they proceed under such a clause against the persons who were committing these riots? for they were of such a class that it was not known who they were, and therefore they could not be summoned. There were hundreds—he believed thousands—of children who were employed every Sunday night, in all sorts of riot, and insult, and outrage. The summoning of such parties was a mockery. Some few persons, indeed, who were supposed to be known, had been summoned, and then it turned out that they wore not known. Why had the statute to which he had referred not been brought into operation? and why had not the police been told that they had authority and power, and therefore the duty to apprehend those who were guilty of those disturbances of Divine service? This was distinctly the law of the land, but that law had not been once, as he believed,

1079
called into action. They were told that nothing could be done, and certainly for ten months nothing had been done; the consequence was that atheism and riot was the normal condition of a large district of the Metropolis. Could this go on with impunity, and would not the principle be enlarged so as to extend beyond religion, to law, to justice, and possibly to Parliament itself? The tendency of such a state of things was to destroy all law; they ought to put down these riots, and they must do it unless they would have the law in this country become a mockery. But those who from their official position were bound to endeavour to suppress these disturbances had found it consistent with their duty to decline doing so. He thought that it was very unfortunate that there should be any attempt to frame new laws until the effect of the old ones had been fairly tried; and he lamented that the law of the Church had not been put in force in reference to ornaments placed in this church—a question with which he believed the law was perfectly able to deal. The clergyman was not bound to provide vestments—they were to be provided for him by the churchwardens. But the main thing which seemed to attach to this individual was the introducing of strange ornaments into the church; a cross was placed on the altar, and flowers and other things were introduced in various parts of the church. Whether these things were right or not he would not himself undertake to say, but the law of the Church was clear that the clergyman had no right to put the ornaments there. He spoke not lightly upon this subject, for he had not only had a legal opinion upon the matter, which fully justified his own, but he had written to that distinguished man the Judge of the Court of Arches, and therefore the highest appellate authority before whom the question could go, and that very learned person fully confirmed the view which he (the Bishop of Exeter) had taken. Some things were prescribed, and some things were used without prescription; but a clergyman had no right to introduce any new ornaments; the ornaments as he had said, were entirely under the control of the churchwardens, and that control carried with it a duty. There were special ornaments which it was the duty of the churchwardens to place in the church, and to see that they were used even on the Lord's table. It was not, however, for
1080
them to introduce any novelty—and much less had any one else the power to do it—without the authority of the Consistorial Court, given by means of a faculty. That faculty costs a sum of £7 or £10 to obtain it, and, therefore, the practice was where all parties agreed, such as in the having a curtain, or any other trifling matters, to dispense with a faculty; but when the peace and comfort and decency and religion itself, of a district were at stake, he must say that the persons who obtruded these things ought to be told that they wore exceeding their legal powers. It was, indeed, very possible that when these things had been once placed in the church they could not be removed without a faculty, however illegal they may have been in the beginning; but upon that he gave no opinion, though, as to the right of the churchwardens to have charge of the ornaments in the first instance, he had, as he had said, the sanction of the highest authority. If the clergyman in question had been called to an account, and threatened with an ecclesiastical commission against him in the first instance—he was sure his right reverend Brother would forgive him for the suggestion—he would have been brought to his senses, and the country would have been spared a great deal of the scandal which had arisen. On the other hand he must repeat that he lamented deeply that nothing had been done to stop the parties who had been guilty of those riots. He would refrain from entering further into this painful subject, but he could not express in too strong terms his sense of the duty which existed of putting down these enormities of which all were so much ashamed. Under these circumstances he would move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
Amendment moved, to leave out ("now") and insert ("this day six months.")
THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, their Lordships would, perhaps, excuse him for making a few remarks upon this question. He had not been in the slightest degree aware that this Bill had any connection with those unfortunate outrages which had disgraced a portion of his diocese; whether there was or not the slightest connection between the introduction of this measure into the other House of Parliament and those outrages he was not prepared to say. He thought, however, that it would have been well if the heads of the Church had been made

1081
aware that this Bill was passing through the other House of Parliament, as they would then have had time to examine it. He, and he believed his right rev. Brethren, had not seen the Bill until that day, and therefore he had no doubt, that the noble and learned Lord would have no objection to let several matters in the Bill stand over for consideration until they went into Committee. What his right rev. Brother (the Bishop of Exeter) had said in reference to the Ecclesiastical Courts generally was so important that it could not be discussed without consideration. He hoped that he should be allowed to say a few words in reference to those unfortutunate circumstances which had been referred to. He thanked his right rev. Brother for having pointed out the real state of the law on the matter, and he would only say that the words which his right rev. Brother had used were well worthy of attention, and from his known knowledge of the law and his experience in carrying it out, he hoped that those words would have the desired effect with those whom they wished to bring under obedience to the law. His right rev. Brother had pointed out that no change could be made in the arrangements of the church except with the sanction of the Ordinary. In times of peace, however, the Ordinary was generally willing to allow innocent changes to take place; and no doubt in many churches of this Metropolis, no evil being anticipated, during the time of his revered predecessor, many such changes were allowed. For his own part he did not think it would have been becoming in him to introduce a new state of things at once, and to insist that every one of the clergy of his diocese should return to the exact arrangement in their churches which existed at the time of consecration unless it could be proved that every alteration had been made by virtue of a faculty. Among other churches in which alterations had been made was this unfortunate church of St. George's-in-the-East, and until it became absolutely necessary to regard it as an exceptional case he was willing that this church should be treated like any other of the diocese, and that the changes should be allowed to continue. But when he perceived that there was a disposition to carry these changes further, then, as his right rev. Brother had pointed out, it was his duty, and he did, in fact, send his officer to inspect the church and report to him as to certain changes which had
1082
taken place within the week preceding his visit; and finding that these changes had been made without the authority of any faculty, lie gave orders, under his hand and seal, that those things that had been put up should be summarily removed by the proper officers. That order was carried into effect. Unfortunately, the execution of the law in the Ecclesiastical Courts was a slow process. His right rev. Brother had pointed out that his duty was to take some proceedings as regarded what occurred on last Easter Sunday, when certain flowers and other decorations were placed upon the Communion table. He was glad to tell his right rev. Brother that he had taken such proceedings. Owing, however, to the ecclesiastical law being so slow, an offence might be committed in August, and every one might be aware of it by reports in the public newspapers, and it might even undergo investigation in other courts of justice; yet, though no effort might be omitted and the proceedings carried on with all possible rapidity and with no inconsiderable expense to bring the offenders to justice, August might be succeeded by Christmas, Christmas by May, and May might be verging into June, without the public being in possession of the fact that any proceedings whatever had been instituted. Now, he could illustrate this by stating what had taken place in reference to St. Georges-in-the-East in the Ecclesiastical Court. Proceedings had been taken against a person, who, he believed, was one of the first of the offenders in point of time; the offence was committed not later than September; and yet it was not until very recently that this case had been adjudicated. But slow as these Courts were, slow as venerable, he had no doubt that when their vengeance did come down on a victim, it was a matter not to be trifled with. People were in the habit of thinking that these Courts might be trifled with, but the most hardened offender would not feel indifferent when he came to pay his lawyer's bill. As to their spiritual power, all right-minded men would be ashamed to be put in the position of not being allowed to enter their church: but the enormous expenses wore perhaps more regarded in this day, the costs of the lawyers, the pecuniary penalties which might be imposed nomine expensarum, and the imprisonment which would follow unless the fine were paid, constituted a very heavy punishment. On the contrary the 40 s. penalty imposed by this Bill would be

1083
nothing to a rich man in case he were foolish and weak enough to take part in these disturbances, and he thought it absolutely necessary to consider in Committee whether the proposed penalty was sufficiently severe. One other matter to which his right rev. Brother had called attention was of the deepest importance, namely, that this Bill, professing to embody the recommendations of the Report of the Commissioners omitted this most important point, that it should apply only to lay persons; and he thought that it would therefore be necessary to insert the words, "any person not being a clerk in holy orders." Brawling embraced a variety of offences, and it often happened that the only mode of bringing a clergyman to justice was to charge him with the offence of brawling; and in some instances of brawling the sentence might be a suspension for three years. It therefore followed that it would be ridiculous that for such an offence a clergyman should be brought before a magistrate, instead of before an Ecclesiastical Court, and that he should be fined 40 s., instead of being suspended for three years; in addition to inserting the words he had mentioned, in reference to clergymen, he thought it would also be necessary to consider whether the penalty proposed was sufficiently severe as regarded laymen.
LORD CRANWORTHsaid, the last thing he could have apprehended was that the Bill would be charged with giving rise to the riotous and disgraceful proceedings in St. George's-in-the-East; he could likewise assure his right rev. Friends that the measure had not been framed with any intention of screening the low rabble who were guilty of such misconduct. He had been informed that the Bill was, in fact, framed at the end of last Session, but that it was too late then to introduce it. He might further add that his hon. Friend who had brought the Bill forward in the other House had communicated with leading men on both sides of the House, who expressed their entire approbation; and therefore, though his hon. Friend stated fairly and candidly what the Bill was, as there was no opposition it' did not lie in his power to create a discussion. Whether the penalty proposed by the Bill was or was not sufficient was not a matter affecting the principle of the Bill; that was a detail to be discussed and settled in Committee. The principle of the Bill raised this question, whether the Ecclesiastical Courts, possessed as they were in some
1084
cases, and frightfully powerful in others, by punishing persons incidentally by enormous costs—whether the Ecclesiastical Courts maintained a satisfactory jurisdiction and mode of operation; or whether a more simple course was not desirable of dealing with what was really a civil offence before civil tribunals. The right rev. Prelate who had moved that the second reading of the Bill be deferred for six months could not feel more strongly than himself the necessity of preventing offences caused by the introduction of practices at variance with the ancient usages of the Church; and he remembered being associated with the right rev. Prelate on a memorable occasion, and going with him in opinion as to what were the ornamenta—he used the Latin word, because it expressed not merely "ornaments," but "furniture"—what were the ornamenta of the church—and they were agreed that no ornamenta were allowable, or at all events advisable, but those which were sanctioned by Act of Parliament or the canons. What he now asked of their Lordships was that they should give the Bill a second reading; and he would, in that case, engage not to move the Committee till Tuesday week, in order to give the right rev. Prelates a full opportunity of considering the measure, and he would be ready to listen to any suggestion from them with the most respectful attention.
THE BISHOP OF EXETERsaid, that after the explanation of the noble and learned Lord, he would withdraw his Amendment.
LORD EBURYremarked that if, as had been observed, the Ecclesiastical Courts were slow in their operation there was one thing that was much slower, and that was the amendment of the law. This matter had been under discussion in Parliament as long as he could remember. The riots had been carried on in St. George's-in-the-East a long time, and no remedy had been applied. In presenting some petitions on the subject a short time ago, he suggested that the law should be looked into, and he hoped that means would be discovered for removing the scandal which was now doing immeasurable injury to the Church.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that as it seemed to be understood that the Bill was to be read a second time he refrained from saying a single word on its merits; but he could not refrain from directing attention to the state of the administration of the ecclesiastical law. According to the

1085
law, as it stood at present, it was a great hardship that the whole costs of a prosecution, instituted by a Bishop for the good of the Church, should fall upon the Prelate, who acted in the matter only in obedience to the law.
Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn. Original Motion agreed to.
Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Tuesday, the 22 nd inst.
House adjourned at a Quarter past Seven o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.