Sitting of 26 April 1861

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILL.—1o County Courts Procedure.

ILLNESS OF MR. SPEAKER.
The House being met, the Clerk, at the Table, informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. Speaker, and read the following Letter which he had this day received:—

1171
"Speaker's House, April, 26, 1861.
"Sir,—I beg you will express to the House my great regret that I must absent myself from the service of the House to-day,
"The rheumatic pains, under which I have been suffering for the last week, disable me from attending this day.
"I trust that I shall be able to resume my duties on Monday.
"I have the honour to be, Sir,
"Your obedient Servant,
"JOHN EVELYN DENISON.
"Speaker.
"Sir Denis Le Marchant, Bart.
"Clerk of the House of Commons."
Whereupon Mr. Massey, the Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, proceeded to the Table, as Deputy Speaker; and after prayers, counted the House, and Forty Members being present, took the Chair, pursuant to the Standing Order of the 20th day of July, 1855.

PROCEEDINGS OF ENGLISH OFFICERS IN EGYPT.—QUESTION.
MR. FREELANDsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, Whether Copies of the findings of the Courts Martial appointed in India for the trial of Officers charged with insulting Mahommedans while engaged in religious worship in Egypt, and of any reprimands or comments on the proceeding of the Courts Martial by Sir Hugh Rose, have been received by the Government; and whether there will be any objection to lay such Copies, if received, upon the Table of the House?
SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, he bad received certain General Orders issued by Sir Hugh Rose, and, if the hon. Member would move for them, he should be glad to produce them as an unopposed Return.
On the Motion for Adjournment till Monday,

FATE OF CAPTAIN BRABAZON.

  QUESTION.
  GENERAL PEELsaid, he trusted that in the absence of the Foreign Secretary the noble Viscount at the head of the Government would answer the question, of which he had given notice—namely, What steps the Government have taken to ascertain whether the report of the murder of Captain Brabazon, of the Royal Artillery, by the Chinese, is true; and whether the information received is derived from the personal knowledge of the informants, or rested entirely on Chinese
  1172
  rumours? He had given notice of his question before he had read the Report of the Committee appointed to consider the mode of conducting the business of the House; otherwise he should have selected some other opportunity than the Motion for the adjournment of the House until Monday. Nor should he have volunteered to ask a question upon a subject which must naturally be painful to the feelings of the relatives of Captain Brabazon; but the fact was he had been requested to bring the matter before the House and the Government by Major Brabazon and his family. Major Brabazon, not satisfied with the evidence of his son's death, was on the point of going out to China for the purpose of offering a large reward for any information on the subject, when he was prevented from doing so by an interview which he had with the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary, who undertook on the part of the Government to do everything that was necessary. Far from finding fault with the Foreign Secretary, Major Brabazon had commissioned him (General Peel) to express his gratitude to the noble Lord for the kindness he had shown him; but he complained, with some justice, that anything was left to be done in the matter. He complained that before the Earl of Elgin quitted Pekin he did not take every means in his power of ascertaining the accuracy or inaccuracy of the report of the death of Captain Brabazon. The Earl of Elgin, writing to the noble Lord on the 26th of October, stated that Captain Brabazon, together with a French gentleman, was beheaded, after the action on the 19th of September, by the directions of a Chinese General, who was wounded on that occasion. He added that he was inclined to credit the report, although he had no positive evidence of the facts, and that Captain Brabazon was an officer of much promise, who had held the office of Deputy Assistant to the Quartermaster General. Major Brabazon complained that every step was not taken to prove the truth of that report—that even the most obvious and common methods were not employed. It was reported that after the execution the body of Captain Brabazon was thrown into a canal. Major Brabazon complained that the canal was never dragged, although by such a simple expedient some remnant of clothing or something proving the accuracy of the report might have been discovered. He also stated the extraordinary fact that

  1173
  our troops entered the town where the execution was supposed to have taken place on the evening of the same day, that they remained there for ten days, held an open market, and were in constant communication with the Chinese, and yet that not a single whisper reached them of such an execution having taken place. It had, likewise, come to his knowledge that on the 1st of October, the day after the troops left, a British subject was executed by the Chinese, and that either the fact was not known to the English authorities, or they had not thought it worth their while to take notice of it. The man was a private of the 31st Regiment. Upon application to the War Office Major Brabazon was told that they knew nothing of the subject; that the only information they had received was that a man had died on the 1st of October; and it was only on referring to the depot of his regiment that Major Brabazon discovered the man was beheaded by the Chinese. Major Brabazon supposed, very naturally, that the execution of this private soldier might have given rise to the report of the death of his son. There were many other circumstances which led him to the same conclusion. Perhaps he was too sanguine in his confident belief that his son was still alive. We all knew how people were apt to cling to the last hope; but he so far agreed with Major Brabazon that, having read with the greatest attention all the evidence which had been produced on the subject, he thought there was no absolute proof of Captain Brabazon's death. He did not wish, of course, to raise any discussion as to the probability or improbability of Captain Brabazon being still alive; but the Earl of Elgin had not left the matter in a satisfactory state. As long as there was, he would not say a probability, but a possibility of Captain Brabazon being alive, it was the bounden duty of the British authorities in China to take every step in their power that no doubt should be left as to the accuracy of the report of his death. Captain Brabazon was a very distinguished officer, and his loss would be a misfortune to the public service as well as to his friends; but it would have been equally the duty of the authorities if he had been the humblest drummer-boy in the army to make every inquiry for the purpose of relieving his friends from a state of suspense, the horrors of which could hardly be exceeded by a knowledge of the reality however dreadful.
  Afterwards—
  MR. GREGORYsaid, he was extremely sorry that he had been absent when his right hon. and gallant Friend (General Peel) had called attention to the fate of Captain Brabazon. It was a matter of great satisfaction to him that that subject had been taken up by one who was himself not only professionally connected with the army, but who had been a Cabinet Minister and a Secretary of State for War. He understood that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had alluded to the story that Captain Brabazon, having been dismissed by the Tartar general, Sang-ko-lin-sin, and having met the Chinese general who was supposed to have been mortally wounded in a recent engagement, was by him condemned to decapitation, and was so decapitated and his body thrown into the canal at Pa-li-chiau. Now, the evidence which had been received of that story was of such a nature that no insurance-office in the kingdom would pay a life policy upon such unsatisfactory information. The story went that Captain Brabazon was beheaded, and that on the same day the British army marched to Pa-li-chiau, where he was said to have been executed, and remained encamped there for ten days. It was a singular circumstance, therefore, that while such an event as the decapitation of an English officer must, if it really occurred, have attracted the notice of the natives, yet, although our troops were in constant communication with the Chinese people, not a word ever reached their ears during the whole of their ten days' encampment that one of their comrades had been killed or thrown into the canal. Moreover, if it had transpired that he was thrown into the canal, the question naturally arose, how came it that the canal was not dragged for his body, or some part of his clothing that might have led to his identification? The answer made to that was, that the bodies of several hundred Chinese who had been killed in the late action were thrown into the same canal, so that it would have been impossible to tell whether Captain Brabazon was there or not. Now, he had been given to understand on the authority of a military officer of high rank that while our army lay encamped for those ten days he passed close by the canal daily, and never saw the least sign of a human being in it. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman had referred to the case of two other Europeans who were decapitated at He se-woo, and whose bodies were

  1175
  subsequently discovered—a circumstance which might have given rise to the tale of Captain Brabazon and the Abbé de Luc's execution. That tale was, however, utterly unreliable, as might be seen from the papers in the blue book. The Chinese story was contradicted by Chinese authority. He would put the matter as plainly as possible before the House. The Chinese themselves had stated that twelve days after the reported death of Captain Brabazon that officer was still alive. It would be found from Mr. Parkes' despatch that Hangki spoke to him of prisoners detained in the camp of Sang-ko-lin-sin on the 3rd of October, whereas the story of the decapitation was fixed on the 21st of September. From the evidence of the sowar Jowalla Sing it was clear that Captain Brabazon and the Abbé de Luc were separated from the other prisoners, and kept in Sang-ko-lin-sin's camp. The despatch of the Prince Kong, the Emperor's brother, addressed to the Earl of Elgin, also stated that the Chinese had interpreters with them who were quite capable of discussing the points of difference between the two Powers, and among them he mentioned Consul Parkes and a French officer named "I," who was taken to be the Abbé de Luc. Prince Kung's despatch was dated the 3rd of October, while Captain Brabazon's decapitation was reported to have occurred on the 21st of September. To identify the person named "I" with the Abbé de Luc it should be observed that it was notorious there were no Frenchmen with the Chinese army who understood Chinese, and who were taken prisoners, except the Abbé de Luc, who was kept separate from the other prisoners, and placed in conjunction with Captain Brabazon. Whatever happened to Abbé de Luc happened to Captain Brabazon. They cannot be dissociated. No tale could be more absurd than that Sang-ko-lin-sin dismissed Captain Brabazon on the 18th or 21st of September, for the, date was variously stated. It could not for a moment hold water. We knew with what tenacity the authorities at Pekin had clung to their prisoners. Discussion after discussion took place between the British and the Chinese as to their surrender, and nothing but the threat to totally destroy the capital enabled us to extricate them from their clutches. Now, we had it alleged that Sang-ko-lin-sin was in possession of an English officer of artillery of high position, and had a foreigner who spoke Chinese along with him; and vet it
  1176
  was stated that, eighteen days before the other prisoners were delivered up by the Chinese with the greatest reluctance, Sang-ko-lin-sin dismissed that officer without any stipulation whatever. That story was almost incredible; and certainly not a stone ought to be left unturned before we abandoned our search for this unfortunate gentleman. For the sake of his suffering relatives the Government were hound to make every investigation in their power in order to obtain some trace of him. In his despatches Consul Parkes particularly alluded to the great anxiety of the Chinese authorities to inquire into the nature of our guns and bow far they carried, together with other circumstances connected with our army; and he remarked it as a very notable thing, that since General Sang-ko-lin-sin had held his command extraordinary attention had been paid by the Chinese to their artillery, which had undergone a marvellous improvement between the affair at Canton and the attack on the Taku Forts. It was, therefore, just possible that this young officer, being known to belong to our artillery, might have been separated from the other European prisoners, and put in conjunction with the Abbé de Luc, who was the only other person who spoke Chinese, for the purpose of assisting the Chinese to improve their own artillery. That was nothing but a mere conjecture; yet they ought not to rest satisfied until they had followed up every possible clue to the discovery of Captain Brabazon—an officer of the greatest promise, whom he had known from his boyhood. He could not sit down without paying a deserved compliment to the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Department for having shown himself, since the commencement of the unhappy business, most anxious and willing to render any information in his power in order to relieve the sorrows and to dispel the incertitude of a bereaved family.

CASE OF CAPTAIN MACDONALD.

  QUESTION.
  LORD ROBERT CECILsaid, the question which be intended to address to the noble Viscount at the head of the Government was one which deeply concerned the comfort and convenience of that numerous class of Englishmen who during the summer vacation were in the habit of travelling on the Continent. The matter did not concern Captain Macdonald alone. If it

  1177
  did, perhaps it would be unfitting that he should take up the time of the House with it; but, unfortunately, it concerned every English passenger who travelled through the territories of Prussia, and was, therefore, important enough to be brought under the consideration of the House. He wanted to know precisely the amount of protection which Englishmen were to expect from their own Government in case of need, and the amount of oppression which they would have to bear from foreign Governments when unfortunate enough to fall into their hands. The case of Captain Macdonald, through the agency of the press, was tolerably well known to the House, and, therefore, he should be absolved from stating it in any detail. Captain Macdonald was a passenger on the railway from Mayence to Cologne. At Bonn the train stopped, and his sister-in-law, her child, and a nurse left their places to get some refreshments. During their absence a Dr. Parow entered the carriage and seized their places. Captain Macdonald represented to him that the seats were occupied, and protested against the intrusion. Dr. Parow replied by calling him a "lout." Thereupon Captain Macdonald called the station master, who unfortunately was a man personally dependent on Dr. Parow, and when he came up, at once took the side of his countryman, and summoned Captain Macdonald to leave the carriage. Not satisfied with that summons he attempted to pull him out. Captain Macdonald, with an instinct natural to an Englishman, resisted; but we had the evidence of German witnesses, totally unconnected with Captain Macdonald, that his resistance had no character of violence. He simply pushed the stationmaster back. No sooner, however, had he laid hands on the sacred person of the stationmaster than several railway officials dashed by the opposite door into the carriage, seized him by the heels, and pulled him out upon the platform. Having done so Captain Macdonald stated, but his evidence was not corroborated by other witnesses, that they maltreated his sister-in-law and the child. He was then ordered to lay down 10 dollars on the spot. Captain Macdonald demurred to that demand and asked what authority they had to demand 10 dollars; but that was a question which Prussian officials were not in the habit of answering; and, instead of producing their authority, they seized Captain Macdonald and threw him into prison—into what Englishmen described as a filthy prison,
  1178
  but what Prussians described as a decent prison. The precise state of things could, of course, be imagined by the House. In that prison he was left for six days. At the end of that period he was brought before a court of justice. They acquitted him of the alleged assault, but they imputed to him what was never charged against him—that he had insulted the stationmaster—on the sole and unsupported testimony of the stationmaster himself, contradicted by other German witnesses; and for this they fined and dismissed him. The House would observe, in the first place, that even according to the Prussian law the treatment of Captain Macdonald was absolutely illegal. The Prussian law, like our own, was very jealous of the liberty of the subject. It provided that every person arrested by the police should, within twenty four hours of his arrest, be examined before a magistrate, and that the magistrate should sign a warrant for his further detention. But that law was in reality a dead letter. The police were in the habit of constantly disregarding it, and in this case it was treated as of absolutely no avail. Captain Macdonald was thrown into prison, and remained there, without authorization. This was a very serious state of things. It showed that it was competent for any Prussian authority to throw an English traveller into prison, and keep him there for six days, on the simple allegation that he himself had been insulted by that English traveller. Captain Macdonald was not intimately acquainted with the German language, which was the case with many of the gentlemen who travelled on the Continent; what possible security had they that any railway stationmaster might not consider himself insulted by some unwitting word or act on their part, and that they would not be thrown into prison and kept there for six days without bail? It had been asserted in the German newspapers that Captain Macdonald had assaulted the stationmaster and Dr. Parow, but that accusation had been found to be without any foundation whatever. But there was more than this danger. It was not only that a railway official might seize a man against whom he, or anyone in whom he had an interest, happened to have a spite; but, unfortunately, the whole course of proceeding showed that there was a special animus against English travellers among the authorities who bore rule in Prussia. He did not mean to cast the slightest

  1179
  blame on Her Majesty's Government, or on the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs; he thought that noble Lord had behaved in a very worthy and dignified spirit; but he did wish to impress on the House, and through them on the public, the fact of the hostile spirit in which the Prussian authorities dealt with the subjects of the Queen, and the danger which all English travellers ran in the present state of feeling in that country. In the first place, it was hostile enough, when a man objected to his place in a railway carriage being forcibly occupied by another, that he should be dragged out by the heels to the platform and thrown into prison. That by itself was evidence of hostility, but it did not stop there. No sooner was Captain Macdonald thrown into prison, than the British Consul at Bonn went to the proper authorities and offered bail for his appearance. In England that bail would have been accepted at once, but what was the course taken in Prussia? Consul Crossthwaite went to the State Procurator Möller, and, in writing to Lord Bloomfield the Consul said—
  "He expressed great indignation at the Captain's conduct, and alluded to the manner in which the English generally conducted themselves on the Continent, as it they were not in a civilized land. I replied that perhaps a few might misconduct themselves, but such a complaint could not be made against all. He said at all events people who travelled must know they cannot strike down a railway officer in the execution of his duty. I pointed out to him that I understood Captain Macdonald was an officer of Her Majesty's Body Guard, and, setting aside his rank, it was a serious thing to arrest a British subject and to send him to gaol like a felon—that unless he were speedily released it might have serious consequences. To this Moller replied, 'We will run the risk of that.' I asked if Captain Macdonald could be released on bill, offering to deposit cash to any amount. To this he replied, 'I will not take bail; but if you like to petition the Court and offer to deposit 500 thalers, you can do so, although I tell you beforehand that I shall oppose it. I quite understand what you want—to get the Englishman out on bail, and then he will run off to England, not caring about the money. No; we must make an example of him.' "
  That was the spirit in which the representatives of the Prussian Government at Bonn wished to proceed against the English. This functionary considered them as a species of vermin to be hunted out of the land; he stigmatized all Englishmen, and denied the commonest justice to Captain Macdonald because he was anxious to gratify his spleen against the English. But that was not all. The case came on for trial, when Möller,
  1180
  who was conducting the prosecution on the part of the Prussian Government, made a general attack on English travellers on the Continent. Now, there was not a particle of evidence against Captain Macdonald except that of the stationmaster who declared that he had been assaulted; all the other German witnesses—independent people, who had no interest in the matter—declared that Captain Macdonald had done nothing contrary to the law. But in spite of their evidence, the stationmaster declared that he had been assaulted, and the tribunal preferred believing him rather than the independent witnesses. To enforce the evidence Möller made a violent speech against all Englishmen travelling on the Continent, and in language which was well known, having been widely commented upon, he charged them with universal blackguardism. The exact meaning of the word used was a little controverted, and linguists declared that "lubberly" was the true translation. He did not know whether English travellers would prefer to be called blackguards or lubbers; but, whatever was the precise equivalent of the original, it was clear that Möller was animated by a desire to blacken the character of English travellers to the utmost extent. What did the Prussian Government do? Of course, that Government were not bound by the acts of their subordinates if they disavowed them; but they did nothing of the kind. Instead of disavowing Möller, they allowed a prosecution to be brought against the English travellers residing at Bonn for venturing to express their opinions on the subject. They had not inflicted the slightest censure on the stationmaster who had acted in such an arbitrary and violent manner. He did not mean to say that the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary should raise this matter to the dignity of an international difference. He had already expressed himself in terms quite as strong as the circumstances deserved, and which did the noble Lord great credit. The noble Lord said—
  "The Prussian Government has not thought fit to temper its justification of these extreme acts by any expression of regret, and Her Majesty's Government cannot but regard its conduct as too clearly evincing a disregard of international goodwill."
  If the British Government were not able to defend English travellers from such unjust, arbitrary, and illegal attacks, they were bound at least to warn them against

  1181
  the dangers they incurred. He thought Captain Macdonald ought to have received some reparation from the Prussian Government. It was a deep injury that had been inflicted upon him, and it was a reflection on the English people that the Prussian Government not only refused him reparation, hut allowed Möller to remain without any reprimand, and the author of the whole undisturbed in his office. What he wanted to ask the noble Lord was this—whether he would take any measures to acquaint English travellers with the dangers they ran when they travelled on a Prussian railway? They ought to be acquainted with what was the law of that country—that a stationmaster at any station might, for an imaginary insult, have them dragged by the heels out of the railway carriage on to the platform, throw them into prison, keep them there for six days, and on his sole, unsupported, and contradicted evidence have them punished with fine and imprisonment, even when actively supported by their own Government; the temper and spirit in which Prussian law was administered being specially hostile to all subjects of the Queen of England. English travellers ought to be informed that while travelling in Prussia they were liable to dangers to which they were not subject in any other country in Europe. Wherever passports were issued there ought to be a statement made public of the brutal and barbarous conditions to which travellers in Prussia must submit.
  Afterwards—
  MR. MALINSsaid, it was necessary for him to ask the House to revert to the question which had been put by his noble Friend (Lord Robert Cecil) in connection with the ill-treatment of Captain Macdonald in the Prussian territory. From a personal acquaintance with Captain Macdonald he could positively assert that that gentleman was a most unlikely person to offer offence to any one, and was incapable of any conduct which could at all palliate the gross outrage to which he had been subjected. Captain Macdonald was travelling from Mayence to Coblentz, as bad been stated by the noble Lord. When the train arrived at Bonn his party got out for some refreshment, and at that time there were two seats of the carriage only which were covered by cloaks to show that they were occupied. Dr. Parow came and took one of those seats, and when Captain Macdonald demurred he was dragged out by the heels, and after having been subjected
  1182
  to the indignity of imprisonment for six days, he was placed upon his trial, and acquitted. There was one point, however, so utterly repugnant to English law, that he wished to revert to it, and that was that Dr. Parow had never himself been produced at the trial. It was almost inconceivable that an officer in Her Majesty's army, an Exon in the Body Guard, should have been treated in such a manner—kept in prison for six days, treated almost like a felon, and the offer of the British Consul to deposit a sum of money as security for Captain Macdonald's appearance flatly refused, the Prussian official accompanying the refusal by designating the English travelling in Prussia as blackguards. What could be the cause of such wanton insult? He (Mr. Malins) did not believe there was any unfriendly feeling on the part of the Prussian people towards us. Could it be possible that the Prussian authorities were less enlightened than the people? It appeared that it was only an accident that Captain Macdonald was in prison only six days, as he might have remained there ten days longer without trial. In addition to that he had since been insulted by the Prussian papers, which called him a low man, and declared that he had been expelled from the clubs on account of his behaviour towards the railway official. He trusted that it would be clearly understood by the Government of Prussia that the people of this country entertained a strong sense of the indignity which had been put upon an Englishman. He did not think that there was any country in Europe where such treatment would have been experienced, and he hoped that the noble Lord would make known to the Prussians their opinion of it. If Captain Macdonald had been guilty of an assault, by all means punish him for it, but in this case he was acquitted of that charge. Captain Macdonald's object was now, not to obtain compensation for the indignities to which he had been submitted, but he did desire to stand well in the opinion of his fellow-countrymen. But after those proceedings another event occurred. The English residents in Bonn, including among them the Rev. Mr. Anderson, a gentleman well known and esteemed, protested against the conduct of the Crown Prosecutor in styling Englishmen blackguards. For that offence every one of those protesting residents was prosecuted by the Prussian Government, and fines were inflicted, varying from 100 thalers to 20 thalers. Sinco

  1183
  then he believed the Prussian Government had thought fit to remit those fines, but those were proceedings on the part of a friendly power against which he, as an Englishman, felt bound to protest; and he hoped the noble Lord would be able to say that more would be done than had been yet done to make plain to the Prussian Government the opinion of the country upon these transactions.
  [Post 1206.]

  AFFAIRS OF SYRIA.—OBSERVATIONS.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid, he had given notice of a Motion upon the present state of the Syrian question, but in consequence of the unfortunate absence from illness of the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary he should defer it until a future evening. He had been induced to give that notice from a strong sense of the importance of the matter, and, considering also that the greatest anxiety was felt by the European inhabitants of Syria as to the state of the country after the departure of the French troops, that no circumstances should occur which might imperil the integrity of Turkey, or necessitate any further foreign interference in the internal government of that country. He, therefore, begged to ask the noble Lord whether the recommendations of the International Commissioners upon the affairs of the Lebanon had been finally arranged, and the proceedings of the Commissioners closed; also, whether, in the opinion of the Government, there existed a prospect of a stronger government being established in Syria?
THE PAPAL SUCCESSION.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he wished to call the attention of the House and the Government to a statement which appeared in the Indépendance Belge of the 20th instant, and which appeared to be confirmed by a correspondent, in the same paper, of the 22nd, to the effect that in the event of the abdication, removal, or death of the present Pope, Cardinal Wiseman was during the interregnum to be appointed Pope to all intents and purposes under the title of Pius X. It was further stated that in this country he was to convene what was termed as œcumenical council to decide on the election of the successor of the present Pope. He should have thought little of this but that the correspondent of the Bel-
  1184
  gian paper stated that there had been a difference of opinion among the cardinals on this subject, that it was not Cardinal Antonelli who had carried out this decision, but Cardinal Alfieri, whose function it would under ordinary circumstances be to convene the electors of a future Pope in the event of the Papal chair being vacant; and that several of the cardinals were opposed to this undertaking, but the majority of them were in favour of it, and that thus for a time at all events Cardinal Wiseman was to be the successor of the Pope. Now, he (Mr. Newdegate) need hardly say that that could not be agreeable to this country, where they had Cardinal Wiseman already bearing titles and exercising powers contrary to our law, and to international law, hereafter exercising the full functions of the Papacy, pending the appointment of the successor to the Pope, no one knowing how long this interval, for it could scarcely be called an interregnum, would last, and with power to summon an œcumenical council. The Indépendance Belge of the date of the 20th April contained the following statement on the subject:—
  "With reference to the affairs of Italy the following details respecting a project conceived at Rome are derived from so good a source that I have no hesitation in transmitting them to you, though I do not at 'the same time pretend to guarantee their authenticity. I am assured that the Holy Father has already, some months ago, made all the arrangements in the event of his death, in the event of his deposition, or even in the event of voluntary abdication. The case of his death is particularly provided for. By a decision approved of by twenty-one cardinals, Pius IX. is said to have nominated as his successor or his representative, until the regular election of a new Pope, chosen at Rome by all the cardinals met in conclave, Cardinal Wiseman, Primate of England. Cardinal Wiseman, whose position in the Church is considerable and exceptional, would thus become invested with all Papal powers, especially with that of summoning at London a great (ecumenical council. The difficulties of the situation lead one to suppose that if St. Peter's See should be vacant, there would probably be an interregnum of tolerable length before the regular election of a new Pope. It is during this interregnum that Cardinal Wiseman will administer the affairs of the Church under the name of Pius X. This arrangement is now no longer a mere project, it is a thing definitely settled; and it has already—such is the statement—been promulgated in the Church in order that no accident may endanger the Catholic hierarchy. The Pope, it is asserted, has frequently been tempted to abdicate in order to retire to a monastery; but this project is still vague, whilst the deed of the transmission of the Papal powers to the first Prelate of England has been actually signed. This arrangement of Pius IX. is of a character to create surprise for various reasons. That England

  1185
  should thus be chosen as the moral refuge of Catholicism—as the harbour into which St Peter's barque runs for safety amidst storms—is certainly quite unexpected."
  The House could not forget the measure passed last Session to prevent the necessity of the Roman Catholic subjects of Her Majesty being compelled to resort to the Courts of Rome in matters arising out of disputes relating to Roman Catholic trusts. Recollecting the feelings which arose in this country in 1851, when English law was set at defiance, and when the independence of this country was invaded by an usurping authority, he naturally looked with anxiety to the possibility of the recurrence of such aggression, under aggravated circumstances, especially when he remembered that the only premonition of the aggression consummated in 1851, reports current in 1850 of what was about to happen which afterwards turned out to be correct. The reports now prevalent also were characterized by much particularity, and he would quote the further statements of the Paris correspondent of the Indépendance Belge of the 22nd of April—
  "One of my colleagues in the task of correspondence has already transmitted to you information respecting a decision of the Holy Father, approved of by twenty-one cardinals, which institutes Cardinal Wiseman, the Primate of England, as representative of the Papacy, in the event of the decease, the deposition, or the abdication, whether forced or voluntary, of the Sovereign Pontiff. The information which I have received completely harmonizes with that already given. It is now in my power to complete it by additional details. It is not Cardinal Antonelli, who, as might have been supposed, has undertaken the working out of this decision (to which the Church attaches the highest importance), but Cardinal Alfieri, camerlengo of the Church; and who, in the event of Pius IX.'s death, is to summon the conclave. The number of the cardinals adhering to the arrangement far exceeds the number of twenty-one, whilst those who still express some hesitation are not above five or six."
  The writer then went on to comment upon the opinions of the various cardinals, several of whom he named. He would also call the attention of the House to the fact that the Comte de Montalembert, in his work on the political future of England, boasted that acts were committed on the part of the Ultramontane power in England which would not have been attempted in Naples, even under the former regimé. He thought it right to call the attention of the noble Lord to these Reports, and to ask whether he could furnish the House with any information on the subject?

BRAZIL AND THE SLAVE TRADE.

  QUESTION.
  SIR HUGH CAIRNSsaid, he wished to put a question in reference to the proceedings under the Convention between this country and Brazil. During the last Session he had asked the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary the reason why the proceedings under that Convention, by which the interests of many mercantile firms in this country were affected had been suspended. The noble Lord could not give any answer at that time, because some questions that had arisen had been referred to the law officers of the Crown. From information that had since arrived in England he understood the affair was in this position:—Brazil had under the Convention made some claims of an extraordinary character against this country, created by the exertions of England to suppress the slave trade with Brazil. The result of these claims was that the British Minister at Brazil wailed for instructions from home, and in the interval the proceedings under the Convention were suspended. He wished to ask, Whether it was likely these proceedings would recommence, and whether there was any reason why the claims of Brazil against this country should not be asserted in the usual way; also whether the Government would object to lay on the table any papers showing the nature of those claims?
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, I quite go along with the right hon. and gallant Officer opposite in the feelings he has expressed with regard to Captain Brabazon. It is very painful for the relatives of that gallant officer to be kept in a state of doubt as to his fate, more distressing than a certainty adverse to their hopes. 1, therefore, entirely sympathize with the anxiety the right hon. and gallant Officer has so well expressed to ascertain, if possible, the real truth as to what has happened to that gallant and distinguished officer Captain Brabazon. But, putting together all the circumstances from which we can draw any conclusion, I am afraid we cannot arrive at the conclusion expressed by my hon. Friend on this side of the House. I am afraid the friends of Captain Brabazon can only receive this consolation, that, by the suddenness with which his fate was sealed we may conclude he escaped those lingering and barbarous torments to which his still more unfortunate comrades were subjected in their last hours. At the same time, if it is possible to entertain any hopes

  1187
  of his surviving, I can assure the gallant General and the House that my noble Friend at the head of the Foreign Office has taken every means that can be taken to clear up this mystery. As far back as February the noble Lord sent out most stringent instructions to Mr. Bruce to take every means, official and unofficial, for the purpose of ascertaining distinctly the fate of Captain Brabazon; and I am bound in justice to the Russian Government to say that, as it was sending a new Minister to Pekin, instructions were given to him by his Government that the first duty he had to perform was to use every means in his own power, and to co-operate with Mr. Bruce in clearing up the fate of this gallant officer. At the same time there is no kindness in endeavouring to encourage hopes so likely to prove unfounded; it is better that those interested in the fate of Captain Brabazon should, if possible, take the darkest view of the matter till the certainty can be arrived at. And there is also this circumstance to be considered—I believe the Chinese authorities have accounted for all the prisoners except two—Captain Brabazon and the Abbé De Luc. They either sent them back living, or their bodies were produced; and if the bodies of these two gentlemen were thrown into a canal, as represented, that will account for their not being produced after the demand for them. I should be too happy if the supposition of my hon. Friend should turn out true. If so, I have no doubt the influence of the British, French, and Russian Governments will effect the release of those two gentlemen from the duresse in which my hon. Friend supposes they may have been kept by the Chinese authorities. With regard to that point, my noble Friend has taken the steps I have described, and I am not aware that any other steps can possibly be taken in the present state of the matter.
  With respect to the other question put by the noble Lord (Lord Robert Cecil) on the transaction in which Captain Macdonald was concerned, the whole of that transaction is explained in the papers that have been laid before Parliament. I can only say, I do not think that any expression used by my noble Friend at the head of the Foreign Office during the discussion is a bit too strong to stigmatize the conduct of the Prussian officials. It is not for us to stand here and bandy vituperation with M. Möller or any one else; but I only say that I agree with the opinion
  1188
  expressed by the noble Lord in his concluding despatch; and though we are told by the law officers of the Crown that the whole proceedings were within the limits of the Prussian law, I think they were of a most unfriendly character, and most unworthy of a Government in alliance with England. I must say I am astonished that a Government like that of Prussia, represented in its foreign department by a distinguished nobleman, who spent many years in England in a diplomatic capacity, and who should himself, therefore, know the feelings and habits of the people of this country—I am astonished that the Prussian Government, looking, as it was bound to look, at the circumstances of the case, should not at once have said, "Our officials have not overstepped our law; we are bound to tell you that; but, summum jus summa injuria. We know that if a similar case had occurred in England, you, the English Government, would have gone before our demands to make every honourable apology and every compensation—if compensation were necessary—and we feel it due to ourselves, as a great Power in Europe, to tell you that we entirely condemn the conduct of our officials, and are ready to make every satisfaction which, as between gentleman and gentleman, Captain Macdonald could require." The Prussian Government had every motive for doing this. It is impossible to cast your eye over the face of Europe and to note the relations of the different Powers to each other without seeing that it is the interest of Prussia to cultivate, not the friendship of the English Government only, but the good opinion and the goodwill of the English nation; and, therefore, I should say that their conduct in this affair has been that which a distinguished French diplomatist has described—it has been a blunder as well as a crime. I am asked what steps the British Government have taken, or can take in this matter. It was impossible to have demanded from the Prussian Government either compensation or apology if they were unwilling to make it, because we were told by the law officers of the Crown that, however harsh, unjust, arbitrary, and violent their proceedings were, yet those proceedings appeared to be within the limits of the Prussian law. One regrets, for the sake of the Prussians, that they should have such a law. But that being the case, it was impossible for the British Government to press any demand upon the Government of Prussia. Well, then, what warning are

  1189
  we to give to British subjects who are about to travel in Prussia, as to such acts? Sir, I think the notoriety which this transaction has received, both through the newspapers all over the country, and through the discussions in this House, will prove as great a warning as could be given individually to gentlemen desiring passports for Prussia. I think, however, that a warning will also have been given to the Prussian Government when they know, as they will, the universal indignation with which this proceeding has inspired every Englishman; and, whatever influences may operate, as they no doubt do—party influences, for instance—upon the feelings of persons in authority, I think that that which has happened is not very likely to happen again.
  With regard to the question put to me by the hon. Baronet (Sir James Fergusson) respecting Syria, I am sorry to say that I do not think it would be consistent with the public interest to produce any papers on the subject to which his question relates—namely, what Government is to be established in Syria as a permanent arrangement? These arrangements are not yet settled. They are still under discussion by the members of the Commission—by the Turkish Government and the different Powers represented in the Commission—and until the Commissioners have come to some conclusion and a settlement is made it would not be desirable or useful to produce the different arguments which each party may have urged in favour of the particular modification supposed by him to be the best. I can only say that I. believe all the Powers are equally desirous of accomplishing the same ultimate object—namely, that of securing to Syria the authority and the Government most likely to prevent the recurrence of those unfortunate events which have led to the occupation of Syria by a French force.
  The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Newdegate) has asked me a question founded upon a paragraph which he has read from the Indépendance Belge, stating that certain contingent arrangements have been made with reference to the death of the Pope, his abdication, or other cessation of his authority. This statement was copied into one of the English papers, where I have seen it, hut all I can say is that the Government have received no information in any degree bearing out the statement. Of course i cannot pretend to know what are the rules and laws by which the Papal
  1190
  Government is directed, but I should very much doubt whether it is in the power of an existing Pope to make during his lifetime arrangements for carrying on the Government, ecclesiastical or temporal, after his death. That, however, is a matter on which I am not competent to form an opinion. I can only repeat that we have no information which at all corroborates the statement of the Belgian newspapers.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Sir Hugh Cairns) asked a question respecting the discussions that have gone on between the British and Brazilian Governments as to certain claims made on the part of British subjects. He is quite right in saying that the conferences have been suspended. They were suspended in consequence of the Brazilian Government putting forward claims which we think totally inadmissible—namely, that losses sustained by Certain Brazilian subjects engaged in the slave trade, and whose ships were captured and disposed of under the provisions of the Act of 1845, should be part of the losses dealt with by the Commission. We contend that these captures have nothing whatever to do with the matters for which the Commission was appointed. We hold that no question can arise with regard to what was done under the Act of Parliament; that we were acting within our own powers, and are not accountable to Brazil in respect of this; and we, therefore, entirely repudiate the claim of Brazil to mix up this matter in the questions which were to be considered by the mixed Commission. An answer to that effect went not long ago to our Minister in Brazil. We have not yet received the answer of the Brazilian Government, but I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman will see that while the question is pending it is not consistent with the public interest to give papers respecting it.
  COLONEL DICKSONsaid, that the noble Viscount had not entirely answered the question put to him respecting Captain Brabazon, namely, whether the information received of that officer's death was derived from the personal knowledge of the informants, or rested merely on Chinese rumours? The noble Viscount was inclined to believe that there could be no possible hope. But the friends of Captain Brabazon complained that the belief expressed in his death rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, and that no pains had been taken to discover the real facts. The Earl of Elgin in his despatches said that the

  1191
  silence of the Chinese respecting Captain Brabazon led him to believe that that officer must have met with a violent death. That was the only evidence the Earl of Elgin seemed to have relied upon to satisfy himself of Captain Brabazon's fate; but surely, as that young officer had been sent on a most peculiar and dangerous mission—one which had been declined by another officer until he got the written order of the Commander-in-Chief—he deserved even more consideration than another. It was said that his body had been thrown into the canal. Then, why was the canal not dragged and some means taken to find out his real fate? Instructions, it appeared, had been sent out by the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary in February, and the noble Lord had evinced the utmost kindness and sympathy. The Russian Government also, when its Ambassador was sent out in March, directed him to make every inquiry, and to use every exertion to ascertain Captain Brabazon's fate, and that showed that in their opinion there was a probability of his being still alive. He agreed with those who thought there was just a hope that Captain Brabazon might have been spared and carried up the country, and retained for a purpose which had been already suggested, particularly as they had from Prince Kung himself an assurance that the Abbé de Luc was alive a fortnight after both those gentlemen were supposed to have been murdered. He implored the noble Lord to use every diplomatic engine, and all the means which the wealth and influence of England placed at his command, to solve the horrible mystery, and, if possible, to restore a noble son to his afflicted father and a gallant officer to his country.

FLOGGING OF JUVENILE OFFENDERS.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he was anxious to call the attention of the House to some Returns which bad recently been laid before them in respect to the floggings inflicted on children in the various gaols of England. Hon. Members had just been expressing their indignation at the barbarity of the Chinese; but be hardly knew whether indignation or pity was more roused in considering the subject to which his question referred. That, in this nineteenth century, children who ought to be under tender surveillance, of the ages of 8, 9, 10, 11, and upwards, should be ar-
  1192
  bitrarily exposed to the lash in private in our gaols was an abuse of law which ought no longer to be tolerated. At Knutsford, according to the Return (and he would only take a few cases), a child of eight got 24 lashes; at Faversham two boys of nine got 15 lashes each; at Spilsby three boys of eleven, ten, and eleven got 10 and 12 lashes each with the cat, an instrument which inflicted immense pain. At Leicester a boy of eleven got 20 cuts with the cat, and when the wounds inflicted by those cuts were healed he had 14 more. At Morpeth a child of ten got 10 lashes with the cat, and another of ten 6 cuts with a new kind of instrument—a leathern strap. At Newcastle there was a perfectly scandalous list of floggings ordered by petty sessions. A child of eight was ordered 8 strokes with the eat, another child of eight 4 strokes, two children of ten and eleven 6 strokes, and three children of thirteen 15 strokes each. At Oxford two children of nine were ordered 24 strokes with the rod, and at Petworth children of seven, nine, and nine years were ordered 13, 10, and 15 strokes respectively. He had had forwarded to him an account of a private flogging at one of the gaols, written by a magistrate, which he would read to the House—
  "I saw a boy marched along in custody, and was told that he was going to he flogged. His age was said to he eleven, but he was a little and delicate-looking child. He was committed the day previous for three days and to be once whipped for stealing. The boy was ordered to take off his trousers, and he was fastened by his wrist to the halberds, arms extended, and further secured by straps. The person who had to administer the punishment was a strong, stalwart man, and he was armed with a huge birch rod, about two feet six inches in length. The child received eight strokes, and then presented a picture of agony and terror, his eyes almost starting out of his head. I inquired how many such strokes constituted a flogging, and was told eighteen, and that that number was always inflicted if the prisoner's physical power would admit of it. I appealed to the surgeon, who said he could not interfere, so long as the boy was physically capable of enduring the punishment. I asked whether we, as magistrates, could not prevent its proceeding further, and was then told that we had the power to mitigate the sentence. This, of course, we at once did, as we should certainly have done at the first stroke had we received that intimation previously. I never witnessed so pitiful a scene, and hope I never shall again."
  Here was another instance—
  "I once witnessed its infliction with the birch on three youths of about eighteen or nineteen. They had eighteen strokes each, and their screams, and writhings, and cries for mercy, testified to the

  1193
  severity of the punishment. One of them, after violent and fruitless struggles, fairly groaned with pain. The foregoing punishment is light compared with one with the cat, which a friend gave me an account of."
  The place were these floggings took place was a vaulted chamber under the gaol, where no sound could reach beyond those present. He could scarcely believe that such a thing was possible. The Returns, which he was glad had been printed for general circulation, read more like old tales of slavery, or of Eastern torture than of anything which could take place in England. It could scarcely be said that such punishments were necessary; for they were con fined to a few districts, mostly in the north, while in other districts they were not used at all. He did not deny that, in extreme cases, the thing ought to he done; but, that it should assume this ordinary character, and be inflicted on children of such tender years, who were often not themselves to blame, because they had been brought up in misery and crime was a national disgrace, and could never have been intended by the Legislature. He should be glad to hear from his right hon. Friend that he had had the subject under his consideration, and that he would be prepared to take some steps to put a stop to the practice.
  MR. HADFIELDsaid, he wished, before the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary rose to reply to ask him a question on the subject of the practice of flogging in prisons. The Returns already referred to by his hon. Friend (Mr. Kinnaird) near him related to 137 prisons, in sixty-three of which no flogging whatever had taken place either by sentence of the Courts or by order of the visiting justices. In twenty-two others there had been no corporeal punishment by order of the visiting justices. In twenty-six others the punishment had been inflicted partly by order of sessions and partly by the visiting justices, and in the twenty-six remaining prisons the punishment had been by order of the visiting justices only. Now, he submitted that it was never intended by the law that the punishment of whipping should be indiscriminately inflicted upon our criminals by order of visiting justices only. Another matter of which he complained was that no limit was placed on the visiting magistrate as to the number of lashes he might direct to be administered, or as to the instrument—cat-o'-nine-tails or birch—with which the punishment was
  1194
  to be inflicted; and, furthermore, that the punishments were inflicted in private, by which the public eye was drawn away from them; and the press was not allowed to report the proceedings. In many of the cases to which he had directed his observations, the infliction of the lash, no doubt, took place according to the caprice and temper of the visiting magistrate, and not in accordance with justice or the actual merits of the case. In the West Riding of Yorkshire prison, at Wakefield, whipping was entirely abolished, and, with few exceptions, that degrading punishment was disallowed in the county of York. He hoped, therefore, that the attention of the Home Secretary would be at once directed towards abolishing a power which in itself was manifestly tyrannical and susceptible of such great abuse.
  SIR BALDWIN LEIGHTONsaid, that before the question was answered, he wished to ask the hon. Member whether, before a flogging was ordered to be inflicted, an examination must not take place on oath before the visiting magistrate; the proceedings taken down on paper; and the whole matter conducted in a proper and judicial manner? He also wished to ask whether any complaint had been made by the Inspector of Prisons as to the severity of the punishment inflicted by order of the visiting justices? Whether he was not aware that the birch-rod, and not the cat-o'-ninetails was the instrument usually employed in the punishment of boys? And, finally, was he not aware that the children of the nobility and higher classes were subjected to corporeal punishment, inflicted generally in private by the head master of public schools, in a much more severe form than that employed in public prisons?
  MR. BRISCOEsaid, that he should lose his self-respect if he remained silent with the convictions which he had in reference to the subject introduced by the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Kinnaird). They often indulged in vituperation of foreign states, and talked of the cruelties practised in the gaols of Naples and Austria. He would plead for the infants, children of tender age, in English gaols. Could it be believed that not a birch-rod, but a cat-o'-nine-tails, was laid on a child? It should be remembered that one stroke of the cat gave nine lashes, and, therefore, twenty strokes inflicted 180 lashes. [Laughter] It might be a matter of merriment to some hon. Gentlemen, but no one would be allowed to treat an animal with such cruelty.

  1195
  He hoped to hear from the right hon. Gentleman, the Home Secretary, that a change was intended which would put an end to such disgraceful proceedings.

  LIEUT.-COLONEL J. H. KEOGH AND THE ENCUMBERED ESTATES COURT, DUBLIN.—OBSERVATION.
  MR. WHITESIDEsaid, he rose to call the attention of the House to the matters alleged in, the petition of Lieutenant Colonel John Henry Keogh, presented to the House on the 14th day of March last. It appeared that the petitioner was entitled to two estates—one in the County of Carlow and the other in Kildare. A petition was presented to the Encumbered Estates Court, Dublin, for a sale of the property to pay debts contracted by the petitioner's father, and an order was pronounced in August, 1851. The Kildare estate was sold in 1852, and it was found to realize more than sufficient to discharge all the claims of the creditors, and amongst them the particular debt which was the subject matter of the petition. It was a judgment debt in the penal sum of £2,000, the bond having been given to one Anne Garstin. The gum due on the bond was £1,061, principal and interest, and the Judge ordered that that amount should be set aside for the personal representative of Anne Garstin, and directed that letters of administration should be taken out to her. That was done in May, 1853, at which time there was no legal personal representative. By the practice of the Encumbered Estates Court, when once the money was allocated by the Court the petitioners received no further notice with regard to it, and did not know when it was drawn out. The trustee of the judgment debt was a clergyman who proceeded to take out administration on the 8th of December, 1853. But before the representative could obtain payment of the money other persons wrongfully did so from the officers of the Court, and when those persons were called upon to refund it, it was found that they were insolvent, and, consequently, only £60 was obtained from their estates instead of £1,100. The trustee of the judgment then applied to the Encumbered Estates Court for an order to sell the estate in Carlow, and the Court could not refuse to make such order on the ground that money had once been allocated for the payment of the debt. Proceedings were then, by order of the Encumbered Estates Courts, commenced in the law courts by
  1196
  the trustee, and the result was the Court of Common Pleas held he was entitled to judgment for the amount claimed, the Judges saying that the money having got into the hands of the wrong person was no answer to the case made by the trustee, who was the right person, and that Lieutenant Keogh must obtain redress elsewhere. That gentleman had had to pay the sum of £1,650 10s. 5d. to the trustee, and £222 16s. 10d. costs to his attorney, in consequence of an error committed by an officer of the Encumbered Estates Court. The reason why Colonel Keogh could obtain no redress was that the 15th Section of the Act of Parliament enacted that neither the Commissioners of the Court nor any person acting under the authority of the Court should be liable for anything bonâ fide done, or omitted to be done, in the exercise of the provisions and powers of the Act. The officer having acted under the powers of the Act, there was no redress at law to Colonel Keogh, and the question was whether he was to have any redress rendered to him elsewhere—that was to say by that House? If there was a fund in court Colonel Keogh ought to be paid out of it; but if there was no such fund, then, as the House had compensated Mr. Barber for injuries done to him, so the Government ought to put Colonel Keogh's name upon the estimates for the amount which he had lost through negligence of an officer of the Court. There could be no doubt that a grievous injustice, under the Act of Parliament, had been done to Colonel Keogh, and he hoped the Government would give a satisfactory answer with regard to it.
  MR. COGANsaid, that there could be no doubt that a great hardship had been done to this gentleman. He had to pay twice over a sum of money through the negligence of a public department, and had failed to obtain redress, in consequence of an Act passed by that House. He (Mr. Cogan) thought it was a fair case for the interference of the House, with the view of affording some redress for the wrong that gentleman had sustained. He believed there were funds at the disposal of the Court by which that gentleman might be compensated without putting any burden upon the country. If the Secretary for Ireland saw any difficulty in dealing with the case now, he (Mr. Cogan) trusted that the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Whiteside) would be granted a Committee to inquire whether public justice could not be done?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that his part in the case of Colonel Keogh was a very slight one. Such a case, indeed, had no connection with the ordinary departmental discretion of the Treasury. The case of Colonel Keogh was certainly a very grievous one, and he should feel himself unable to oppose an investigation with a view, in the first instance, to the establishment of the facts. At the same time the matter involved many difficult and important questions which could not be decided off-hand. It would be impossible to take any step which, by recognizing any claim upon the public in such a case, would simply announce to the officers of courts of justice that they might with impunity commit any neglect or misconduct as long as it could not be proved wilful fraud. The difficulty of such cases was increased by the fact that officers of courts of justice were not under the control of the Executive Government. The vote of the House in the case of Mr. Barber was proposed with doubt and misgiving; but it was clearly established in that case that the wrong inflicted upon Mr. Barber was inflicted by persons who were under the direct control of the Executive Government. In the Irish cases to which reference had been made no claim upon the public was recognized.

  DUTIES ON TRADERS.—REPLY.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, as he could not address the House again, he would answer by anticipation a question of which notice had been given by the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets—namely, Whether it was his intention to lay before the House the Bill regulating the imposition of the Duties on Traders mentioned in the 8th, 9th, and 13th Resolutions before taking the opinion of the Committee on those Resolutions? In reply he had to say that it was not in his power to present the Bill to the House until the Resolutions had been passed and reported.
  MR. AYRTONstated that last Session the right hon. Gentleman first read a somewhat similar Bill the second time, and then passed his Resolutions on the subject in Committee of Ways and Means. He wanted to know whether the right hon. Gentleman was going to pursue the same course on the present occasion? He wished to know the grounds on which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had selected the
  1198
  three classes of traders mentioned in his 8th, 9th, and 13th Resolutions specially as the subjects of taxation? and he thought the best mode of obtaining that information would be from the Bill itself; but, as the right hon. Gentleman declined to lay the Bill on the table, he would put the question in another shape, which would enable him to get the information he wanted in an oral form.

  APPROPRIATION OF SEATS.
  MR. COLLINSsaid, he did not rise to pursue the subject of flogging. Most hon. Members who had been at public schools had had the advantage of personal experience of what a flogging was before they entered that House. The question he had to submit to them was a much more important one; it related to the postponement of the Appropriation of Scats Bill. That seemed to be the only Reform Bill they were to have during the Session, and it had hardly met with the respectful treatment from its parents which it had a right to expect. It received a second reading on the 25th of February, and was put down for Committee on March 7th. It then stood No. 1 on the Orders, but it was postponed to the 11th; then it was postponed to the 14th, and then to the 21st of March. Before the 21st came it was postponed to April 15th, when it stood low down among the Orders, and it was then postponed to the 25th, when there was no chance of its coming on. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department had stated that the Bill would not come on until after the financial statement had been disposed of, but, as there was no chance that the debate on the Budget would be over before the following Thursday it was evident that a still further postponement must take place. Under those circumstances, and as the measure was one which excited considerable interest, he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would fix some day definitively for its discussion. He would remind the right hon. Gentleman that independent Members had not the same inducement as the occupants of the Treasury bench to remain in the House until two o'clock in the morning to watch the Bill.
  SIR GEORGE LEWIS: Sir, I am not conscious of having behaved, as the hon. Member for Knaresborough (Mr. Collins) has alleged, with any want of respect to the House in regard to the Bill for the Ap-

  1199
  propriation of seats. In the beginning of the Session an opinion was expressed, somewhat in terms of censure, that the Government were to blame if they did not introduce their Bills at an early date. In accordance, therefore, with what I thought the general wish of the House I introduced the Bill in question at a comparatively early period of the Session, and it has been read a second time. If I had seen an opportunity for the consideration of the Bill in Committee, I should not have failed to have availed myself of it. The House, however, is aware that the Government are in a more unfavourable position than private Members with regard to the consideration of their Bills at that period of the year. A private Member can put down his Bill for Wednesday, and if sufficiently high on the list it will come on, but it is impossible for a Government Bill of this kind to be taken up when there is important business on the paper, such as Committee of Supply, when a couple of nights are sometimes occupied with preliminary Motions. I am not aware that I have failed to avail myself of any opportunity of bringing on the Bill, or that I have postponed it on any occasion when it could seriously have been expected to come on; I can only repeat that as soon as the financial business shall have been concluded I will fix a day for the Bill.
  As to the flogging of prisoners I would observe that there are two classes of cases in which that punishment is inflicted: one is where the Judges at assizes or quarter sessions have pronounced that sentence after an indictment. The law in certain cases allow this punishment to be inflicted on adults, and more frequently on children. That is the sentence of a competent Court; and it is inflicted by the gaoler, just as a capital sentence would be if pronounced by a competent Court. In that case, then, it is not in the power of the Executive Government to interfere with the mode of its infliction, although the Crown may remit it. As far as legislation on this subject is concerned it is under the consideration of the Committee which is now sitting on Offences against the Person. This punishment, more than any other, has been under the consideration of that Committee. They will, no doubt, make certain recommendations which will come before the House, and without anticipating their decision, I think the House may dismiss the subject, leaving it to the consideration of the Committee. The other class of cases is where flogging is administered by order of visiting magis-
  1200
  trates on prisoners for prison offences. There is obviously a difficulty with respect to prison offences, because punishment has to be inflicted on those who are already in a state of punishment. Ordinary modes of punishment being thus taken away the law confers on the visiting justices the power of flogging for prison offences. Before inflicting that punishment the visiting justices, as has been correctly stated by the hon. Baronet (Sir Baldwin Leighton) take evidence as to the offence, which is accessible to the prison inspector. I am not aware that any case of excessive flogging by order of the visiting justices has been reported by the prison inspectors, or made the subject of special complaint to the Home Office. If any such complaint had been made it would, of course, have been attended to. From the returns it appears that a boy of a tender age has been subjected to flogging with the cat, which is certainly a severe instrument of punishment. In the New Bailey Prison, Salford, in November, 1857, a boy aged fourteen years seven months, was sentenced to eighteen lashes with the cat. His offence was, "shouting repeatedly in his cell at night, after having been cautioned by the watchman, this being the seventh report since conviction in May, 1857." He was probably an incorrigible boy, who had given a great deal of trouble to the prison authorities. In March, 1858, in the same prison, a boy eleven years old was sentenced to thirty-six lashes with the birch-rod, for "shouting loud in his cell to other prisoners, this being the ninth similar offence in four months, in addition to other disorderly conduct." In April, 1858, in the same prison, another boy, thirteen years eight months, was sentenced to forty-eight lashes with the birch for whistling and shouting in his cell, that being "the third similar offence (incorrigible), and eighth offence in seven weeks." That is the nature of the offences for which corporeal punishment is inflicted on prisoners by direction of the visiting justices. If the House thinks fit, it can, of course, impose some restriction on the discretion of the visiting justices by defining the instrument to be used in different cases, and limiting the number of lashes to be administered. It would be competent for the Home Office to inquire into any particular case of cruelty and to take steps in consequence; but not to issue a circular letter to the visiting justices, limiting their discretion in the execution of the law. I will, however,

  1201
  consider whether I can make any suggestion on the subject. It certainly appears that in some prisons this punishment is inflicted more frequently than in others, but that is sometimes owing to the defective construction of the prisons, and not to any fault of the officers.
  COLONEL NORTHsaid, that last Session he had brought this subject under the notice of the House, when he had shown that the system of flogging children was most tyrannical, brutal, and of a disgusting nature. In the army a court-martial, which could order a soldier to be shot, could only direct the infliction of fifty lashes. But in Lancaster gaol there appeared to be no limit to the authority of the visiting magistrates. He had never heard of a boy being flogged with a cat-o'-nine tails in the army at all. A soldier entered the army at the age of eighteen, and must be a most accomplished blackguard to earn a flogging within a year. So that it might be said that nineteen was the earliest age at which a soldier was liable to flogging. But the Return before the House showed that a lad of fifteen years and two months had received forty-two cuts with a cat-o'-nine-tails for defacing some books in prison. Another boy, of sixteen, for refusing to work had received sixty cuts with the birch. He observed that 190 of the floggings took place in Lancashire. The hon. Member for Birmingham, therefore, would have been much better occupied in his own county than in dragging before the country General Sir Richard Dacres, the commandant at Woolwich, for having flogged the greatest ruffian that ever disgraced the army. It was all very well to talk of the brutality of flogging in the army, but what could equal the brutality they had heard of that evening? If he commanded a regiment at Oxford, he, as colonel, could not flog any man in the regiment without a regimental court-martial; but as a visiting justice, he could go to the prisons and flog as many men as he pleased. He was an advocate for flogging in the army, because he did not believe they could govern the men without it; but he would never consent to place it in the power of any one man to subject another to the lash, except in a case of mutiny when instantaneous example was necessary to suppress it.

ASSISTANT-SURGEONS IN THE ARMY.

  QUESTION.
  LORD BURGHLEYsaid, he rose to ask the Under Secretary of State for War,
  1202
  Why a large number of Staff Assistant-Surgeons have been placed upon half pay and bow long it is probable that the state of half-pay as regards these officers will be continued? He knew it was said that they had been placed on half-pay because the present Vote was not sufficient; but why was the present Vote not sufficient? It seemed hard that a number of officers just entering on their profession should be placed on half-pay, and their prospects of promotion in the army retarded, when they themselves were not in fault. He did not blame the War Department; he believed they were inclined to be liberal. He hoped they would take the case into consideration, and, perhaps, do something to remedy the evil.
  GENERAL LINDSAYsaid, that with reference to the notice which had been given by his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel North), be wished to call attention to the reduction of the second assistant-surgeons of regiments of the Line. He bad mentioned the other evening that this reduction had either commenced or was anticipated. The importance of the subject had been felt very deeply, for the addition of a second assistant-surgeon to regiments of the Line had been recommended by the Commander-in-Chief and nearly all the important witnesses before the Sanitary Commission on the Army. To some extent the House had been deceived by the statement made the other night by the hon. Under-Secretary of State. He was far from attributing to him any intention to mislead, but the fact was that what had been stated by him in Committee, was, so far as he could learn, the reverse of what had actually taken place. An order had gone out reducing in several instances the second assistant - surgeons of regiments serving at home. The question was not, perhaps, quite understood by the hon. Gentleman, for the reply that was wished had not been given. When an hon. Member stated that the order had gone out for the reduction, the hon. Under-Secretary said, if such an order had gone out it had not gone out from the War Department. He (General Lindsay) was extremely anxious to have the matter cleared up, and if an order had gone out without the knowledge of the authorities, that it should be reversed as soon as possible. The sanitary interests of the private soldiers made this a matter of no ordinary importance, as no officer was so useful to them or so well acquainted with their wants, and it involved in a great

  1203
  degree the comfort of medical officers themselves. He thought it a great hardship that a medical officer could not have leave of absence, in consequence of the great responsibility which devolved upon him, without employing another practitioner to perform his duties.
  MR. T. G. BARINGsaid, he would state to the House precisely what he had intended to say and what he believed he had said the other evening. He meant to say two things; the one was that the second assistant-surgeons of the battalions of of Guards would not be taken away from them as they were included in the Estimates for 1861-62; and the other was that no second assistant-surgeons of Line regiments would be placed on half-pay. He did not intend to say that they would not be taken away from their regiments. It was considered by the noble Lord the Secretary of State and by the Commander-in-Chief that the second assistant-surgeons in regiments at home were no longer necessary. As the gallant officer had mentioned the Report of the Sanitary Commission, and the opinions of those supposed to be most conversant with the wants of the soldier in regard to medical treatment, he must say that no one, in whatever position, had paid more attention to that subject than Lord Herbert; and no one was better qualified to decide how those wants could best be attended to. His opinion was that second assistant-surgeons should no longer he attached to regiments at home. The House itself was able to judge whether three medical officers were required to attend 800 men between the ages of eighteen and thirty, and whose complaints were mostly of a character which, though rendering them for a time unfit for service, did not require very serious treatment. Lord Herbert, therefore, held the opinion, in which his Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief concurred, that second assistant-surgeons for regiments at home were no longer required; and in the Estimates for this year only one assistant-surgeon was taken for regiments at home. It was to be regretted that it should be necessary to place any medical officers upon half-pay; but the Chinese war having ceased the services of a certain number of them could be dispensed with. In effecting reductions the rule was to deal with the junior officers, and twenty-nine assistant-surgeons had been placed on half-pay, none of whom were the second assistant-surgeons of regiments, all
  1204
  of them being on the Staff. He hoped it would not be requisite to keep them on half-pay for any great length of time, it being intended to give them active employment as vacancies occurred. The change had been made entirely with a view to the efficiency of the medical service. He (Mr. Baring) did not mean to imply by what he said upon a previous occasion that those assistant-surgeons were idling away their time from any fault of their own, but that with three medical officers for one battalion there was not a proper opportunity for them all to improve themselves in their profession.

  DEEP-SEA OYSTER FISHERY IN THE CHANNEL.—QUESTION.
  MR. CAVEsaid, he would beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, Whether there is any prospect of inducing the French Government to consent to an extension of the time allowed for the deep-sea oyster fishery in the English Channel? He thought this the proper opportunity for asking the question, because on the following Wednesday a great annual injustice would again take place, and several hundreds of as gallant and skilful mariners as ever risked their lives in assisting a stranded vessel—men who in time of need might do good service to their country at sea—would be thrown out of employment in an arbitrary and unnecessary manner. The facts were simply these:—In 1839 a Convention was made with France, chiefly through the instrumentality of the noble Lord now at the head of the Government. That noble Lord, he understood, prided himself upon it, and justly, for it settled many disputed points between the two countries. Among others the distance which the French fishermen were obliged to keep off the English coast. There were also provisions with regard to the oyster fisheries. These were, of course, intended to apply to the oyster beds in shallow water near the coast, which were the only ones then known. Since then, however, other oyster beds of a different character had been discovered in deep water in mid-channel, to which the regulations were held to apply, and this was the hardship. Because, with regard to those oysters the spawning season did not begin for a month or two later than it did in the shallow water, and what was quite right for the protection of the one was unnecessary for the protection of the other. The fishing

  1205
  for the deep sea oysters was a much more hazardous and difficult operation than that for the others; and in boisterous weather there were several weeks sometimes during which it could not be pursued. So that, after a stormy winter like the last, it frequently occurred that the supply brought into the Shoreham River, the Adur, and other rivers on the south of England was quite inadequate to the demand during the fence months, and this was a very serious thing. No one could mistake the two kinds of oyster who had ever compared those served up at the clubs, for instance, with those sold in stalls in the streets; but few hon. Members knew how great the consumption for the latter was. They were cheap, and a favourite food with the poorer classes. They were sent all over England, and were found at every fair and racecourse, and throughout the manufacturing towns of the north. The Brighton Railway Company cleared many thousand pounds annually by their carriage. The French apparently did not appreciate them, nor did they like the rough work of deep-sea dredging. It should be fully understood that the English and French could only debar each other by arrangement from dredging these beds. They were not in the jurisdiction of either power, and he understood that the Dutch and others fished there with impunity during the fence months. This constituted a peculiar hardship to our fishermen on the south coast. He had presented a memorial to the Board of Trade last April, praying for an extension of time to, at the earliest, the end of May. He had also been with more than one deputation to the President of that Board. Their representations had met with the courtesy and attention always given by the right hon. Gentleman. In July last he (Mr. Cave) had received a communication from the Board of Trade to the effect that Her Majesty's Government intended making strong representations to the Government of France. Their hopes, which had been raised by this, were destroyed by another letter dated at the end of October, which stated that the French Government, having considered the matter, were of opinion that the concession could not he made without danger to the fisheries. They had heard a great deal lately of the liberality of the French Government, and he was not going to question it, but he thought that that Government had been misled by officials, who were perhaps afraid of an increase of trouble
  1206
  from any new arrangement. The French had lately paid great attention to the oyster beds on their own coast, and were probably afraid of depredation, but they ought to watch those beds themselves, and not require our Custom House to assist them by overhauling our fishing-boats. Besides, they could not protect their oyster-beds by merely excluding us from a ground which was open to all other nations. He believed that if the French fairly understood the matter they would no longer insist upon an arrangement which was felt to be a serious grievance on the south coast, and pressed most cruelly upon a large number of our most enterprising and hardy fishermen.
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, that in consequence of representations which had been made to Her Majesty's Government, the Government of France had been invited to consider whether it would be practicable or right to modify some of the provisions of the fishery Convention now in force between the two countries, with a view to allow oyster fishing in the deep-sea during May, June, and July, which were called "fence months." The reply they had received was that the French Government, having carefully examined the matter, had come to the conclusion that it was not advisable, even for the interests of the fishermen themselves to permit such fishing during those months, and that they did not think it would be right to depart from the stipulations of the Convention.

CASE OF CAPTAIN MACDONALD.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. VINCENT SCULLYsaid, his object in rising to make a few observations in reference to the case of Captain Macdonald was to express a hope that no course would be taken by the Government that would seem to imply a causa belli, so that the good feeling which existed between the two countries would he disturbed. He believed the case had been wholly misrepresented to the House, and as the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Department might have to deal seriously with the subject, he (Mr. Vincent Scully) hoped he would take the trouble to inform himself upon it before he came to the conclusion that the British Government was in the right and the Prussian Government in the wrong. That Government had no opportunity of giving any answer or being heard in that House. He thought that

  1207
  every Member of the House, on the evidence which had been presented to it, would come to the conclusion that there was no ground for blaming the conduct of the Prussian Government, which had done what it could consistent with not setting aside the laws and institutions of that country. The case had been tried three times, and the evidence was of a most contradictory nature; yet our Government had assumed that the Prussian evidence was all false. In many cases Prussian officials had been strictly punished, short of actual imprisonment, on complaints of a similar character. It was clear that personal violence had been used by Captain Macdonald, for it had been sworn that he put his hand on the shoulder of Dr. Parow's wife to remove her from the railway carriage, and that he had given the station-master a violent blow on the chest, which he had felt for some days afterwards. He thought Captain Macdonald's punishment a very lenient one. He could not but complain also of the arrogant tone of the despatches of the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Office, which was calculated to sow the seeds of misunderstanding between two friendly Powers who were closely allied. There was no fear of British subjects being ill-treated when travelling abroad if they properly conducted themselves.
  Motion agreed to.
  House at rising to adjourn till Monday next.
  House adjourned at a quarter after eight o'clock till Monday next.

INDIA—THE SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT.

  PETITION".
  LORD LYVEDENsaid, he had a petition to present to their Lordships the import-

  1157
  ance of which was sufficient to justify him in giving a short abstract of its contents. He would only premise that, though he concurred in many of the statements made by the petitioners, he did not agree with the prayer. The petition was from Inhabitants and Taxpayers of Calcutta and Bengal Proper, complaining of the System of Government in India, and praying for relief. It had received the signatures of 1,433 names, not of individuals only, but of some of the most considerable firms engaged in commerce in Calcutta; it had also received the signatures of many wealthy Natives, and of almost all the barristers and solicitors in Calcutta. It was, therefore, in every point of view, entitled to their Lordships' attention. The petitioners began by stating—what he was afraid was indisputably true—that the financial embarrassments of India consequent upon the mutiny had led the Government to resort to successive loans, to put a stop to public works, and to impose new taxes which were exceedingly injurious to the commerce of India. These embarrassments led Her Majesty's Government to pursue the unusual course of sending out a Finance Minister to India, which had never been done before; that the late able financial administrator, Mr. "Wilson, had, with the consent of the Council, imposed an income tax which was altogether new in the country, and had also imposed a licence tax, which would reach down to the humblest artisan. Seductions of the expenditure were also recommended, but these must necessarily be a work of time. Yet, in spite of this additional taxation (the petitioners went on to state), and in spite of the recommended reduction of expenditure, the Secretary of State for India had been induced to make a considerable addition to the Mysore grant—the grant awarded to the descendants of Tippoo Sahib. They went on to say that this addition amounted to nearly half a million sterling, which was one-half of the estimated produce of the newly-imposed income tax. But he (Lord Lyveden) was bound to state, having read the papers presented to the other House of Parliament—he was sorry that no papers on the subject had been presented to this House—that this was an exaggerated estimate, and that as regarded the capitalization of the revenues granted to the Mysore Princes in general he did not think it was a profuse grant. But he was surprised at the share allotted to certain of
  1158
  those Princes, because he could state of his own knowledge, having been a party to the arrangements made in 1855 and 1857, that those Princes, when he introduced them to Her Majesty, to an audience of leave, expressed their perfect satisfaction to him with what had been done on their behalf. At the same time he must express his concurrence in opinion with those who dissented from the way in which this arrangement was carried out; and for this reason, that no more dangerous course could be pursued than one which should invite Native Princes or petitioners to resort to this country with appeals against the decisions of the Governor General of India. He regretted, therefore, that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for India had been induced, in this instance, to depart from the universal rule that no regard should be paid to petitions that were not transmitted through the Governor General, and the answers returned through him by the Indian Department here. It was obvious that in that way alone the authority of the Governor General could be maintained, and a stop put to the abuse which was beginning to prevail of persons coming over to this country to prosecute in person their alleged claims against the Indian Government. When such persons returned successful to India an impression was produced in India, which they all here knew to be perfectly false, that everything was to be done by the pressure of personal application to Ministers here, where nothing was to be gained by application to the Government in India. The petitioners then proceeded to complain that, having applied to the Legislative Council of Calcutta for information with respect to this grant, their petition had been rejected. He thought this was a just ground of complaint, because if we thought fit to maintain a petty parody of a Parliament in India, it was a hardship that persons in that country could not obtain what every Member of Parliament in this country could procure, and in this instance had procured, from the Minister here. The petitioners then proceeded to complain of a more important matter—the excess of the military expenditure. They said that expenditure was greatly in excess of the wants of the country, and that the Estimates of England were kept down at the cost of India. In that complaint he entirely sympathized. He feared that it not only had been done, but that it would often be done in future. He re-

  1159
  garded it as an unconstitutional proceeding. They specified that 20,000 men were charged to the Indian revenue for depots of soldiers nominally intended for India, but which were in reality part of the national defences of this country. He was aware that since this petition had been framed a reduction was made in the cost of those depots; but still the charge itself continued to he made, and he considered it was an unjust charge. "When the petitioners came to the prayer of their petition they asked that a return of the accounts and expenditure should be made up and laid before the public. This, he might remark, was what was much complained of in this country. There was the greatest difficulty in obtaining correct accounts of the Indian finances; "sketch estimates" were sent over which never answered their purpose, for they never turned out to be accurate. The petitioners then went on to complain that the whole revenues of India were subject to the sole control of the Secretary of State for India, and they prayed that some check might be applied to this. In that prayer he fully sympathized; but in what way the remedy was to be accomplished was a very difficult question. The petitioners also prayed—but in that prayer he could not concur—that the members of the Indian Council at home should be eligible to seats in Parliament. That proposition was fully discussed in 1858, and was rejected by the House of Commons for obvious reasons. He believed the Council of India to be a cumbrous and useless machine, and often a hindrance to the Government. He believed the object would have been better obtained if they had nominated a Council of six or of eight persons to form a Council of Advice to the Secretary of State; but whether few or many he would say, without any sort of disrespect to those gentlemen, that it would add greatly to the difficulty of Government if those gentlemen were to have seats in Parliament, where they might get up and contradict the Secretary of State. This evil was felt in the last days of the Court of Directors, when gentlemen of official authority got up to contravene the opinion of the Minister for India; and the evil would be still greater if those assailants should be members of his own Council. There was one other point on which he wished to address a word to their Lordships. The petitioners prayed that the Legislative Council of India might be enlarged by the admission of cer-
  1160
  tain qualified non-official members. Now, the Governor General and the Secretary of State bad already the power of enlarging that Council, which, however, they had never thought fit to exercise. A discussion must take place on this subject hereafter; and, therefore, he would only say now that in the measure which he understood the Government were about to introduce for the regulation of the Legislative Council the Secretary of State would not be deterred, even by the prayer of this petition, from taking a decided and manly course, though it might lead to reduce rather than enlarge the Council. That Council was introduced in the Bill of 1853, and passed without much discussion; in fact, the only person who foresaw the evils that had since arisen from the formation of the Council was his noble Friend near him (Lord Broughton), for whose opinion, having served his apprenticeship under him in Indian affairs, he entertained a high respect, and he stated what had since occurred, that it would form a prolific source of agitation and disturbance. No one entertained a higher respect for representative Government than himself. In this country he was, perhaps, disposed to carry it farther than many of their Lordships; but it did not follow that it was to be adopted in all countries and under all circumstances. It was a saying that if there were a rock in the middle of the sea, and six Englishmen were cast upon it, they would immediately attempt to establish representative Government. Now, in India there was an enormous Native population. You dared not establish a representative Government in that country, but in its place an unreal mockery of representation had been set up. One Member was sent from each Presidency to Calcutta. If the Governor had either some troublesome or some useless person that he wanted to get rid of he might send him to represent the Presidency in the Legislative Council, but be could in no way be said to be the elected Member. He would not prolong the discussion now, but would inquire when the measure relative to the Legislative Council of India would be introduced, which would afford more ample opportunity for operations?
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONsaid, that before noticing the allegations in the petition presented by his noble Friend, he would say, in answer to a question put by him, that he was not able to state precisely the time when his right hon. Friend the Secretary for India (Sir Charles Wood)

  1161
  would introduce into the other House of Parliament the Bill which he had in preparation in reference to the Legislative Council of India. The Bill was, however, in a forward state of preparation, and he trusted that in a very short time his right hon. Friend would be able to introduce it. In these circumstances it would he improper in him to say anything with respect to the nature of the measure, The first grievance alleged in the petition presented by his noble Friend had reference to the recent arrangement made in the case of the Mysore Princes. He understood that his noble Friend did not concur in the whole of the complaint urged upon this point; but he complained that certain papers had not been laid on the Table of their Lordship's House, though they had been given to the other House of Parliament. The reason why these papers had been produced in the other House was that they had been moved for there, and that there was a technical objection to present by command to one House papers that had been produced on Motion in the other. If his noble Friend chose to move for them, there was no objection to their being produced in this House also. The petitioners stated that a sum of half a million sterling—or a quarter of the new income tax—had been given to the Princes of Mysore, the descendents of Hyder Ali. The fact was that a stock had been created to the amount of £429,000, the interest of which was to be appropriated to the descendants of Tippoo Sahib, in lieu of the revenues of certain districts, which under the Treaty of 1799 were to be applied to the maintenance of the Mysore family. These districts were estimated to produce seven lacs of rupees. About £50,000 a year had hitherto been paid to these Princes, and the result of the new arrangement would be that provision was made for an income of about £17,000 a year. There was in addition a sum of £83,000 appropriated to the payment of the debts the family had incurred at Calcutta, and to enable them to remove to other separate houses instead of the joint residence they had hitherto occupied at Russapugla, near Calcutta. There was a further charge of £12,000 a year granted to members of the family for life; but the recipients were chiefly very aged persons, and the amount was, therefore, liable to rapid diminution. He did not understand his noble Friend to object to the capitalization which had taken place by this arrangement, but he seemed to think
  1162
  that the stipends paid to the members of the Mysore family was too high. He had only to say that no arrangemant could have been carried out different from that which had been effected. It was necessary to have the consent of all the members of the family to the agreement, and unless they were prepared to repudiate the Treaty of 1799 he thought they could not reasonably object to what had been done. His noble Friend took exception to the arrangement on the ground that it had been entered into with Gholab Mohamed in this country and by the Home Government without being referred to the consideration of the Governor General. Now, his right hon. Friend did not invite the Prince to the discussion of the subject; but when it was brought before him, and considering that communications regarding it had often passed between the Home Government and that of India, he thought it afforded an excellent opportunity of settling the matter. He was sure that his right hon. Friend meant no slight upon the Government of India, for no man was more sensible than he was of the necessity of maintaining the dignity and authority of the Governor General of India. The petitioners next complained of the existing character of the Legislative Council of India; and he must say he was surprised to hear what fell from his noble Friend on that subject. He said that the Legislative Council of India was a kind of Parliament, and that, if that were the case, it ought to have all the functions of a Parliament. He (Earl de Grey) denied that the Legislative Council in any way resembled a Parliament. It was simply the Council of the Governor General, and had nothing in it of the character of a Parliament. The petitioners next complained of the expenditure of the depots for Indian soldiers in this country being charged upon the finances of India, and his noble Friend complained of the military expenditure of India being very large. He concurred with his noble Friend in thinking that the military expenditure was great, and that it ought to be reduced; and he was happy to say that measures were being taken to have it reduced, but he did not agree with the petitioners in thinking that the expense of the depots should fall upon this country. These depots were used for the purpose of having soldiers on hand to recruit the regiments in India as necessity required, and such an arrangement was called for to keep the regiments in a state of efficiency.

  1163
  The men in those depots consisted of recruits, and, though their presence in this country gave so many more additional men to the numerical force at home, they added but little to the military strength of the country. The Commander-in-Chief had, however, ordered that they should be reduced, but they could not be altogether dispensed with consistently with the efficiency of the regiments in India. The next point to which his noble Friend alluded was the necessity of accurate accounts of Indian expenditure being annually laid before Parliament. In his remarks on this subject he entirely concurred, and he could only say that his right hon. Friend was doing all in his power to satisfy the wish that existed for full and satisfactory information on the expenditure of India. And here he wished to state, in reference to a matter on which a noble Baron not now in his place (Lord Monteagle), had more than once expressed an opinion, namely, that the Returns required by the Act of 1853, showing the moral and material progress of India ought to be produced—he wished to state that in the course of a few days papers on that subject would be laid on the Table of the House. The petitioners complained that the Secretary of State for India in this country had the power to make any charges on the revenue of India that he chose. That was entirely inaccurate. The Secretary of State for India had, no doubt, certain powers, but they were not so extensive as had been stated by the petitioners, he could make no charge on the revenue of India without the approval of a majority of the India of the Council; and this very grant to the Mysore Princes, for instance, had received that approval. He hardly thought their Lordships would be prepared to take away from the Home Government all power regarding financial matters in India. As respected the prayer of the petitioners on the subject of the Legislative Council, he could not now go into details on the subject, as it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to bring forward a measure having reference to that Council; but this he could say, that if the prayer of the petition was that there should be created in that country a little Parliament which should represent, not the people of India—because that was impossible—but the comparatively small European community, that was a prayer which he trusted would never be complied with, as to grant it would be to set up not a free Govern-
  1164
  ment but rather an oligarchical tyranny altogether inconsistent with the true interests of India.
  THE DUKE OF AKGYLLsaid, he did not rise to refer to the future policy to be pursued with regard to India; but in consequence of some of the observations which had fallen from his noble Friend behind him (Lord Lyveden), he felt it necessary to allude to circumstances which took place before either that noble Lord or his noble Friend who had just spoken (Earl de Grey) were Members of their Lordships' House. He referred to the inquiry of the Committee of their Lordships' House in 1853, and to the alteration in the constitution of the Legislative Council of India which was made in the same year. He agreed with his noble Friend who had last addressed their Lordships that no change was intended by that Act which should have the effect of converting that Council into more of a Parliament than it had been. He believed that since the Act of 1773—at all events, since the Act of 1784, and still more by the Act of 1794—legislative powers, in the full sense of the word, had been possessed by the Legislative Council of Calcutta, and to such an extent as that it would have been utterly impossible for the Government at home to order it to pass any law. He thought his noble Friend opposite (the Earl of Ellenborough) would agree with him that it would have been ultra vires in the Court of Directors to insist on the Governor General and the Legislative Council passing any particular law whatever. The question, then, was as to the change made by the Act of 1853. He could not look to it without adverting to another change, which had been made previously to that year. He believed that between the years 1773 and 1833 there was not only a small Parliament in Calcutta, but a small Parliament in each of the Presidencies. The relation between those Presidencies and the Government at Calcutta was somewhat obscure; but it would appear that they had the power of legislating for their own territories, subject to the sanction of the supreme central Government at Calcutta, and subject, of course, to the sanction of the Court of Directors. By the Act of 1833 that power of initiating was taken away altogether from the minor Presidencies, and they were centralized under the Government of Calcutta. The change made in 1853 was one having for its object, not to enlarge the powers of the Parliament in India, but to

  1165
  amend what bad boon done in 1833. It was repeatedly urged by the witnesses examined before the Committee of that year, that if the Imperial Parliament did not restore to the minor Presidencies those powers which were taken away in 1833, it ought, at least, to allow those Presidencies a representation in Calcutta. The ease, then, stood thus—in 1833, all power of legislation was taken from the minor Presidencies; and the question was whether that power should be restored, and if not, whether they should not be allowed a representation in Calcutta. So far from there being no recommendation to the Government to adopt the latter course, the whole weight of the evidence taken by the Committee was in favour of it. Now came the question whether the effect of the measure of 1853 had been to add to or materially alter the powers of the Legislative Council. He believed his noble Friend (Lord Lyveden) would admit that there was nothing in the wording of the Act itself giving additional powers to the Council; but he understood from him that a legal opinion taken by him at the time stated that the mere fact of adding to the number of the body made a material change in its character. With great respect for the legal opinion, he believed that view of the Act to be unfounded. At all events, he felt certain of this—that it was not the intention of the Government in 1853 to add to the powers of the Legislative Council. It was intended to add to the number of the members, and to give to the minor Presidencies a right of representation, but certainly not to alter the character of the Assembly. If that was a fair statement of the effects of the Act of 1853, there was not a little Parliament in Calcutta at present any more than there had been for the last fifty or sixty years. It seemed to him, then, that what they had to consider was whether the forms of that Council where what they ought to be, and whether it was expedient that the forms of the British Parliament should be travested by sixteen gentlemen sitting round a green board. In discussing the question whether the publicity of the proceedings was desirable their Lordships must remember that in India they had to deal with a free press—with a press that was not only free, but he was afraid he must add, in some instances, licentious. That being so, he thought it right that they should maintain the publicity of the discussions of the Legislative Council, because
  1166
  it afforded the Government its only opportunity of replying to the attacks which were made on it in the public press. While he admitted that there were faults in the Legislative Council, he could not forget that it had discussed very grave subjects—look, for instance, at the manner in which it had dealt with the question of the taxation of India, than which a more important and difficult topic was never debated in any country. In that case the result of publicity was that the speech of Mr. Wilson, which was almost as formal a one as he could have made in the House of Commons, had tended materially to lessen the difficulty of establishing the financial scheme, and to convince the people that some such measure was necessary notwithstanding the opposition of no less a person than Sir Charles Trevelyan. And now, with respect to the subject which his noble Friend had brought under the notice of their Lordships, he would observe that incidental discussions of very great importance sometimes arose in that House; but it occasionally occurred that noble Lords did not think it worth while to take a part in those discussions, because there was no question before them or no division to be taken. In the present instance, though the discussion was to a certain extent incidental, yet, as their Lordships were to be called on before the end of the Session to consider a measure having reference to the Legislative Council of India, he thought it right that they should come to the consideration of that measure with a full knowledge of the existing law, and of the alteration which had been made by the Act of 1853.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH: My Lords, I shall trouble your Lordships with but very few words; but I must take this opportunity of expressing to the House my deep regret that I was ever led to accept the alteration in the law with respect to what is now called the Legislative Council of India. I did not foresee the, evils which would accrue from the establishment of that Council as it now exists; but a noble Friend of mine now present (Lord Broughton) did see them. I remember my noble Friend coming round to me during the progress of the Bill, and in a very earnest manner representing these dangers. Formerly the Governor General and the Executive Council disposed of all the legislative business in a very short time, no one being present but themselves. I remember

  1167
  myself, when Governor General, in a case of necessity passing a Bill in half an hour. But, at the same time, I was quite sensible of the great difficulty in the way of the Governor General and the Council at Calcutta legislating in a satisfactory manner on matters relating to Madras and other distant parts of India; I was aware of the desire of the minor Presidencies to have a representation in that Legislative Council; and I thought that the alteration in the Council was allowable because it would permit it to be reinforced by men capable of giving information relative to those Presidencies. But what have these changes led to? The Executive Council is now compelled to sit in public with the members added to it. The whole together constitute a Legislative Council, and those persons who have been added to the Assembly outvote the Government. The difference between this and the former state of things is the difference between a majority and a minority, which seems to me to be very important in matters of legislation. I have regretted from the first the course which this Council has pursued. I have observed its tendency to nibble at the religion of the people, and at the customs of the country. To the Legislative Council and the imprudence of its action, as much as to any other cause, I attribute the occurrence of the mutiny; for by nibbling at the religion of the people they prepared the public mind of the country to accept the monstrous fictions published with a view to that rebellion. Their conduct recently seems to me utterly inconsistent with the duty attached to such a high office. Having committed an error the first thing to be done is frankly to acknowledge it, and the next to redeem it. I acknowledge my error, and I hope the Government will endeavour to redeem the mistake which has been committed, and that they will have the courage to do what is obviously right. I feel perfectly satisfied that the continuance of the Council constituted as at present, assuming the functions to which it lays claim, is inconsistent with the honour, the dignity, and the strength of the Government of India. I trust Her Majesty's Government, if they entertain that opinion, will act upon it, and, come what may, that they will determine to do what they think right.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEexpressed his astonishment that the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) should have
  1168
  justified by implication the course taken by the Legislative Council.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, his noble Friend entirely misunderstood him. He had given an historical account of the reasons which induced the Government of 1853 to constitute the existing Legislative Council, but he had expressed no opinion whatever with regard to the course recently taken by the Council, which he admitted was open to grave exception.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEwas happy to have elicited the explanation, because the noble Duke, by justifying the original appointment of the Council, and refraining from expressing any opinion with regard to their recent conduct, appeared by implication to approve the steps which they had taken. The course of action pursued by the Council struck him (the Marquess of Clanricarde) as being so bad that he could not understand how it was that the Government had so long delayed the introduction of a measure on this subject, and the speech of the noble Lord who first answered on behalf of the Government (Earl de Grey) was little calculated to afford encouragement. The noble Earl had not given the House to understand on what day, or even in what week, the Bill would be introduced. Though the end of April had almost arrived, the House of Commons was only about to enter on the consideration of some most important measures relating to other subjects, and August would probably be reached before a Bill relating to the Legislative Council of India would find its way to their Lordships' House, The noble Duke promised on the 11th of March, when be (the Marquess of Clanricarde) made a Motion on the subject, that before a Bill was introduced the fullest information would be laid on the table of both Houses; but, although on that understanding he had been induced to withdraw his Motion, no papers on this subject had yet been presented to Parliament. He believed that the more advantageous course would be to introduce the measure in that House, where there were several noble Lords who had been officially connected with India, and who from their experience and knowledge were peculiarly qualified to discuss the subject. An opinion appeared to exist that because we had succeeded in crushing the mutiny, and in abolishing the East India Company as a ruling power, we had no further duties to discharge in connection with the Government of India; but, for his part, he believed it would not

  1169
  be possible long to retain possession of that vast empire unless its condition engaged immediate and serious consideration. The existence of the Civil Service of India, with its ancient privileges, lay at the root of the question; and as long as that service was maintained on its present footing it would be impossible to put the right men in the right places. To keep our hold of India it would be necessary to enlist on our side and to conciliate a great proportion of the intelligence and wealth of the Native population.
  EARL GREYhoped the suggestion made by the noble Marquess would not be lost sight of. In general Bills were more advantageously introduced in the other House; but a measure with regard to which special information was possessed by many Members of their Lordships' House would be discussed with as much utility as in the House of Commons, where the state of the order-book rendered it extremely improbable that a Bill such as that which was contemplated could receive attention for a long time to come. The subject was one of extreme and urgent importance. He could conceive nothing more dangerous or hurtful to British power in India than the continuance of that miserable farce—for he could designate it by no other name—of the Legislative Council. He agreed with the noble Duke that it was of great importance that an opportunity should be afforded of discussing the measures proposed by the Government; but it was decidedly inconvenient that the objections to those measures should emanate from their own officers, and from persons engaged in the public service. That a Judge should be the leader of Opposition was intolerable, nor could the servants of the Government be the organs through which even just objections to the measures of the Government would be brought forward without interfering with discipline, and with the authority which ought to be concentrated in the supreme authority. At the same time he thought that some machinery ought to be, and might be, devised by which the public opinion of measures of the Government might be made known, any objections to them might be stated, and the answer of the Government to such objections might be made public. It was, in his opinion, a fault in the Act of 1833, that it abolished all power of legislation in the minor Presidencies, and centralized the legalization of the immense empire of India at Calcutta. It was, no doubt,
  1170
  necessary that the central Government should exercise a general control over legislation, more especially such as affected the finances; but he had no doubt that, without any improper interference with that control, much useful legislative work might be disposed of in the minor Presidencies. He hoped that this subject would very seriously engage the attention of the Government, and that if they were prepared to deal with it, they would consider the propriety of introducing the measure, having that object in this rather than in the other House of Parliament.
  LORD LYVEDEN, in reply, mentioned, as an instance of the differences which might arise between the Legislative Council at Calcutta and the Secretary of State for India, that The Times of Saturday last contained a report of the speech of the Secretary of State, expressing his disapproval of a measure which was before the Council with regard to contracts between ryots and indigo planters; and, also, an announcement that that measure had passed the Legislative Council by a large majority.
  THE EARL OF ELLEN BOROUGHsaid, he was not aware that that Bill had passed the Council. He asked the noble Earl opposite whether such a measure was not inconsistent with the pledge given by the Government in September last?
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONsaid, that he had not seen the statement that had been referred to by the noble Baron. No doubt the measure in question was inconsistent with the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
  THE EARL OF ELLEN BOROUGH:—And with the pledge of the Government itself.
  Petition ordered to lie on the Table.
  House adjourned at half-past Six o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.