Sitting of 8 February 1861

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBERS SWORN.—For Ludlow, Honble. George Herbert Windsor Windsor Clive; for Leicester, William Unwin Heygate, esquire.

THE INDIAN LOAN.—QUESTION.
COLONEL SYKESsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for India, Whether he has obtained the £3,000,000 of a loan for India that he proposes to raise?
SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, he was very happy to answer the question of his hon. and gallant Friend. He had succeeded in raising the whole of the money that morning. He called for tenders for £3,000,000; £13,000,000 had been offered him, £8,000,000 of which was at the minimum price and above it. He was therefore happy to say he had got the whole £3,000,000 above the minimum price he had fixed.
On the Motion for adjournment till Monday,

AFFAIRS OF SYRIA.—QUESTION.
SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid, that in rising to ask the question of which he had given notice, he did not intend to enter into the general policy pursued with re-

193
gard to the melancholy state of affairs which had recently occurred in Syria; but to make his questions intelligible, he trusted the House would permit him to make a few observations on the subject, as it was necessary to glance at the changes which had taken place in those affairs since the House was prorogued. Had it not been for occurrences to which he should shortly refer, he should have been content to wait for information through the Reports of Her Majesty's Commission, but as those occurrences touched, as he should briefly show, the honour of this country, he thought it imposed an obligation on Her Majesty's Government to interfere without delay. The Government had sent an extraordinary Commissioner to act in conjunction with those of other Powers in the settlement of the unfortunate affairs of the Lebanon, and at the same time those Powers had sent a force to act with the troops of the Porte in the pacification of the country. The troops were furnished by the French Government, but acted in the name and on behalf of the whole of the Powers. Previous to their arrival, however, the Turkish Government had, by the energetic measures of Fuad Pasha, quelled the disturbances, severely punished the most guilty, and afforded protection to the peaceful inhabitants of the country. He must, however, remind the House that the outrages which occurred in Syria were of two classes distinct in their locality and nature. In one case an old and chronic feud between tribes in the Lebanon burst forth. It was not necessary to allude to the cause, and up to the present time the cause was shrouded in mystery. But it was the fact that a fierce conflict arose between the Druses and the Maronites, ending, in a short period, in the entire subjugation of the latter, and while other tribes crowded to join in the disturbance, the Druses fell upon the Maronites, and committed atrocities which were scarcely ever heard of in modern times, though doubtless familiar to barbarians. In the other case the lowest of the population of Damascus, who had long been a serious annoyance to the Government, and had set it at defiance, taking advantage of the small number of troops there—not more than 500—by a sudden outbreak fell on the Christians, and for some days a scene of rapine, murder, and conflagration raged almost unchecked throughout the city. The same scenes would, in all probability, have happened in Beyrout, in Sidon, and
194
in Smyrna but for the vigorous attitude assumed by the commanders of ships of war on that station. But the acts of the Turkish authorities succeeded in restoring tranquillity. The lower classes of Mahomedans, who caused the outbreak in the towns, had been crushed, and the wild tribes who had committed the atrocities in the mountains, had retired with their ill-gotten gains into the desert before the arrival of Fuad Pasha; but as it was likely that some of the more powerful chiefs had connived at the outbreak, and might have shared in the spoils, it was thought right to put certain of the Druse chiefs and of the Turkish officers on their trial. An extraordinary court was, therefore, formed at Beyrout to try the Druse chiefs and the Turkish officials, by whose supineness the war had assumed such formidable dimensions. Before that tribunal lately some of the most powerful Druse chiefs had been arraigned. He was in possession of evidence which he could not doubt, that this trial was, perhaps, the grossest perversion of justice which history recorded, and had been characterized by an absence of care for the commonest principles of justice, which called for the interference of those countries which were guaranteeing the integrity of Turkey, and taking part in the pacification of Syria. He was told, and he believed it could not be denied, that these chiefs were all prejudged—that they were brought before a court strongly prejudiced against them—and that, although they voluntarily submitted to their trial, not one of them had any hope of an honourable acquittal. It had long been foretold that the Turkish Government would take advantage of this outbreak to destroy the independence of the Lebanon; and he himself, when the news of the massacres reached England, expressed the opinion that the disturbances had long been foreseen, and that when the Druses had subjugated the Christians they would themselves become the next victims. However that might be, it appeared certain that the prisoners were subject to the grossest indignities. These chiefs were assailed in the court by knots of Maronites, and reviled in the grossest terms; they were cross-examined in the most unfair manner, and in a language which they did not understand, and answers were taken down which they did not give. If the information which had reached us by means of the public press were correct, all these chiefs had been con-

195
demned to death, while the Turkish authorities who were tried with them had only been sentenced to exile. Now, he wished to know from the Government whether this version of the proceedings at the trial was correct, and whether they intended to interfere in order to prevent the execution of sentences which were unjust and unsupported by evidence? It could not be urged that we had no right to interfere in this matter, because for the last twenty-five years we had constantly been interfering in the affairs of Turkey; for more than twenty years we had protected the Lebanon, and we had now a Commissioner at Beyrout, who was engaged with the representatives of other Powers in framing a plan for the future government of the country; and, above all, the country was now occupied in the joint names of the European Powers by French troops, for the acts of which force we were responsible. Hitherto the French troops had encountered no resistance, and in consequence not a semblance of a conflict had taken place; but, if a band of desperate men, no matter how few in number, were roused to arms, there was no knowing what might be the consequences to Turkey or to Europe, or how long the occupation of Syria might have to be continued. The Druses were men of heroic courage, and were actuated by principles similar to those which formerly obtained among the highland clans of Scotland. A few persons, and among them some Englishmen, had done their best to keep them quiet, and had hitherto been very successful, but if they saw their chiefs executed before their eyes by wholesale, upon evidence which was notoriously unjust, they would be goaded by despair to the ferocity of wild beasts. Such deeds could not be done in a corner. Lord Macaulay had told us that the massacre of Glencoe remained long unheard of in London, and that the intelligence of it did not reach Edinburgh for some weeks, but the eyes of all Europe were fixed upon Syria, and if these men were executed it would be known throughout all the East that the arm of England had been powerless to save them, and the knowledge of this fact might act most prejudicially against any exertions which it might be our duty to make on behalf of others. He did not say more than he fully believed when he declared that if these men fell by the sentence which had been passed upon them, the curse of innocent blood would be upon
196
those who had not interfered for their protection. He should conclude by asking the Secretary of State for foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government have received any information respecting the Tribunal before which the Druse chiefs have been tried who voluntarily surrendered themselves to the Turkish authorities; whether the evidence taken before that Tribunal is in the possession of Her Majesty's Government; whether it is true that these men have been condemned to death, and, if they have, whether the Government intend to make any representations to the Porte upon the subject?
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: Sir, in reply to the question of the hon. Baronet, I beg to say that I am able to state that the Court before which the Druse chiefs who surrendered were tried was an extraordinary tribunal, appointed under the direction of the Sultan. That tribunal, according to Her Majesty's Commissioner, Lord Dufferin, was as fair a one as the authorities could appoint. With regard to the trial it is impossible for me to corroborate the various statements which have been made by the hon. Baronet, but various circumstances have come to the knowledge of Her Majesty's Government which tend to show that the trial of these Druses was not a fair one; that evidence was pressed against thorn which they did not understand, and to which, therefore, they could not reply. We cannot, of course, give any opinion as to their guilt or innocence without knowing upon what evidence they were convicted, but before the trial began Her Majesty's Commissioner and the representatives of the other Powers had made an agreement with Fuad Pasha that none of these men should be executed until the evidence upon which they had been convicted had been considered by them. I asked the Turkish Ambassador at this Court how it happened that all the Turkish authorities who had been tried were sentenced only to exile or imprisonment, while the Druses were condemned to death—a circumstances upon which Lord Dufferin in his despatch had remarked as an evidence of partiality. The Turkish Ambassador affirmed that by the law of Turkey those who were concerned in murder were punishable to death, but that those who had only permitted it, or had been guilty of other crimes, could not be legally sentenced to that punishment. With regard to the sentences, I have already said that the Commissioners in

197
Syria will have all the evidence laid before them, and that if they think that that evidence is insufficient, or has been unfairly taken, it will be in their power to remonstrate with Fuad Pasha against their being carried into effect. I think that what I have stated answers the question of the hon. Baronet, because it is not possible to say whether the Government will make any representation to the Porte with regard to the trial until we know the opinion of the Commissioners; but I assume, from what I have stated, that until the opinion of the Commissioners is known, no steps will be taken to execute these sentences. I may avail myself of this opportunity to state that there have been other trials which have taken place, not at Beyrout, but in the mountains. Fuad Pasha took means to occupy the greater part of the mountains, and when the Druses returned to their homes I think 800 persons who were accused of being concerned in the massacres were arrested and confined, in order that they might be tried on that charge. It is said that twenty Druses have been condemned to death, and we have been informed that the French Minister for Foreign Affairs (M. Thouvenel) has expressed his opinion to the Porte his opinion that it would be unnecessary cruelty to execute twenty persons, and that one or two executions would, at the present time, be sufficient to satisfy the justice of the case. With regard to the general observations of the hon. Baronet it is undoubtedly true that the Maronites and Druses were animated by a furious hatred of each other. The Maronites were armed, and the Druses, therefore, expected that they should be attacked. The Maronites, on the other hand, were apprehensive of being themselves attacked, and, being mutually animated by the most violent animosity, those massacres took place which we have all so much to lament. As an instance of the fierceness of the different races, I may mention that, according to the report of Lord Dufferin, Fuad Pasha having asked the Bishops of the different Christian sects how many of the 8,000 adult males in that part of the country ought, in their opinion, to be put to death in expiation of the massacres which had taken place, the Bishops, by their signatures to a paper, required that no less than 4,600 of the 8,000 should be executed, and it was with great difficulty that Fuad Pasha and the Commissioners got them to reduce their demands to 1,200,
198
which they said was the lowest number that ought to be sacrificed. Her Majesty's Government and the Commissioners of the European Powers generally will endeavour to obtain justice; but, what with the nature of the Government, and what with the bad feeling between the tribes, the extent of which is evident from the demands of these Christian Bishops, the hon. Baronet will, I apprehend, see that this is a matter of no small difficulty.

NAVAL COMPETITIVE EXAMINATIONS.

  QUESTION.
  SIR FREDERIC SMITHsaid, he would ask the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether there is any and what objection to applying the principle of open competition in the appointment of Marine Cadets? In a debate last year his noble Friend said there would be a difficulty in introducing the system with regard to midshipmen who were only twelve years of age; but he admitted that he himself was an advocate of competition. [LORD CLARENCE PAGET: To a certain extent.] He would like to know to what extent the noble Lord looked favourably on the system. Limited competition, he believed, to be the worst thing they could possibly have, while open competition was undoubtedly the best. The soundest opinions obtained by the Committee over which the noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn (Lord Stanley) presided, were all in favour of a system of open competition. Some of the witnesses, however, believed that it would be desirable to retain certain appointments to be conferred on the sons of meritorious officers, but this he (Sir Frederic Smith) held to be a vicious system. Let them reward a public man for meritorious services, but let them not give to his descendants positions for which they might be totally unsuited. The competitive system introduced by Lord Panmure into the scientific branches of the service had answered admirably; and at Addis-combe, where all the cadets were required to be admitted by open competitive examinations, the best results had been attained. This he was enabled to state from his official position. He, therefore, hoped the noble Lord opposite (Lord Clarence Paget) would be instructed by the noble Duke at the head of the Admiralty to state that, within a certain limited time, there would be no objection to introduce the open competitive system into the Royal

  199
  Marines and the Royal Navy. He was not desirous of casting a slur on the present race of officers when he asserted that efficient and probably more highly educated men would be brought into the Naval service, and the public mind, at the same time, would be satisfied that the days of patronage were drawing to a close. What was good in one case in this matter was good in all, and since the principle was already recognised in the different scientific branches of the Army, it might, he believed, be advantageously extended to the Royal Marines and Royal Marine Artillery, of the merits of which distinguished corps, no one was more sensible than himself.
  MR. BASSsaid, he had applied to the noble Lord during the last Session, on behalf of some friends, to know by what means a gentleman desiring to introduce his son into the Navy, and not having Parliamentary influence, could do so. On that occasion he did not obtain a satisfactory reply, and he hoped the noble Lord was now better prepared to answer the question. He (Mr. Bass) had likewise moved for a Return showing in what manner Naval Cadets were appointed, but the only information he obtained was, that in some 200 or 300 cases the appointments had all been made by "the Board." He would have have been just as much enlightened by a Return of the changes of the moon. It was well known that Naval Cadets were appointed purely from favour and affection. This might or might not be applied to corrupt purposes, but it was only just that every man having a child properly qualified for the Navy should have as good a chance of procuring him admission as anybody else.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, he entirely concurred with his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chatham (Sir Frederic Smith), that competition, if adopted to any extent, ought to be open, and that those possessing intellectual qualifications ought to have a fair field and no favour. To the recent examinations at Woolwich 280 competitors came from all parts of the country, and of that number seventy succeeded, of whom he was happy to say four or five came from Marischal College, Aberdeen. Those gentlemen, if they had not had this opportunity of making their own way, would probably have been looking to him to aid their advancement, whereas now they were indebted solely to their own abilities.

SURVEYORSHIP OF THE NAVY.

  QUESTION.
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, he had given notice of his intention to ask the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty when the Report of the Commission on Dockyard Management will be presented; and whether Her Majesty's Government intend to fill up the appointment of Surveyor of the Navy, vacant by the retirement of Sir Baldwin Walker, before the House is in possession of the evidence taken by that Commission? He understood, however, that the post had since been filled up, but he trusted that the appointment was only of a temporary character, as he wished to show the position in which the department stood, and the necessity that existed for remodelling that important branch of Her Majesty's service. The country had now attained to what was probably the greatest expenditure ever made in time of peace, and it was necessary to turn in every direction to see in what quarter expenses could be judiciously curtailed. In this very department of the Surveyorship of the Navy, he believed more money had been wasted in the last ten years than he was then prepared to state. Two or three instances, however, which had come under his own observation would show that when there were so many masters it was perfectly impossible the work could be properly conducted, or the waste of public money repressed, until the authority of the department was vested in a council, responsible for their acts to that House. About ten years ago we began to alter our sailing ships to steam vessels. The Sanspareil was selected for the purpose of having a screw put into her. That ship was built on the model of the finest French ships taken by us during the war. Originally she had 12-pounders on the upper deck, 18-pounders on the main, and 24-pounders on the lower deck; but these were changed, and she was armed all round with 32-pounders, and some larger guns were placed in her besides, and a 95 cwt. gun on her forecastle; her engines weighing about 400 tons, were placed between her main and mizen-masts, and altogether with her coals, she carried above 1000 tons more than her builder designed her to carry. The consequence of all this overweighting was, that when she got in to the Bay of Biscay she rolled in a manner that was most dangerous; she actually rolled over 47°. On her return she dis-

  201
  charged a considerable number of guns. He had endeavoured to find the person by whom the injurious alterations had been directed, but from that day to the present had not succeeded in discovering to whose directions or authority her arrangements were due. Any jury of seamen would have told the Admiralty that the ship was overloaded and unfit to go to sea. Then, again, when the Crimean war broke out, in consequence of the representations of the Emperor of the French, we applied ourselves to building floating batteries. Now, how did we build them? We constructed square boxes, plated them with iron, put guns into them, and then ordered them to sail to the Crimea. How in the world the distinguished seamen to whom they were intrusted managed to get them out he was at a loss to imagine, and a still greater wonder was how they got them back again. Any schoolboy who had ever put an old cigar-case in a bowl of water could tell that a thing which was square would not sail. It could not be got through the water. However, the floating batteries found their way to the Crimea, after traversing from one side of the Mediterranean to the other, as a box always would, and were consequently too late. When the French batteries which had fortunately arrived got an opportunity of acting at Kinburn they showed that an iron-cased ship was impregnable; yet, after that we spent three or four years experimenting on iron plates, while we had much better been occupied in building iron ships. We had, perhaps, found out what description of iron would stand hammering the longest, but the great fact of the impregnability of iron ships had been proved at Kinburn. His right hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington) commenced building six of these vessels, but he thought it would be found that from the mode of their construction they would be lumbersome and unmanageable vessels; that their utility and efficiency were completely destroyed in consequence of their carrying on the outside what other ships carried inside. How that was to be counterbalanced—how these ships were to be manoeuvred, was a thing which no one could tell till a trial was made. Instead of fitting out the Warrior and sending her to sea, and practically testing her behaviour, we were expending enormous sums on finishing five or six of these ships. It did not seem prudent to be expending £500,000 on each of these ships
  202
  without seeing how the first of them would behave. He understood that Sir Baldwin Walker had given evidence to the effect that during the time he was Surveyor of the Navy he had eighty-seven masters, and that sometimes when he sent orders to the dockyards on various matters of instruction and detail it was found that letters went down from the Admiralty, sometimes by the same post, giving orders to an exactly contrary effect. If that were stated in the evidence of Sir Baldwin Walker, the House ought to have it. Since the telegraph was established, nothing could be done in the Admiralty without telegraphing. The Port Admiral was nothing more than a servant sitting at one end of a telegraph wire. From hour te hour telegraphs came down from the Admiralty giving directions about matters which it was utterly impossible for any one to superintend who was not on the spot. The Admiral at the dockyard had no power whatever. The whole of his functions were discharged by the Admiralty, who had enough of business without them. They divided their business, but in such a manner that the House had no hold on them. The House could not place the responsibility of the floating batteries or of the rotten gunboats—which could not go more than five miles an hour along the coast, and would not without the greatest delay be able to go from one port to another in a single reefed topsail breeze—on any particular official. Hon. Members could not place their finger on the proper party, or discover who was answerable for what everybody complained of. It was with a view of bringing these questions more fully and clearly before the House that he had asked his question of the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty; and he had, in conclusion, to express his hope that means would be taken to give the House that information to which it was entitled on so very important a question.
  MR. H. BAILLIEsaid, he wished, before the noble Lord (Lord C. Paget) answered his hon. Friend's question, to say a few words on the subject of that inquiry. He thought the House was indebted to his hon. Friend for bringing forward the subject at so early a period of the Session, because in his (Mr. Baillie's) opinion it was of great importance that they should have the Report of the Commission before they were called on to vote the Estimates for the year. He further thought it would

  203
  be desirable if those hon. Gentlemen who took so laudable an interest in reducing the expenditure of the country, and who had addressed a memorial on that subject to the First Minister of the Crown, availed themselves of the earliest opportunity for bringing their views and opinions in respect to those matters under the notice of the House, in order that the House, previously to going into the Estimates, might know what those views and opinions were, and what was the mode by which those hon. Gentlemen proposed to have the reduction effected. Now he was one of those who thought that the public expenditure ought to be reduced, and at the same time that it might be reduced without injury to the public service. He was of opinion, for example, that great reductions might be made if a searching reform were instituted in those dockyards and on the whole system of their expenditure, more especially if it were true, as was alleged, that they kept no accounts whatever in those establishments. He believed that reductions might also be made in the Civil Service Estimates. Some hon Gentlemen opposite thought that the number of men voted for the Army and Navy last year might be reduced this year. It would, however, be for them to show that the prospects of Foreign Affairs were more satisfactory this than they had been last year, which, certainly, would be information that the House had not received from the Ministers of the Crown. With regard to the appointment of Surveyor of the Navy, one of the principal duties of that officer was that of selecting all the models, of all the ships of war that were built for the service of the Crown. Now, who were the Gentlemen who of late years had been appointed? He believed that for the last thirty years naval officers had invariably been appointed who had no scientific education, and who previously to their appointment had no knowledge either of shipbuilding or of the science of naval architecture. Take the case of the last Surveyor. Sir Baldwin Walker was a distinguished officer; no one understood better the management of a ship of war, but it was notorious that that gallant officer knew nothing of shipbuilding or of the science of naval architecture when he was first appointed to the office, yet every model of every ship of war built for the last ten years had, he (Mr. Baillie) believed, been selected by Sir Baldwin Walker. He had been told that Sir Baldwin
  204
  Walker had a peculiar fancy for fitting ships of war with enormous masts and spars, and that, when remonstrated with by naval officers that their vessels were overmasted, he invariably laughed them off by saying that the modern school of naval officers was afraid of carrying too much sail. Now, Sir Baldwin Walker might be right in this view, and the naval officers wrong; but he maintained that these were questions which ought to be decided by scientific men. He thought that there should be a Board of scientific naval officers to settle all such questions; and, in the event of the Government not taking the subject into their early consideration, he hoped that his hon. Friend (Sir James Elphinstone), would bring forward a specific Motion regarding it.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, that he wished to put a question to the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty (Lord C. Paget) in consequence of the regret expressed by his hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth (Sir James Elphinstone) that the Government, before they embarked in a very large expenditure for the construction of iron-cased ships, had not taken some steps to satisfy themselves as to the success of what they had already done in the same direction. He believed the public were disappointed, and with very considerable reason, at the long delay which had occurred in the launch of the Warrior. That vessel, under the contract for her construction, ought to have been ready for launching in the month of April or of May last. He was on board of her in the month of May, and he was told that she was to be ready in August; but she was not actually launched until the 29th of December; so that the period stipulated in the contract for her completion had been exceeded by eight or nine months. It was impossible to deny that it was very desirable that the merits and qualities of the Warrior as a sea-going ship should be tested as far as possible before the country was involved in the immense expense of building a considerable number of vessels of the same kind; and he therefore wished to ask the noble Lord, whether he could inform the House that the Warrior would be fitted out and sent to sea with the least possible delay, in order that her sea-going qualities might be ascertained?
  MR. VINCENT SCULLYsaid, he would not detain the House long, but as the subjects referred to were of considerable importance he hoped the House would allow

  205
  him to make a few remarks upon the mode of carrying out the principle of the Resolutions agreed to by the House in 1856, as to the system of competitive examinations. A remarkable statement had been made by the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Bass), that he had not been able to obtain any information as to the nomination of Naval Cadets. Now, he Mr.(Vincent Scully) repudiated the system of making application to Government for appointments of any kind, and were he asked to obtain one of these nominations, he would refuse to apply for it; for he thought it would be using his Parliamentary influence in a corrupt manner. It appeared, however, that these nominations were obtained by Members of Parliament. If the principle of competitive examination were established, it would give those a chance of obtaining appointments who had no one to speak for them. Formerly the only mode of appointment to Government situations was by patronage; now there were two or three systems in operation. There was still left a remnant of the old system of patronage; there was the mode of examination by a given standard, minimum being fixed up to which every person appointed to an office must come; and there was a bonâ fide system of competitive examination for introduction to certain offices. He wished, however, to guard the House against a mongrel system which was creeping in in Ireland—a system of half competition and half nomination, the effect of which would be greatly to increase the Government patronage—and he mentioned it now to prevent, if possible, its extension to this country, as it would be attended with very great mischiefs.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETobserved, that their naval discussions had this Session commenced very early. He hoped to be able to lay the Navy Estimates on the table in a few days, when those interested in naval matters would have a whole night to themselves, and would be able to discuss at length all the questions relating to iron-cased vessels and other important matters of that kind. He trusted the House would pardon him, therefore, for not going into details on those questions on the Motion for the adjournment of the House to Monday. In answer to the Question of his hon. Friend the Member for Chatham (Sir Frederic Smith), with regard to the competitive system being introduced in the case of Marine Cadets, he had to state that the present First Lord of the
  206
  Admiralty had introduced a system of limited competition in the case of Marine Cadets. He knew that his hon. Friend did not approve of that, as he wished to introduce a system of unrestricted competition. But this was a question on which very different opinions prevailed—some persona being in favour of limited competition, some unlimited competition, and others of no competition at all. He, for one, did not hesitate to say that he was in favour, as far as possible, of unlimited competition. But his noble Friend, the First Lord, in regard to Marine Cadetships, had introduced a great improvement upon the old system. That old system, though objectionable in some respects, could not be called one of favour, as the cadetships were mostly given to the sons of meritorious officers. It was thought that the system of limited competition would be a very proper and wholesome one in that corps, and accordingly as vacancies occur in the corps, a certain number of candidates are called up for competitive examination, and the most successful are appointed to fill up vacant places. The system he thought a fair one. His hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Bass) had alluded to Naval Cadets, and found fault with the Admiralty for not appointing Naval Cadets by the mode of competitive examination. This subject was a good deal discussed last year, and he then showed that it was one beset with difficulties. These Naval Cadets were very young boys of twelve to fourteen years of age, and they could hardly devise a mode of examination which would test their abilities when grown up. He would now turn to the question of his hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth. The hon. Gentleman asked him when the Report of the Commission on Dockyard Management would be presented, and also whether the Government intend to fill up the appointment of Surveyor of the Navy, vacant by the retirement of Sir Baldwin Walker, before the House was in possession of the evidence taken by that Commission. He was unable to answer the first question, because there were various matters which would require much consideration before the Committee made their Report. With regard to the appointment of a new Surveyor of the Navy, it was impossible for him to mention the name of Sir Baldwin Walker without expressing his great satisfaction that he had received a command worthy of his talents and reputation. He was the more anxious to bear his testi-

  207
  mony to the merits of the gallant officer, because the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir John Pakington), had on a former occasion accused him of making a personal attack upon Sir Baldwin Walker. So far was this from being the case that he admired the gallant Admiral as one of the first officers of the Navy, and he rejoiced that he had been brought back to a service which he would honour, as he had ever honoured it in every situation in which he had been placed. Sir Baldwin Walker's health had suffered so grievously that he had begged to be relieved from his duties at the Admiralty. The Duke of Somerset had, however, been unwilling to lose the benefit of Sir Baldwin's assistance until the Estimates were framed. When they were ready, and the noble Duke found himself able to dispense with the gallant officer's services, it was necessary to consider what was to be done. Was the noble Duke to wait until the Committee had sent in their Report on the Control and Management of the Dockyards, and keep this important office in abeyance until their opinion was known? Any one who knew the great and onerous duties of the Surveyor of the Navy must admit that it was impossible for this situation to remain in abeyance, because the whole business of the dockyards would in that case come to a standstill. His noble Friend at the head of the Admiralty had, therefore, chosen for the vacant post an officer who had obtained a great name in the Naval service for his knowledge of steam machinery. That officer had written a work on steam; and he was, in other respects, a remarkably intelligent officer. Under the circumstances, however, his noble Friend had thought it better not to make the appointment a permanent one, and the new Surveyor of the Navy had therefore been appointed for five years. The noble Duke had now under his consideration the enormous duties of this department, and the necessity of appointing some officer to communicate between the Surveyor and the dockyards, so as to carry out the Surveyor's instructions. With the constant duties of the Surveyor in London it was impossible for him to give his personal attention to the dockyards, and some such appointment as he had described would probably be made. The hon. Gentleman (Sir James Elphinstone) appeared to think that this department should be managed by a council. Well, he (Lord Clarence Paget) thought that if anything
  208
  were going out of fashion it was divided responsibility. They read every day that the great defect of the Admiralty was a divided responsibility, that one department shuffled the blame of anything wrong upon another, and that no one knew who was really responsible. If any department of the Admiralty required responsibility, indeed, it was the department of the Surveyor of the Navy. The hon. Member for Inverness-shire found fault with the appointment of a naval officer to the office of Surveyor of the Navy; but any one not a naval officer could scarcely imagine the marvellous amount of nautical knowledge required in building ships. The putting together the planks and the mere shell of the ship was not the business of a naval officer; but when they came to the upper works a great amount of nautical knowledge and experience was required. The right hon. Gentleman opposite appeared to blame the Admiralty for building too many iron ships. [Sir JOHN PAKINGTON: I found no such fault.] Then the right hon. Gentleman was satisfied that the Admiralty should go on building as many iron ships as our neighbours over the water?
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: The question I put was, whether the Government intended to test the sea-going qualities of the Warrior with a view to assist them in the construction of other iron ships?
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETwould admit that the contractors were partly to blame for the delay in launching the Warrior, but there were various causes for the delay in building that vessel. He trusted, however, that in the course of the present summer the Admiralty would be able to test the qualities of the Warrior.

GRANT TO THE MYSORE FAMILY.

  QUESTION.
  MR. VANSITTART, in rising to ask the Secretary of State for India the Question of which he had given notice, relative to the Mysore grant, said he would not detain the House by entering into the particulars of this important subject, because, in the absence of the despatches and documents connected with it, his information must necessarily be imperfect. He would therefore merely observe that, on the tidings of this extraordinary disbursement to the descendants of the Mysore family reaching Calcutta, so intense was the feeling of indignation which pervaded the Indian community that it not only immediately

  209
  formed the subject of a spirited debate in the Calcutta Legislative Council, but gave occasion to a most numerous meeting in that city on the 20th of December last, which was attended by all classes—civilians, planters, merchants, and Natives. At this meeting the conduct of the right hon. Baronet was unanimously condemned. The Resolutions adopted by that meeting alleged that Gholam Mahommed had no claim whatever to the grant, legal, equitable, or moral; that the subject was carefully investigated in 1855 by the late Earl of Dalhousie, who pronounced Gholam Mahommed's claim to be utterly untenable; and that even admitting that individual members of the Mysore family possessed certain rights under the Treaty of 1799, those rights were forfeited by the share they took in the Vellore mutiny in 1806; that if, in the opinion of the right hon. Baronet, a necessity existed to inquire into the claim, he was bound to refer it to the consideration of the Calcutta Legislative Council; that a Legislative Council which was called upon to impose taxes, but which was not allowed a voice as to the manner in which those taxes should be applied, was an anomaly and worse than useless; and that so long as that House withheld that Imperial guarantee to the entire Indian debt to which that empire was entitled by having been fully incorporated with the rest of the British dominions, the Indian Secretary at home was not legally justified in interfering with and disposing of her resources at his will and pleasure. It was true that, by his own countrymen, the right hon. Baronet was not charged with aught but carelessness; but it was far different with the Native population, for they, with that intuitive suspicion of character for which they are so remarkable, regarded his recent act as reprehensible and unaccountable. For his own part he confessed he was surprised that the right hon. Baronet had selected such a moment for making this grant, because he was fully aware that so recently as the 19th of November last the Governor General published a financial statement for 1860–61, in which Lord Canning said:—
  "Although he has made every possible effort to effect a reduction of the public expenditure, although he has deferred not only necessary and public works of all kinds, but works calculated directly to improve the revenue, to the execution of which Government is more or less pledged, and on some of which large sums have been expended, are suspended to such an extent that an outlay of
  210
  no less than eight millions sterling would be required to complete them; and although he has made an appeal to all his subordinates to cut down their departmental estimates to the lowest possible figure, yet the deficit for 1860–61 exceeds six millions sterling, being equal to more than 16 percent on the total expected income from all sources."
  It should be borne in mind that this estimate included one million sterling derivable from an income-tax which had been wrung from the people amid great discontent—so much so that had not Sir Bartle Frere taken upon himself the responsibility of modifying the severity and the incomprehensible nature of the original forms and returns, transferring at the same time the equally expensive machinery of collection to the ordinary revenue machinery of the country—namely, the covenanted Civil Service, and had Messrs. Ravenscroft and Hunter, of the Bombay Civil Service, displayed less judgment, less energy, and less determination, that discontent would inevitably have terminated in bloodshed. Under those circumstances he was anxious to afford the right hon. Baronet an early opportunity of stating, in the terms of his Question,—
  "Whether it is true, as set forth in the fourth paragraph of a Petition numerously signed by the Inhabitants of Calcutta, at a meeting held in that City on the 20th of December last, that the Grant to the Mysore Family has been made by him against the protest of the Indian Government, against the recorded decision of the late Governor General of India, the Marquis of Dalhousie, in Council, and against the representations of the Financial Minister appointed by the Crown, the late right hon. James Wilson, and of the Viceroy and Governor General the Earl Canning; and whether he has any objections to produce Copies of all Papers connected with the aforesaid Grant, and of all Despatches from the Secretary of State for India to the Earl Canning ordering payment of £520,000 to and for the Mysore Family; and Copies of the Minutes of the Members of the Indian Council thereon."
  SIR CHARLES WOOD: It may be a question whether I ought not to have referred the matter which has been brought forward by the hon. Gentleman to the Government of India; but there were circumstances connected with what had taken place in former years which induced me, with the concurrence of the Council, to take it in hand, and to attempt to make a final settlement of it. I do not think it would be expedient on the present occasion to go into the question of the Indian finances or the powers of the Legislative Council, I shall confine myself as nearly as possible to a simple account of the facts of the case. The hon. Gentleman

  211
  has referred to Resolutions which, he says, represent the views of certain gentlemen at Calcutta, to the effect that the families of Hyder Ali and Tippoo Sultan have no claim, legal or moral, to an allowance from the British Government; he has also referred to what took place at Vellore. I hope, therefore, that the House will allow me to state from the beginning the circumstances under which this claim arose. When Tippoo Sultan was killed, Lord Wellesley determined not to reinstate his family on the throne of Mysore, but to substitute the descendants of the old Rajah. A treaty was made with the Nizam, who had been our partner in the war, for dividing equally between them these territories which they had determined to take away from the Rajahship of Mysore. The Governor General undertook the custody and maintenance of the family of Hyder Ali and Tippoo Sultan, and in order to enable him to do that a territory producing in round numbers £70,000 a-year was assigned to the Government of India, over and above their half of the conquered territory. The engagement into which they entered was—
  "To provide effectually for the suitable maintenance of the whole of the families of the late Hyder Ali Khan and of the late Tippoo Sultan, and to apply to this purpose, with the reservation hereinafter stated, an annual sum of not less than two lacs of star pagodas, that is about £70,000."
  The spirit in which this arrangement was regarded by those who were most cognizant of the circumstances, and had most to do with the matter at the time, will be shown by two short extracts which I will read, one from a letter from Lord Wellesley, and the other from a letter of the Duke of Wellington. Lord Wellesley wrote to the Court of Directors:—
  "I determined at the same time to grant to the families of Hyder Ali Khan and Tippoo Sultan a more magnificent maintenance than either had enjoyed during the late reign."
  It has been contended by some persons that it was incumbent on the Government to allot for the maintenance of these families the whole of the revenue of the ceded territory—that is to say, £70,000, and it is quite clear that the Duke of Wellington entertained some such idea. The sum allotted to them was nothing like that, and the Duke of Wellington writes to his brother:—
  "The family don't now spend more than half the sum allotted to them by treaty, and there surely can be no grounds for this shameful breach of faith with persons in our power."
  212
  I do not at all concur in that view. I only quote it to show that the Duke of Wellington, who had a large part in these transactions, and was cognizant of all that took place, did entertain a view which might justify the supposition that at that time at least they were entitled to the produce of the whole of the ceded territory. They received, in fact, much less. Up to 1806 the savings amounted to £87,000. The Government of India had engaged to apply to the purposes of their maintenance the produce of those territories, subject to two reservations—one, that the Government should have the right of making a reduction in the stipend on the decease of some members of the family; the other was that if the family were guilty of disloyalty to the Government of India, or attacked the territory of the Rajah of Mysore, the stipend might be withdrawn altogether. In 1806 occurred the mutiny of Vellore, a mutiny of the Native troops, arising from circumstances totally unconnected with political motives; but the troops availed themselves of the presence of one of the sons of Tippoo Sultan, took him from the barracks, and placed him at their head. That is the foundation of the assertion referred to by the hon. Gentleman that the family had been guilty of mutiny, and had thereby forfeited all claims on the Government of India. The circumstances were inquired into at the time by the then Governor General, Lord Minto, and he recorded his deliberate opinion that they did not affect the claims of the family to a liberal maintenance from the British Government. Lord Minto said—"It still becomes us to show as much generosity towards these families as is consistent with public security under present circumstances." The public security was the only limit which he considered could be put on their claim to a generous treatment, and that security was taken by removing them to Russapuglah, near Calcutta, At this place they have lived ever since, shut up by themselves, and intermarrying among themselves, and every Gentleman who is aware of the mode in which Mahomedan families live shut up in this way, and intermarrying among themselves, will not be surprised to learn that the social and moral state there is not one which it is desirable to perpetuate. The produce of the territories allotted for the maintenance of the families was, from the time of the treaty, kept entirely apart from the general revenue in a separate fund,

  213
  which was called the Mysore Deposit Fund; and the sums spent upon the family were so much Less than the produce of the territory, that in 1855, when the money was merged into the general receipts of India, there had accumulated from the savings in that respect no less a sum than £600,000. In 1852, Prince Gliolam Mahommed addressed a memorial to the Court of Directors claiming that the whole sum of £70,000 a year should be spent on the families, and that the £600,000 which had accumulated up to that time should also be paid over to them. The Court of Directors very properly refused to admit that claim, saying that the family had no claim either to one or the other, but that that to which they were entitled was a fair, suitable, and liberal maintenance. Gholam Mahommed came over to this country in 1854, and was here for some time. The Home Government gave directions then, as now, on the subject. They decided at that time that an addition should be made to his allowance, and to that of certain other members of the family, and these directions were transmitted to Lord Dalhousie. It is perfectly true that Lord Dalhousie did not think there was any such claim. Sir Barnes Peacocke, also, who has borne a prominent part on the present occasion, recorded his opinion that, inasmuch as these persons were no parties to the Treaty of Mysore, they had no legal claim under that treaty. Lord Dalhousie thought it exceedingly desirable to put an end to their state of dependance on the State, and proposed that after the fourth generation their allowances should cease altogether. So far as the legal claim of the parties under the treaty goes, no doubt, they have no claim at all. But that does not seem to me in the slightest degree to impair the equitable and moral claim of these persons, who are the descendants of those whom we dispossessed of their territories, to that which was provided for them in the treaty, and to which Lord Minto and every other Governor General considered them entitled. The next question was, whether it was possible to discontinue these payments at any time; and on this point the Home Government took a more just and equitable view, and they stated that they could not consent to these people being turned out loose on the streets destitute of all means of subsistence, and that such a course would be utterly unjust and incompatible with all sound notions of the
  214
  policy which ought to be pursued towards the descendants of deposed Princes. They asserted that in their view they were entitled to fair and liberal consideration, and they entirely declined to adopt the views of Lord Dalhousie, which, I think, were most impolitic, harsh, and unjust. So matters stood until 1858, when my noble Friend (Lord Stanley) became President of the India Board. Gholam Mahommed then addressed a letter to him, and came over to this country again. He arrived a short time before I became Secretary of State. There was another similar question pending at the same time, and a Committee was appointed to consider both cases. A good deal of communication took place with Prince Gholam Mahommed, into which it is not necessary that I should enter, and the result was the arrangement which has been made. I should perhaps have said that during the whole of the time both the Government of India and the Government at home felt the importance of putting an end to the existing state of things, which was extremely detrimental both to the Mysore family and the Government. The arrangement first contemplated was, that the Princes should qualify themselves for public employment; but they clung to the position of pensioner Princes, they were content to remain so; and with their habits of ease and idleness, it was felt even by those who originated the idea, that such an arrangement was totally out of the question. The only other mode of placing them in a state independent of the Government was to put them in possession of some permanent income, merely so that they should not exist on eleemosynary aid. Whenever any member of the family died the circumstances of the family had to be considered, and every succeeding death necessitated a new allotment. The Court of Directors in 1854 expressed their opinion that, however desirable a permanent arrangement was, the full assent of the members of the family to any such scheme was an essential condition, and that it should be framed in communication and concert with the leading members of it. Prince Gholam Mahommed is the head of the family—he is the only surviving son of Tippoo Sultan—and in his communications with me last year, he represented himself as authorized to speak for the whole family, and to concur for himself and them in an arrangement for a permanent provision. Communications took place with Prince

  215
  Gholam. The first proposal was that a certain sum should be capitalized. He requested some modifications, which I will not go into in detail. I will state the ultimate arrangement which was made. Last summer there were twenty-two grandsons having families, and thirteen great grandsons having families. There were also stipends to a considerable amount to other members of the family—widows, daughters, servants, and pensioners. The whole expense of Russapuglah was about £54,000 a year. The arrangement which was made was this—not that a large sum of money should be given, as has been represented, but that an amount of stock should be created, the interest of which should be disbursed to existing incumbents during their lives in lieu of a portion of their stipends, and should form a perpetual endowment for the family. The interest of it would be £17,160 a year, which will be the ultimate income. I should add that the capital sum is vested in the names of family trustees, and that it is not in the power of any member of the family to beggar himself by spending the whole provision at once. The annual sum is secured, and without the consent of the trustees no portion of the capital can be touched. In addition the Government have agreed to a temporary increase in the allowances. Gholam Mahommed represented to me that some members of the family were unable to maintain themselves in a condition of decent respectability. He asked nothing for himself, but urged their claims, and I agreed to increase the annual stipends by a little more than £12,000 a year, to be continued during the lives of certain members of the family, many of whom are of advanced age, and two of whom have, indeed, died since last summer. That increase will, therefore, all cease in the course of a very few years. Then came the question of the removal of the family from Russapuglah. They could not move without some money. I agreed to give £40,000 to pay their debts, and about £40,000 more to purchase houses and residences elsewhere. The first sum was to clear them from debt, and the second to induce them to remove. That is, in point of fact, the whole of the arrangement. The sum granted to them of £83,000 is less than the saving made before either of the events occurred on which a reduction of allowance was to be made, and even if he had purchased the stock for the endowment, the whole might
  216
  have been done out of the savings of which we have reaped the benefit. I cannot find a word, short of expressing the legal claim of the parties, to designate, as strongly as I feel it, the moral obligation of the British Government to provide in a fair and liberal manner for these persons; and when we remember that £17,000 is to be divided among more than thirty-five families, I cannot say I think it extravagant. I am very sorry I should have had to make this arrangement at a time when the financial state of India is not as good as we could wish; but when Prince Gholam was here competent to act, and when the consent of the families was essential, I think I should not have acted wisely if I had not availed myself of the favourable circumstances to put an end to all claims—to release them from a state of dependence, and to extricate the Government from a very disagreeable position. I believe, moreover, that these persons will now have an inducement to occupy a position in the State which they never would have as long as they were stipendiaries, and that a very large prospective liability has been commuted at a not very extravagant cost.

  CHURCH-RATES.—QUESTION.
  MR. BRISTOWsaid, that it had been intimated to him by Mr. Speaker that it was not competent to him to persevere in the first portion of the Notice he had given, "To call the attention of the House to the present position of the question of Church-rates," as it would be irregular to invite discussion upon a subject which, since leave had been given to the hon. Baronet the Member for Tavistock to bring in his Bill, was before the House, he would content himself with asking the noble Lord at the head of the Government whether it was his intention to introduce a Bill on the subject during the present Session? He was also requested by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. A. Steuart) to ask whether, in the event of the Government not being prepared with a Bill, the noble Lord saw any objection to proceed on the whole question by way of Resolution.

SPIRIT DUTIES.—QUESTION.
MR. CRAWFORDasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it was the intention of the Government to introduce

217
any Measure during the present Session for the modification of the duties of Excise upon spirits? His reason for asking the question was that an impression prevailed that there had been not only a great diminution in the consumption of duty-paid spirits, but also a very great increase of illicit distillation. Under these circumstances the whole spirit trade, and particularly the foreign portion, was in a state of paralysis, because it was believed that the Government would find it necessary in the present Session to bring in a Measure to modify the Spirit Duties. He should like to know whether there was any great falling off of revenue from spirits, or any great increase of illicit distillation.
THE CHANCELLOR of THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he would give an answer which he hoped would be sufficient for his hon. Friend's purpose. He held it contrary to the public interests, as a general rule, for the Minister charged with the care of the finances to answer questions as to the intentions of Government with respect to any financial subject before the period for making the regular financial statement, and he did not know of any exception to that rule when the question referred to the old-established duties; but the case with respect to a proposition made six or seven months ago, and only in full operation for five or six months, was on a different footing. With respect to the state of the revenue from spirits, he did not think that such a period had elapsed as would enable him to give any answer of value to the House, because the smallest time that could be taken as any test of the effect of an alteration of duty was the time which expired when the financial year closed. It was in the middle of the month of July that he made the proposal respecting the Spirit Duties last year, and up to the present time the Government had only been in receipt of the new duties for something more than five months. As regards the most important part of the question put by his hon. Friend in respect to illicit distillation, he could give an answer which would convey entire satisfaction, as undoubtedly that was a point on which the Members of the House might have felt sensitive and anxious at the time when the proposal of the Government was made. With respect to that point the evidence he held in his hand, and which he should have no difficulty in laying on the table if required, was, in his opinion, conclusive. He held in his hand a Return of the number
218
of detections and convictions and of persons sent to prison in the years 1859 and 1860 respectively. He would not trouble the House with all the details of the Return, which he might describe in a single word by saying that there was not a single comparative figure which did not exhibit a diminution, whether as respects detections, convictions, or commitments in every one of the three kingdoms—England, Scotland, and Ireland. This was evident in Ireland particularly, which, of course, might have been regarded as the most critical and dangerous part of the case. There the detections in the year 1859 were 1,829, and in the year 1860 only 918. He, therefore, did not hesitate to say, even at this early period, that on the subject of the increase of illicit distillation the Government considered the evidence before them to be, for the time which had elapsed, completely satisfactory and conclusive, nor did he hesitate to go one step further, and under the peculiar circumstances of the case, state, in answer to the question put by his hon. Friend, that there was not the slightest intention on the part of the Government to propose any reduction of the duty which in last Session was laid on spirits by Parliament.

THE CANADIAN EXTRADITION CASE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. H. B. SHERIDANsaid, that in rising to ask the Question of which he had given notice, in reference to the fugitive slave Anderson, it was not his intention to take up much of the time of the House. The first Question was, Whether in the Canadian Extradition Case, the Government had any doubt that the writ of habeas corpus issued by the law courts here, requiring that the body of Anderson should be brought before them, would reach Canada in time to prevent the judgment of the Canadian courts being acted upon? He had struck out the words "ordering surrender of the prisoner," because it appeared that the Canadian courts did nothing but decide on the abstract question of law. The prisoner was, therefore, remitted to the Sheriff, and it was left to the Governor to decide whether he should be given up or not. He knew there were many persons who had doubts as to whether the writ would arrive out in time; and there was further no little surprise expressed that Judges presiding over a British court should be found to give so

  219
  remarkable a decision as that given in Canada. The Questions, therefore, which he wished to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, were:—
  "Whether, in the case known as the Canadian Extradition Case, Her Majesty's Government have any doubt that the Writ of Habeas Corpus issued by the Court of Queen's Bench in this country, requiring that the body of one J. Anderson should be brought to that Court, will reach Canada in time to prevent the judgment of the Canadian Court from being acted upon:
  "And whether Her Majesty's Government have any doubt that the Writ on its reception by the Canadian Court will be attended to and obeyed:
  "And whether any steps have been taken to secure the safe passage of J. Anderson through American territory, if that route should be selected, to reach this country:
  "And if Her Majesty's Government are aware whether or not the said J. Anderson is now in prison in any of Her Majesty's gaols in any part of Her Majesty's dominions as a felon or otherwise, and subject to the ordinary treatment of persons who have broken the Laws:
  "And, whether Her Majesty's Government, finding that it is the opinion of certain British Judges that there exists a Treaty with the United States of America by the terms of which Great Britain has declared that there are some men who have no natural or legal right, have taken any and what steps to revise or to put an end to and dissolve such a Treaty, in order that for the future no misunderstanding shall exist as to the meaning of such Treaty, or as to the intention of the British people with reference to the question whether one man has or has not the power to enslave another."
  MR. COLLIERsaid, he thought that not an inopportune occasion to make a statement in which he was confident he should be supported by his hon. and learned Friends in the House—that it was the almost unanimous opinion of Westminster Hall, that the decision of the Canadian Courts was wrong, and that Anderson ought not to be given up. It was a question to decide which did not require a legal education. It was one which every Member of that House was as competent to form an opinion with as any lawyer. He would briefly state what it was. The question arose upon the construction of the Ashburton Treaty. He might observe, in the first place, that with regard to extradition treaties generally, it was stated by Sir James Mackintosh, that the object was the extradition of great offenders—offenders against the law of nations, which was the basis of the code of all civilized countries—and not of offenders against merely the peculiar, conventional, and exceptional laws of particular States. But, in order to guard against any question being raised that they were
  220
  bound to surrender offenders against the peculiar laws of the United States an express provision was made in the treaty. The provision was:—
  "Provided that this (extradition) shall only be done upon such evidence of criminality as, according to the laws of the place where the fugitive or persons so charged shall be found, would justify his apprehension and commitment for trial if the crime or offence had there been committed.",
  That was in the country where the fugitive was found. A question was asked in that House, in 1843, by Lord Macaulay of the officers of the Crown as to the construction of this treaty—whether or not this treaty j would apply to offenders against the peculiar laws of the slave States. Sir Frederick Pollock, who was then Attorney-General, stated that it would apply only to cases in which an offence had been committed against the laws of England or those of Canada.—[See 3 Hansard, lxxi. 572.] He (Mr. Collier) believed that opinion of Sir Frederick Pollock to have been perfectly correct. If the words in the treaty which he had just quoted were read in their plain and simple interpretation, no man of common sense could help coming to the same conclusion, and it would require a great deal of legal ingenuity indeed to pervert them. He understood that by the judgment of the Courts of Canada this was not the interpretation which had been put upon them—a judgment with which he altogether differed. The magistrate before whom Anderson was brought had to consider whether he had committed a crime according to the law of Missouri, and then to determine whether the evidence of that crime was sufficient, according to the law of England. There could be no proceeding more inconvenient than to require a magistrate to deal with the laws of two different countries—to consider the law of one country with respect to crime, and then to determine upon the evidence respecting that crime by the law of another country. If they were to judge of this crime by the law of England, the case was quite clear. An attempt was made to apprehend Anderson, who was pursued for the purpose of capture. He killed his pursuer in defence of his liberty. He (Mr. Collier) said that was not murder according to the law of any civilized country. Then how did it become murder? Why, upon the proof of the additional fact that he was a slave. But the law of this country did not recognize slavery—and, therefore,

  221
  that fact was wholly immaterial. He, therefore, ventured to say, with great respect, that it seemed to him the Courts of Canada had frittered away the plain meaning of the words to be found in the treaty, and had given them a meaning never intended by either of the contracting parties. Let them see for a moment to what consequences this interpretation would lead. If the criminal law of Missouri were to prevail this would follow. Suppose the Missouri authorities were to enact that any slave who struck work, or who read the Bible, should be guilty of murder—the logical consequences of such an interpretation would be that this country would be bound to surrender him upon proof that he had struck work or read the Bible—a conclusion so absurd that it was impossible to suppose such an interpretation would be insisted on by any country. He had only to express an anxious hope that Her Majesty's Government would be able to give a satisfactory answer to the question which had been put in reference to this subject. He felt certain that the Government could not possibly give any other instructions to the Governor General of Canada than not to surrender Anderson.
  MR. WARNERsaid, it would probably be in the recollection of the House that some years ago a claim was made by the Government of this country upon the Government of the United States, for the extradition of a person charged with murder in Ireland. He believed the accused party bore the appropriate name of "Cain," and the crime with which he was charged was that he had waylaid his landlord and shot him dead. The case came before the Courts of the United States, and they held, first, that the treaty did not apply to political offences; and, secondly, that the shooting of a landlord in Ireland was a political offence. He apprehended that in this country it was no answer to a charge of murder to say that the victim was a landlord; but let them apply the doctrine held by the American Courts to the present case. He was not going to dispute the common opinion which seemed to prevail in this country with regard to the absurdity of the Ashburton Treaty. He was willing to admit that it stood almost unrivalled as an instance of diplomatic incapacity and want of common sense. But it was clear that its words could not bear a double interpretation—that there could not be one interpretation for the Government of the United States and another for this
  222
  country; and by whatever rules of interpretation the United States Government; arrived at the conclusion that the murder of a landlord in Ireland was not within the treaty, the Government of Canada could not avoid coining, by the same process of interpretation, to the conclusion that homicide in defence of personal liberty was not within the treaty. Whether the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench in Canada in the case of Anderson was right or wrong did not now so much matter, inasmuch as the question was taken out of their hands, and rested with the Canadian Executive. He wished to ask the noble Lord whether he had reason to believe that the Canadian Executive would be officially cognizant of the precedent he had quoted, and whether he thought there was any reason to fear that, from over-scrupulousness or any other cause, they might put a construction on the treaty contrary to that which the United States' Government had established in their own case, as well as opposed to those glorious traditions which were the property of Canada equally with our own country.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: In answer to the first Question, put to me by my hon. Friend below the gangway (Mr. Bristow), I have to say that it is not the intention of the Government to introduce this Session any measure with respect to church rates. There is a Bill already before the House on the subject. With regard to the question whether we should object to proceeding by Resolution, it will be for the House to determine that; but it does not appear to me that the question is one to which the method of Resolution is at all applicable. With regard to the Question of the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. H. B. Sheridan), which has just now been matter of discussion, I will state exactly how the matter stands, and, of course, that statement will be a reply to many of the questions that have been put. My noble Friend the Duke of Newcastle wrote on the 9th of January to the Governor General of Canada that he was not to surrender Anderson to the American Government until he had received positive instructions from Her Majesty's Government to do so. Therefore, there is no chance of Anderson being surrendered until the question shall have been fully and completely considered. There is a general impression that the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench in Canada would

  223
  have the effect of rendering it necessary that Anderson should be given up. But it has no bearing on that point. The effect of the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench, whether right or wrong, is that Anderson was not to be taken out of the custody in which he then was; but it rests, not with the Court of Queen's Bench, but with the Governor General of Canada, to issue the official warrant for his surrender, when application for that surrender is made. Of course, it is not for me to answer the question as to the conflicting jurisdictions of the Court of Queen's Bench of this country, and the Court of Queen's Bench in Canada; or to say what is the course likely to be pursued by the Court of Queen's Bench in Canada, when it shall have received the writ issued by the Court of Queen's Bench in England. It is plain enough, however, that if Anderson were to be sent to England in compliance with the writ, he would not be sent through the American territory—and, therefore, the writ cannot be executed, if it is to be executed, until the communication is open with Canada, without going through American territory. My hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Collier) has plainly stated the effect of that portion of the Ashburton Treaty which relates to this question: but I do not concur with my hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Warner) in considering that the treaty is very imperfect and unintelligible. On this point, however, it is clear as day—it requires proof that when a criminal is claimed under its provisions he must be accused of one of the offences mentioned in the treaty, and that the circumstances urged as the grounds for asking for his surrender, must be such as would show that he was liable to be prosecuted for the crime according to the law of the land in which he then was. That in this case would be the law of England. It is quite plain to my understanding that the American Government must establish that Anderson committed an offence which by the law of England is murder, and that they must give proof which would be sufficient to satisfy an English justice of the peace that he ought to be committed to be tried on that accusation. I will not go into the question which has been so ably discussed by my hon. and learned Friend, whether a free man who kills in self-defence another who attempts to reduce him to a state of slavery is guilty of manslaughter, or justifiable homicide, or murder. I think it probable that no Eng-
  224
  lish lawyer would place the act under the last mentioned head: and if it is not murder, then clearly no accusation has been established under which the surrender of Anderson could be claimed under the provisions of the treaty. That is only a passing opinion; but what must be satisfactory to the House to know is that, by instructions from the Secretary of State for the Colonies, the Governor General of Canada is not to surrender Anderson until the question shall have been fully considered by the Government at home, and until instructions shall be sent to him from hence.
  Motion agreed to.
  House at its rising to adjourn to Monday next.

POOR RELIEF.

  SELECT COMMITTEE MOVED FOR.
  MR. C. P. VILLIERSsaid, in moving for the Committee of which he had given notice, it would not he necessary for him to detain the House more than for a few minutes, as it was in compliance with a wish already expressed by this House during the last Session, rather than from any want himself to obtain information that he rose to propose inquiry into the subject of his notice. It would be in the recollection of the House, that when he introduced the usual Bill last Session, providing for the continuance of the powers of the Poor Law Board, an opposition of a very decided character was offered to it, and though the reasons assigned for this course were extremely vague, and even conflicting—yet, there was something like a general agreement that inquiry was needed to investigate the matters alleged in debate, and, in fact, thereby into the past administration of the present Poor Laws. Willing, therefore, that the fullest investigation should take place, he had adopted in his notice the terms in which a reference had been made to a Committee on a similar occasion, more than twenty years ago, when, under the chairmanship of Mr. Fazakerly, the most comprehensive inquiry ever made into this matter was instituted. At that time, a great agitation prevailed on the subject among the poor themselves—but the circumstances were now different—for he believed that the only agitation out of this House that had occurred lately, was one which had its origin in the attempt which

  225
  his predecessor, now a noble Duke in the other House, had made to remove a grievance of which the Catholics complained with regard to the religious education of orphan children of their persuasion, being inmates of the workhouse; and empowering the Guardians to provide for their instruction. He believed that this order was framed by the noble Duke with perfect good faith, with the view to remedy the evil in question; but, having the effect of awakening the fears and suspicions of some earnest Protestants, he was charged with having abused the powers of the Board with the view to conciliate political enemies; and on this account they organized a movement, with some success, to prevent the renewal of the powers of the Board; for finding that order himself in the department, and having obtained the concurrence of two other Members of the Cabinet, he (Mr. Villiers) had caused it to be issued. The Catholics allege, that in consequence of the agitation it has become inoperative; he thought, therefore, that now it must, with other matters of which they complained, form a subject of inquiry before the Committee. He was bound, however, to admit that in the House the objection to the Board was placed on a different ground, and one on which he was told was felt strongly by several of the Boards of Guardians in the country. The hon. Member for Manchester represented this party; and from his position in this House as Member for that large constituency, and from the strong feeling he exhibited himself against the Board had doubtless influenced the House in its decision, having actually himself proposed to limit the continuance of the Board for one year only. The view which this party entertained was, that the purposes for which the Poor Law Board was originally constituted had been satisfied, and that the law under the control of the annually elected guardians could be applied with the same uniformity, judgment, and economy as had characterised its administration for the last twenty-five years. They demanded to have more power—a full discretion in relieving able-bodied men out of the house, and the power not only to appoint the officers of the Union, such as the chaplain, the doctor, and the solicitor or clerk, as they do now, but, also to dismiss them at pleasure. They objected also to the system of auditing the accounts, which was done now (as some would think properly) by persons inde-
  226
  pendent of those whose accounts they audited, but which, as they alleged, was the cause of collision. The Member for Sheffield proposed to give legislative effect to all these veins without enquiry, but, having withdrawn his propositions, they will now, doubtless, be referred to the Committee. The alterations which they demanded, he need not say, would alter the whole system of administering relief, and he was bound to say also, that these demands were made on the part of about fifty or sixty unions, they were not entertained by upwards of 600 other unions, amongst whom there was as yet but little complaint of the Central Board. However, if the persons who had petitioned could satisfy the House that the law would be as well administered under their control, as it had been under the Central Board, their evidence was worthy of every attention. The House, in its decision last Session was, doubtless, principally influenced by the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Wilts (Mr. S. Estcourt), who had himself been President of the Poor Law Board, and who, in supporting the renewal of the powers of that Board, had expressed the strongest opinion as to the necessity of a general inquiry into the operation of the new Poor Law, and even, he believed, went so far as to say that if no member of the Government proposed the inquiry that he himself would move for a Committee. Such a speech, coming from one of the right hon. Gentleman's position, naturally had a great effect upon the House, and led to the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Kent (Mr. Deedes), who, though he had been in former times a strong supporter of the new Poor Law, carried an Amendment limiting the continuance of the Board to a period of one-half of its usual duration. He (Mr. Villiers) saw no objection to the adoption of that Amendment, except that as the Government did not refuse to consent to an inquiry into any specific grievance arising out of the operation of the law, they were reluctant to cast a censure upon the Poor Law department, such as was involved in that Motion, without any statement of facts, or any proofs that abuses existed, or any complaint on the part of the poor, more especially in the face of the Report, which as to the reduction of the number of the poor, the diminution of the poor rates, and the good condition of the people and their contentment under the operation of the law,

  227
  was more satisfactory than any which had previously been laid upon the table. The Government were perfectly willing that an inquiry should take place; they were most anxious that the truth should be ascertained, and if any amendments or improvements were suggested they would be most willing to adopt them. He was bound to admit, however, that before the meeting of Parliament, circumstances had arisen springing out of the suffering occasioned by the extraordinary severity of the late season, which had further excited the feeling against the existing Poor Law, and gave something like propriety to the investigation that had been called for. To use the phrase most in vogue on the recent occasion, the Poor Law system had broken down, and it was said by people, perhaps little informed on the matter, that the time had come when another system of relieving the poor should be adopted. He was quite willing that this allegation should be made the subject of inquiry. He believed that there was considerable exaggeration in the statement, and that the conclusion had been drawn very hastily from the liberal, he might say the marvellously large contributions, that had been voluntarily made for the relief of the poor, that but for this assistance the poor must have fallen. He did not wish to speak otherwise than in terms of unbounded praise of the kind feeling which had been displayed by the wealthy classes towards the poor upon this occasion; but he could not help believing that much of their contributions had been made more under the impulse of religious and generous feeling, or from a desire to sacrifice some of their superfluities, to relieve those whom they believed to be in want, than from any reasonable conviction or opinion that the poor could not be relieved under the Poor Law. He did not doubt that the misery of multitudes was mitigated by the distribution of the relief to which he had referred, but he believed that if it had not been so lavishly bestowed there would have been found on the part of the parochial authorities the good will, the means, and the power to relieve the destitution which existed. Of course, when you had two funds, one of which was distributed without any test of the condition of the claimants, and the other subject to such a test, the demands upon the former would be more numerous than upon the latter, and that, he took it for granted, had been the case in this instance; but he was, after inquiry,
  228
  convinced that there had been on the part of the parochial and union authorities much less neglect and much less incapacity than had been ascribed to them. It would be satisfactory to the House to learn that during one week of that severe season 23,000 more persons were relieved out of the rates than had received relief in the corresponding week of the preceding year. These 23,000 formed but a part of the 40,000 applications which had been made, and the difference between those numbers was accounted for by the persons who had refused to receive workhouse relief on condition of performing some task of work which was submitted to them as a test whether they were really deserving objects, or whether their aim was merely to extort assistance in order to enable them to live in idleness, or without doing work in return. But these people who thus refused relief at the workhouse on the conditions on which it was offered, of course went to the police-office, or any other place where relief was indiscriminately given. The information on which he was now speaking was derived from the official reports he had received, and if the facts were disputed it offered a reason, perhaps, why the investigation should take place. He had likewise caused inquiry to be made as to what had occurred throughout the whole country, and he had really been astonished to learn from the inspectors the intelligence, the judgment, and the humanity with which those placed in authority under the Poor Law had distributed relief in districts where the distress was quite as great as in London. It was, moreover, satisfactory to learn the very cordial and harmonious manner in which the parochial authorities had co-operated with the gentry and clergy, and with all whose circumstances and disposition enabled them to give largely to the relief of the destitution which the season had occasioned, and which had not been less in the country than in town. The House would feel that he (Mr. Villiers) had no conceivable object in concealing the truth; he was extremely anxious that the whole subject should be investigated; and if a Committee went into the inquiry every assistance which the department could afford them should be given. He trusted that by their labours some rational decision would be arrived at on the subject of the administration of poor relief, for it was really time that there should be something definite and stable determined in the matter.

  229
  They had now the benefit of considerable experience, and legislation ought to decide what were the best permanent means of providing relief for the poor. Considering the immense number of persons who were nearly destitute, and the enormous sums annually contributed for their assistance, it was most unsatisfactory to be eternally hearing either that the poor were ill-used, or that the sums were wasted, or that the results for which persons looked in giving their money were never attained. It was most inexpedient on account of the poor, and most unjust to those who contributed to the rates, that a system should continue if it was really defective; at the same time, if the law did accomplish its purpose, and if the department to which it was subject and properly discharged its duty, much was it to be regretted that the most unfounded assertions should continually be made with reference to it. If the House decided on appointing the Committee for which he now moved, he should enter on the discussion without the least prejudice to himself, and he should only hope that some conclusion might be arrived at that would place the administration of relief to the poor on a sound, satisfactory, and stable basis.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,—
  "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the Administration of the Relief of the Poor, under the Orders, Rules, and Regulations, issued by the Poor Law Commissioners and the Poor Law Board, pursuant to the provisions of the Poor Law Amendment Act."
  MR. EDWIN JAMESsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had fulfilled the promise which he gave last Session—when the Poor Law Board was in jeopardy, and when the House expressed its opinion rather strongly in reference to a renewal of its powers—that he would move for a Committee to inquire into its system of administration. In doing so he had pronounced a rather glowing panegyric on the services of that department, which, he (Mr. E. James), ventured to think, cost more and created greater dissatisfaction than any other department of the Government. From all parts of the country, but particularly from the manufacturing districts, complaints had proceeded on this very subject. He ventured to differ from the right hon. Gentleman in his estimate of the parochial authorities. These men were not naturally cold, hardhearted beings, insensible to the sufferings of the poor; but the fact was that, under the control of the guardians and under the superintendence of
  230
  the Poor Law Board, they were often disabled and prevented from giving relief by the stringent rules which were prescribed for their guidance, and obedience to which was rigidly insisted on. With reference to the late destitution in the Metropolis, it was well known. that except for private bounty, which flowed in munificently from every quarter, numbers of the poor would, beyond all question, have starved, even in the most opulent districts. When poor men were dying of want, and stood in urgent need of a loaf of bread, there was hardly time to consider whether relief was to be "indiscriminate," or of some other character; it was not the time to stand out and say, "We will give you nothing, unless you comply with the requirements of the Poor Law Board." What he complained of was the utter want of a reasonable discretion, which the stringent and arbitrary rules of the Poor Law Board forbade. He was glad, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman had fulfilled his promise. He felt proud to add that the severity of the rules had been much tempered by the gentlemanlike tone and courtesy of the right hon. Gentlemen at the head of the department. But, as they still existed, he hoped that the inquiry would be an impartial one, and such as would give satisfaction to the country.
  LORD ROBERT CECILsaid, it was not his intention to offer any opposition to the Motion. On the contrary, he thought the proposed inquiry exceedingly opportune, after the events of the late severe winter. He agreed with the hon. and learned Member who had last spoken that, in relying merely on the official accounts, the President of the Poor Law Board was depending on a source of knowledge which in this case was to a certain extent defective, as it underrated the extreme misery which the inhabitants of the Metropolis had undergone. On the other hand, he was ready to believe that the great bulk of the suffering, as well as the break-down of the machinery of the Poor Law, had been confined to the Metropolis. In saying this it was not his wish to cast the slightest slur either on the right hon. Gentleman himself or the Department which he represented, for he believed that it exercised a most salutary influence on the management of a great national interest, and that, but for the existence of that Department, the evils of which they had now to com-

  231
  plain would be enormously increased. The blame of the break-down in the Metropolis, be far as any evidence was before them, was to be attributed, not to the Central Department, but to the parochial authorities. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken, he would not say with contempt, but with something like condemnation of the unreflecting manner in which benevolent and philanthropic persons had poured forth their money to relieve the distress which prevailed. If, instead of simply consulting the official accounts, the right hon. Gentleman had looked at what appeared in the newspapers, and had remembered the effect which those accounts must produce on those benevolent persons whose eyes they met, he must have admitted that there was strong cause for the exercise of a most liberal bounty. The right hon. Gentleman had told them of 23,000 additional persons who were relieved in one week—he presumed in January. But the distress did not begin in January, it commenced in the middle of December, the accounts for which month were before the House, and it appeared that less persons were relieved, indoor and outdoor cases included, than in the corresponding weeks of 1858, when, it would be remembered, the weather was remarkably mild. The fact was that at this time applicants were not flowing into the police courts, and the sensation which agitated London was not felt till after the cold had lasted for a fortnight. Then indiscriminate relief commenced, and the evils followed which he readily acknowledged were always attendant upon it. Then, too, it was possible that the workhouses were frightened into opening their doors, and the guardians might have become somewhat more liberal than they previously were. But the point to which he wished to draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention was the account which the newspapers gave of the way that the parochial authorities administered relief. The theory of English law was that nobody should be allowed to starve in the streets, and if it were generally believed that the theory would be acted up to, and that, come what might, nobody would be allowed to starve in the streets, little would be heard of indiscriminate charity. It was only the belief that the thing was a delusion which induced people to part with their money in order to prevent so terrible and disgraceful an occurrence. There was always a difficulty in proving a statement in the House; if but few facts
  232
  were adduced in support of it they were probably held to be insufficient, while if many were quoted they were apt to be tedious. But, with the permission of the House, he would read what the magistrates and the reporters said in one or two instances with respect to the conduct of the Poor Law authorities. The first instance he would take was from Worship Street Police Office:—
  "The magistrates' aid is so frequently entreated at this court by paupers of both sexes, who complain that without it they cannot obtain admission to the workhouse, or else are relieved in such a manner as virtually to amount to a refusal, that it really appears as if the police court were being converted into a branch office of the workhouse, through which it is necessary to pass before gaining admission to the latter. One poor woman made two applications to the magistrate. On the first she said she had applied for admission to at Shoreditch workhouse, but instead of taking her in they told her she must go before the Board. But the Board did not sit for several days, she had no homo of any kind, no subsistence, the weather was very severe, and how was she to live and get lodged until the board day came round? But when the board day was past the poor woman was not disposed of, for she again came into court in very much the same condition, and stated that on going before the Board one of the members told her that she was capable of helping herself, and, refusing to admit her, they only gave her an order for a loaf and a shilling a week."
  In a great many cases he was afraid the relief given at workhouses was confined to this loaf and shilling a week. It was evident that in London, especially during such weather as prevailed at the period, relief of that nature was perfectly illusory. On another day the remark occurred:—
  "Scarcely a day passes at this court without one or more paupers coming up to complain of being refused either relief or the workhouse, and yesterday furnished another instance."
  These, it was true, were merely the remarks of the reporters, and he did not allege that they were infallible. They might have been mistaken, but these statements accounted very naturally for the sensation which the public experienced when such tidings made their way into the newspapers. When no contradiction was attempted by the parochial authorities it was but reasonable that people should no longer trust to the Poor Law, which seemed to have abdicated its functions. In another case at Westminster, "a poor attenuated lad, 17 or 18 years of age," applied to Mr. Paynter, declaring that he was without a home and perfectly destitute, and that he had been some hours at the workhouse of St. Margaret's, York Street, Westminster, where they would do nothing for him. The report proceeded:—

  233
  "Mr. Paynter:—It's shameful. Go to the parish, and tell them from me, it is at their peril to keep you out. It is perfectly intolerable these constant complaints against this parish."
  That was not an isolated instance, for the language of the magistrate showed that such cases were common, and that the neglect of the workhouse authorities was notorious. He would trouble the House with but one instance more. It occurred during last year, but it was important as showing the frequency of these cases. In November, 1859, George Thompson was charged before Mr. Corrie with breaking two panes of glass at St. Pancras' Workhouse. "I was starving," he said, "and could hardly move when I was refused admission; and then I broke the windows." The workhouse porter was called and said, "The Board have determined to put a stop to the taking in of men. A great number apply for admission," This, if true, was illegal on the part of the Board, and was an absolute denial of the principle recognized by the law, that every man had a right to be saved by the rates from starvation. On the same occasion the master of the workhouse said there was an order that no able-bodied man should be admitted, as there had been a run lately upon the parish, and the other evening there had been forty able-bodied men in the house. When accounts like these appeared in the public papers, and when no attempt was made to explain or palliate them, it was natural that the benevolent people of London should feel an absolute necessity no longer to trust to a merely illusory law, but to relieve with their own hands the destitution which theoretically was supposed to be relieved by the ratepayers. It was high time to put a stop to such a state of things, and to examine into the management of these workhouses. He believed that nobody unconnected with the Metropolis would assert with the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. James) that it was the Poor Law Board who prevented the parish authorities in London from displaying greater liberality towards the poor. On the contrary, he believed it would be admitted that it was the Poor Law Board which was involved in continual contests with the metropolitan unions for the purpose of making them do their duty by the poor. He would next call the attention of the House to two or three instances of neglect of duty on the part of the metropolitan unions, but before doing so he wished to remark that the neglect of duty
  234
  by these unions was rapidly bringing back the state of things to obviate which the new Poor Law was passed. That law was thought desirable, mainly because indiscriminate relief was pauperizing and demoralizing the community. Now, as soon as the wealthy were convinced—as they soon would be—that, in London at least, the poor obtained no adequate relief from the rates, pauperization and demoralization would begin again. This was the second or third winter during which there had been eloquent appeals from the press, and enormous collections had been made for the poor. Such appeals did not depend on the severity of the weather, because in previous cases they had a comparatively mild winter; but it was becoming habitual to call on the wealthy to do that which the law provided should be done by others. Nor was it alone in the actual administration of relief that these unions neglected their duty. He had drawn up a chronology of the battles between the Poor Law Board and the metropolitan workhouses. He would only go back five years. In 1855 the Board was contending with the Mary-lebone Workhouse authorities because they refused to dismiss a master for frightfully ill-treating the female paupers. In 1856 there was a battle with St. Pancras about the awful condition of the casual wards in the workhouses there. So awful, indeed, was their condition, that it was found necessary to employ Dr. Bence Jones as a temporary inspector, and his Report, which had been presented to Parliament, contained many interesting comments on that active benevolence which they were told had been so hindered by the Poor Law Board. Amongst others were the following passages:—
  "The bad arrangements which exist at St. Pancras Workhouse in relation to the system of outdoor relief ought not to be endured. Before eight o'clock on a wet morning I counted nearly 30 people standing in the street before a locked gate. No one was allowed to find shelter from the wet by admission until nine, by which hour, I was told, above 100 persons would be there. None were admitted after two. Sometimes the admissions amount to 900; sometimes only 300. They pass into a floor which is partly below the level of the ground, and which is divided into pens, to prevent accidents from the strong crowding to the overseers' room for outdoor relief. At one o'clock, another day, stepping over some urine. I passed through three pens which were crowded, some with men and some with women, and some of these had children in their arms. The offensive-ness was extreme. I saw one sickly woman who had just been brought out to the women's receiving ward, having fainted from want and from the

  235
  offensive smell of the place. The medical men stated to me that two or three times weekly they were called to similar cases, chiefly among the women; sometimes among the men. Fresh air was the chief remedy. At half-past five o'clock I passed again through the pens; still very many remained; at least 150. They had had no food all day, and many loudly stated that they should not get any until seven o'clock. I was told that the want of air was so great that the windows were not unfrequently broken. The relieving officer, Mr. Birchmore, said that the same applicant frequently came twice, or even, more rarely, thrice in the week; that all are relieved—sometimes by half-past five, sometimes not till eight p.m.; that the ventilation used to be so bad that his predecessor died from the foul air, I believe of typhus fever caught here; that even now, when he thinks everything that can be done for the place has been done, still the foul air passing through the door by which the poor enter the office has made him and others ill; that they feel the effect of the bad air; that it is so bad that the directors are unwilling to come down into the office; that he has had many scores of the poor brought into the office having fainted from the atmosphere and the crowding, but that such cases are fewer lately than they used to be. That the poor often give up their tickets of admission, and go away without relief, in consequence of the air and the crowding."
  In another part of his report Dr. Jones referred to the "cellars for out-door relief as being the worst parts of the workhouse, and added—
  "It is fortunate that death has not taken place among the poor in these cellars. That disease and death has come out of them is certain; and although everything that can be done has been done, I know no word more suited to them than 'horrible.'"
  The directors were frightened by this report, and wrote to the Poor Law Board that they were putting the House into order as fast as they could. Time passed, and the thing was almost forgotten; but the repentance of the local authorities was as short-lived and resulted as such repentance usually was. The Board wanted to send down an inspector to see that the accommodation in the House was what it ought to be; but he was refused admission, and was not allowed to examine the interior. The result was another contest in the Court of Queen's Bench, and the Poor Law Board had to obtain a mandamus. In the parishes of St. James and St. Pancras there had been fights about the appointment of auditors, and the dreadful state of the metropolitan workhouses had been confirmed by an impartial authority, Mr. Selfe, the Thames Police magistrate, who was reported to have said—
  "A most disgraceful and painful state of things existed in Wapping Workhouse, and there was a heavy amount of blame attaching to some per-
  236
  sons. It was shocking that such a state of things should exist in a civilized country in the 19th century. In the Stepney Union, which contained 54,000 inhabitants and upwards, and comprising the parishes of Limehouse, Ratcliffe, Shadwell, and Wapping, there was only one place for female paupers. There was no classification, no proper regulation; the good and the bad, women who had committed adultery or carried on an illicit intercourse with men, and decent married women, who had been reduced by adversity to poverty, were all intermingled. There had been continual brawls in the workhouse, and the most disreputable scenes had taken place there. All were huddled together—lunatics with the sane. The house could not be well governed or there would not be so many rows and fights as there had been. It was a great shame that the respectable poor could not go into a workhouse without being forced to associate with vile and disorderly people and lunatics, like those before him."
  These facts he (Lord R. Cecil) submitted were sufficient to show that there was at least a case for inquiry, not into the conduct of the Poor Law Board, but into the parochial management of the metropolitan workhouses. Parliament was bound to ascertain whether persons who had so greatly misused their authority, should be intrusted with the large measure of discretion which they had heretofore enjoyed. At all events, it was time that some more speedy redress should be given to the destitute poor. Magistrates should be empowered to enforce a penalty, unless the relieving officers could show that in the cases they were charged with neglecting the persons calling themselves destitute had other means of support. Above all, he trusted the result of the labours of the Committee would be to give the Poor Law Board greater power of interfering summarily with the management of the workhouses in this Metropolis.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he felt some satisfaction in hearing this subject brought under the notice of the House. When, three years ago, he introduced it, he was met with the opposition which was generally given to any attempt to alter the Poor Laws. He was sorry to say that a great many Gentlemen, who were always ready to express the greatest sympathy with the poor, and more especially with the poor as brought into connection with the administration of the Poor Law, were seldom found willing to give practical effect to their sympathy in the shape of an endeavour to amend the law itself. The moment an attempt was made to pass from general sympathy to the serious question of how the administration of the Poor Law was to be improved—what steps were to

  237
  be taken to render it efficient—there was, invariably, an objection of some kind or other; and the result was, that no really useful steps had been taken in that direction for the last twenty-five years. Seeing this, one was forced to the painful conclusion that the real reason of that opposition and that non-amendment was, that the changes which were necessary might have a serious effect on the pecuniary interests of the great territorial aristocracy of this country—an effect which would be felt on the wealthy within the limits of the Metropolis as well as on persons of that class who had no direct connection with the City. This question was, in fact, one between a great mass of the people and a numerically small proportion of the population; but the latter, though numerically small, were so influential that his right hon. Friend the President of the Poor Law Board, like every other Minister of the Crown, could not—he was about to say dare not—meet the real issue. He would remind the House of the state of things which existed before the present Poor Law Act was passed. At the time to which he referred, there was a totally irresponsible system of relief administered in every parish. It was administered by an overseer who was irresponsible, except so far as being under the control of the justices of the peace, who, in their turn, were totally irresponsible. The overseer was a mere parochial officer. He was often an ignorant man—so much so that there were instances of persons filling the office who could neither read nor write. So long as his accounts were presented in legal form he was safe; and the justices usually exercised their authority in respect of the administration of relief with but little judgment. The Poor Law substituted a Union Board, elected by the ratepayers; and the members of this Board were placed on a very different footing, and felt a responsibility that had been unknown to the overseers. That had a tendency to introduce a better class of persons into the administration of the law. The measure also gave the advantage of stipendiary officers, who examined into the applications for relief, and administered the whole system with judgment and discretion. But that was only a part of the intention and scope of the Poor Law. The main object of the Act was to establish unions of a larger than parochial area, for the purposes of Poor Law relief; but it was felt by the Government of the day,
  238
  that a measure carrying out that principle in its entirety would bring against them the opposition of the territorial party; and, therefore, instead of carrying out the improvement to the full, the Act contained a provision that it should be optional with the parishes to constitute themselves areas for all purposes of administration, but any one parish in a proposed union could oppose the contemplated change; so that that very necessary part of the law which contemplated enlarged areas had never been carried into effect. That change was at the bottom of the whole question. It was said that the change was for the benefit of the pauper, and it was enacted that a pauper should be relieved, wherever he had resided for a period of five years. But the real question was, who should pay for the relief? The five years' residence provision benefited one set of ratepayers at the expense of another; because, if a person had an estate conterminous with a parish, he might secure himself from a due contribution of poor rates, by taking care that people who were likely to become chargeable should not remain on his estate for five consecutive years. He had only to take care that they must not reside in his parish for that period; and if he did so, he would not be liable under the Poor Law to contribute one farthing for the relief of the poor; so that the richer a man was—the larger his estate—the less he might have to pay. This state of things was peculiarly applicable to the Metropolis. The poor of London were not, properly speaking, the poor of any particular parish. It was idle to say that the man who lived in one street had no claim for relief in another. If a man fell sick, he had, in justice, no more claim on one street than on another; yet an imaginary line of demarcation was kept up between the two streets in the same City. The consequence was that the poor were to be found in one nucleus, and the rich in another. The noble Lord (Lord Robert Cecil) had expressed sympathy with the poor; but, perhaps, he was not aware of the fact that there were ratepayers who had to pledge their goods in order to pay poor rates, while there were rich people at the west-end of the town rejoicing at the small sums that they had to contribute to the rates. The great evil was this—that the area of charge was capricious and arbitrary, arising from the fact that when England was divided into parishes for ecclesiastical purposes, certain areas had

  239
  to be selected round the church. Those ecclesiastical divisions had no relation to the administration of poor relief, and they ought, as had been contemplated by the Poor Law Act, to be replaced by union areas. A system ought to be put in operation under which gentlemen of wealth, education, and leisure might take a part in the administration of the Poor Law, instead of confining themselves to the expression of mere barren sympathy. But is long as the Poor Law Board remained there would never be a good administration of the Poor Law itself. The Commission was established for a temporary purpose—to facilitate the changes that were introduced. But it was never intended that the new Poor Law should remain in its first defective form, and if the law were now properly framed, he believed the local boards, constituted as they would be, and having a full sense of their responsibility, would be amply sufficient for the administration of the system, and there would be no necessity for supervision by a Central Board in London. He hoped the Committee would come to this conclusion,—let the law be made as perfect as possible, and let the local boards have sufficient powers; it would then be unnecessary to keep up the large central establishment maintained under the present system.
  SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFEsaid, he did not think the subjects referred to the Committee would meet the whole case. It was evident that public opinion was in favour of an inquiry into the operation of the Poor Law itself, as well as into its administration. The hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) had expressed a wish that the terms of the reference should be extended; at present they were confined only to the administration of the law. His own opinion was that the operation of the law needed investigation, even more than its administration. The law, as it affected the removability of the chargeable poor especially, had been left in a very anomalous condition, and much blame attached to the Poor Law Board for not having amended it long ago. The operation of the law of non-removability after five years residence, was, to a certain extent, humane; it was originally intended to be so; but as now administered it became harsh and oppressive. In his experience as a magistrate he found that a great number of the orders of removal applied for, were in the cases of persons
  240
  who had lived four years or upwards in a parish. Then the guardians, fearing that they would become chargeable, endeavoured to get rid of them by removing them into another parish, or to the parish of their last legal settlement. And they generally came under the operation of the law, when they or their wives were sick, or when they had large families; it then became the interest of the Poor Law Guardians to remove them. They were at the mercy of the guardians because the right was acquired by a parochial residence of five years; but if the right of settlement were given for a whole union, it would be very difficult to deprive the poor of it. He hoped the operation of this law would come under inquiry. He could not agree with the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets, that there would never be a good Poor Law as long as the Poor Law Commission existed. On the contrary, he thought the country was indebted to the Commissioners for many humane alterations and applications of the Poor Law. Particularly was that the case in the Metropolitan districts. The Board having established district schools in the country for pauper children, who were now removed from the workhouses, where the mortality among the young children used to be very great. That provision had operated very humanely, and at the same time with great benefit to the community. He wished to see a similar principle in operation for the able-bodied female paupers. The able-bodied women's wards of a union-house could only be kept in order by the discipline of a prison, and were quite unfit for the reception of young persons, or the old and disabled. He thought that the principle of the district schools might be extended with the very best results to the establishment of asylums or houses of industry for the more refractory and disreputable poor, especially among the females, so that the workhouse itself might be, as it was intended it should be—a home for the afflicted and destitute who were well-conducted.
  ALDERMAN SIDNEYsaid, he also joined in the hope that the powers of the Committee would be extended. Great dissatisfaction was growing up in parts of the Metropolis at the unequal pressure of the poor rates. In many of the poor parishes in London, the rates were constantly rising, while in the richer parishes they as constantly decreased. This was at the root of many evils of which they heard loud

  241
  complaints. It was a principal reason why the poor could not find any habitations in which they could exist in decency and comfort. They were compelled to herd together in lodgings and inferior dwellings. The result of the present system of rating was, that those who were very poor were heavily taxed for the support of those who were paupers. As an illustration of the inequality of the rating, he would take the decennial return of the rates in two London parishes. The first was the parish of St. George's, Hanover-square; there, the poor rate in 1832 was 2s. 6d. in the pound; in 1842 it was 1s. 4d.; and in 1852, 5d. in the pound. The other parish was St. Anne's, Blackfriars; there, the poor rate in 1832 was 2s. 8d. in the pound; in 1842 it was 3s. 4d.; and in 1852 it was 5s. in the pound. The poor rate had been called a tax on property; what would be thought of the property-tax throughout the country if it was as unequally levied? It would be thought intolerable if the property tax in some parishes was 5d. or 10 d. in the pound and in others 5s. Nor was London the only place where this inequality existed. He had in his hand returns from all the unions and parishes in all the counties of England, and from those he would quote two or three examples. In Bedfordshire, in the highest rated parish the rate was 4s. 1¼d.; in the lowest rated 2¾d; in Berkshire, the highest rate was 2s. 8¾d; in the lowest 1d.; in Somersetshire the highest rate was 7s. 3¾d.; the lowest ¼d. It was said there was not much agitation in the country on this question. The cause of this was that when one parish complained of the injustice of having to pay high rates another stepped forward to support the existing system because it paid low rates. There was a growing feeling of dissatisfaction in the country with the present system, and means were being taken to bring the question before the great mass of the poor themselves. He believed that unless the proposed Committee were empowered to inquire into the law of settlement, the removability of the poor, and the inequality of the taxation for the relief of the poor, their labours would not be attended with the success that was desirable. During the pressure of the late distress, the alternative of the workhouse or the stoneyard was offered to the destitute poor who were out of employment; but rather than break up their homes they chose to go about asking relief from their more fortunate neighbours. A
  242
  more frightful state of things he never saw. If the frost had continued a little longer there would have been a fearful amount of agrarian outrages. He had no hesitation in saying that at such times boards of guardians ought to have had ample power to provide additional relieving officers to meet any amount of distress, and such a test as the workhouse or the stoneyard ought not to have been applied to starving men. He hoped the Government would consent to the inquiry being extended to the general operation of the Poor Law.
  MR. BARROWsaid, he would not enter into the question of the real state of the Poor Law, as he did not think it was desirable to discuss it at the present moment. He rose to suggest that the inquiry of the Committee should be extended to the operation of the law; and he would propose that instead of the words, "pursuant to the provisions of the Poor Law Amendment Acts," the words should be, "and the operation of the provisions of the Poor Law Amendment Acts." The country was anxious that there should be an inquiry into the operation of the Poor Law, and he hoped the Government would consent to adopt his proposition.
  LORD FERMOYsaid, he rose to tender his thanks to his right hon. Friend for having at so early a period of the Session, redeemed the pledge which he gave at the end of the last. He did not think, however, that the Committee would arrive at any good result if the order of reference was widened. He did not say that inquiry into the entire operation of the Poor Law was not desirable, but the questions of law and administration should not be mixed up together. He was one of those who pressed on his right hon. Friend the importance of an inquiry into this subject; and it was very curious that he should have done so at the instigation of the large body of men whom the noble Lord had attacked to-night. It happened that in the very district of St. Pancras the Poor Law guardians, whom the noble Lord had accused of being so hardhearted and unjust, were, of all his constituents, the body who were most anxious that the question should be investigated. He would put it to the noble Lord (Lord R. Cecil) whether it was likely that the ex parte statements which he had brought forward could be proved against men who called so anxiously for inquiry. No class of men were, in his experience, more careless of the feelings of other men than philanthropists. When a philanthropist prepared to do anything,

  243
  they might be sure he would tread on somebody's toes. When the noble Lord made up his mind to attack men who were doing their best to administer a law that was notoriously very difficult to administer, he ought, in fairness, to give notice of his intention to them or to their friends. He believed the Guardians of St. Pancras had done all that was in their power to relieve the distress that had existed; but it must be borne in mind that the number of paupers thrown suddenly upon their hands was very great. In a place like the Metropolis, where so many people depended on precarious incomes, there would be periods when pauperism would become so great all of a sudden that any laws they could make for relieving it would break down. The right hon. Gentleman had been, he thought, rather severe upon the charitable persons who had afforded voluntary relief during the late pressure. It was very well to say that the authorities should be able to relieve all the poor according to strict rule, but the thing was impossible. No law could be framed that would meet all the emergencies of an occasional pressure. He hoped the Committee would be limited in its inquiry into the simple fact whether the central authority was carrying out the existing law to the best advantage of both the ratepayers and the poor.
  MR. DEEDESsaid, he had hoped that one of the colleagues of the right hon. Gentleman would have risen before this time to signify his readiness to attend to the suggestion made by his hon. Friend the Member for Petersfield (SIR William Jolliffe) and to enlarge in some small degree the terms of his Motion. He had based that hope on two reasons—first, on the candid statement which the right hon. Gentleman had made to the House of his desire that everything connected with the administration of the Poor Law should undergo revision; and secondly, because the operation of the law appeared inseparable from the consideration of the subject which the Committee were to inquire into. Another reason for his entertaining that hope was that a strong desire existed thoroughout the country at large that the inquiry should be made. He differed, indeed, from the noble Lord the Member for Stamford (Lord Robert Cecil) that it would either necessary or advisable to limit this inquiry exclusively to the operation of the existing Poor Laws. But if such an inquiry were properly conducted it would show two things—first, how the existing
  244
  law operated, whether prejudicially or beneficially, and that, too, to the ratepayers as well as to those who received relief; and in the second place, how the law as it did exist was administered by those to whom that great charge was entrusted. The right hon. Gentleman alluded to the part which he (Mr. Deedes) took on the question last Session, and spoke of him as one that had been in favour of the Poor Law at its first introduction, but that he had since changed his opinion. Now, the immediate object which he had last year was this. The question was whether the Poor Law should be continued for five years or for one year. He was against five years, because he wanted inquiry at once; and he was very glad he took the part he did, because that night it had been admitted on all hands that the public mind ought as soon as possible to be set at rest on the question. But he objected to one year, because the inquiry could not possibly be completed in that time. It would have been hurried, and necessarily incomplete, and, therefore, he was in favour of the intermediate term of three years. His object was that the subject should be considered in all its branches—whether the system now in force in the country was such that it ought to be continued, or whether it might be modified and altered in such a way as to render it more efficient and palatable to the country. On the other hand, if it could be shown that the existing law was in any way defective, then an alteration would speedily follow. He must own he was somewhat afraid of a return to that system of indiscriminate charity which had lately been manifested—he said it with all admiration for the noble liberality which the inhabitants of the Metropolis had shown, but unless great caution were shown in the mode of its administration they would go far to demoralise the recipients, and do away with all independence of feeling on the part of the poor. He would suggest the introduction of three or four words, so that the Motion might run somewhat in this way:—"A Select Committee to Inquire into the Operation, of the existing Poor Law, and into its Administration of the Belief of the Poor."
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he believed it was the wish of his right hon. Friend to collect the opinions of the House before anything should be said as to the adoption of the Amendment which the hon. Gentlemen the Member for Kent (Mr. Deedes) had proposed. The

  245
  terms of reference followed very closely those of the Committee which sat some years before, and was known as Mr. Walter's Committee, the object of which was to inquire into the order issued by the Poor Law Board as to the prohibition of out door relief. That order created great resistance on the part of many rural districts, and the terms of reference were framed so as to limit the inquiries of the Committee to the orders of the Poor Law Commissioners. Hon. Gentlemen who would read the terms of reference would see that it would not be competent for them to travel out of the orders of the Poor Law Commissioners—it would not be competent for them to inquire into the operation of any statute relating to the relief of the poor. There were, however, many statutes relating to the relief of the poor, which appeared to him very proper matters of inquiry at present. It was not the object of his right hon. Friend to restrict or narrow the inquiries of the Committee. It might be presumed that the Committee would not travel unnecessarily out of its way into matters which were not of special interest, but the Amendment suggested would give them a latitude which might be very useful. Therefore he would beg leave to move that after the words "Poor Law Amendment Act" be added, "and into the operation of the laws relating to the relief of the poor."
  Amendment proposed.
  MR. LOCKEsaid, that it was gratifying to him to find that the Amendment should have been suggested by an hon. Member (Mr. Deedes) who so well understood the question of the Poor Laws, and it was gratifying to him also to feel that under the terms of the reference the Committee would have power to consider a question which at that moment was of so much importance in the metropolis, namely, the equalization of the Poor Laws. If the whole question was not to be considered, they would be only adding difficulties, and unnecessarily adding them to a subject which had been full of difficulties for so many years. During the last Session there had been a Committee to enquire into the question of the irremovability of the poor, and that, with questions about Irish paupers, was the only matter inquired into. Let it now, however, be distinctly understood, that the Committee might take a wide field and inquire into the whole question. He had been happy to hear two or three days previous an expression of
  246
  opinion from the right hon. Gentleman, the Home Secretary, that he was pleased to find that the guardians of the different parishes in London were in favour of the abolition of the law of settlement altogether, although at the same time the right hon. Gentleman could not accede to the proposition of an universal and uniform law of rating. But if the law of settlement were once abolished, there must be at least an approximation in the rating of the different parishes. Now the question, was, whether the present law of settlement should be maintained, and, supposing it were to be abolished, how the rating should be adjusted throughout the country? He was happy to find that the whole of the question, without any restrictions whatever, would go to the Committee; and there a full opportunity would be afforded of discussing what amendments ought to be made in the administration of the Poor Law.
  MR. ANGERSTEINsaid, he thought the question which the Committee would have to consider would be quite large enough without going into the subject of the equalization of the poor rate, which was of sufficient importance to give plenty of work to any Committee which might be appointed to consider it. He agreed that it was very desirable that there should be the fullest inquiry into the administration of the Poor Laws. The question was one more of saving life than of saving the pocket. He was quite certain that, in the late pressure, there would have been a great number of premature deaths, if the public had not nobly answered the appeals made to them. One point for inquiry by the Committee should certainly be whether it was not advisable to give power to guardians, in times of pressure like that which we had just passed through, to find assistance for relieving officers in finding out and relieving cases of real destitution.
  MR. LYALLsaid, there was a question which had not been touched in the course of the discussion, though it was one of considerable importance. He referred to the condition of pauper schools. Some unions had erected schools for children, and gave them a really sound and valuable education away from the workhouse altogether; but there were others where the children were brought up within the walls of the workhouse, subject to all the moral contamination of such an atmosphere. An education in such a place could serve no good effect, and the consequence was that the children, both boys and girls, became,

  247
  in many instances, permanent charges on the poor rates, and too often a curse to the community at large. He hoped that question would be taken up by the Committee.
  Question, "That those words be there added "put, and agreed to.
  Ordered,—
  "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the Administration of the Relief of the Poor, under the Orders, Rules, and Regulations issued by the Poor Law Commissioners and the Poor Law Board, pursuant to the provisions of the Poor Law Amendment Acts, and into the operation of the Laws relating to the Relief of the Poor."

GLOUCESTER CITY AND WAKEFIELD WRITS.—NOTICE.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he rose to move that no Motion for the issuing of any new writ for the City of Gloucester or the Borough of Wakefield be made without seven days previous notice thereof being given in the Votes.
LORD ROBERT CECILsaid, he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman if it was his intention to introduce any measure upon the subject of these two boroughs.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, that he had stated on a previous occasion that it was the intention of Government to introduce a measure founded upon the Report of the Committee of last Session on the Corrupt Practices Act. That Report contained recommendations with respect to the mode of dealing with the reports of Bribery Commissions issued by the House, but whether these recommendations ought to have a retrospective effect or not would be a question for the House to decide when the Bill was before it.
The Resolution was then agreed to.
Ordered.—
"That no motion for the issuing of any New Writs for the City of Gloucester or Borough of Wakefield be made without seven days' previous Notice thereof be given in the Votes."

MOTION FOR SUPPLY.
Committee on Motion, "That a Supply be granted to Her Majesty."
Queen's Speech referred.
Motion considered.
(In Committee.)
Queen's Speech read.
Resolved, "That a Supply he granted to Her Majesty."
Resolution to be reported on Monday next.

RED SEA AND INDIA TELEGRAPH COMPANY.—RESOLUTION MOVED.

  COMMITTEE.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERmoved that the House go into Committee.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid he had to complain that the Committee were about to discuss a Resolution, of the terms of which they were wholly ignorant. Why should not a preliminary notice be given, as in other cases, of the precise nature of the Resolution about to be proposed?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid that he was in the hands of the House. The Resolution was prepared, and he, for one, fully expected to see it on the Votes that morning. The Resolution was in close conformity with the notice given on the Votes.
  House in Committee: MR. MASSEY in the Chair.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I will not trouble the House with any lengthened statement, because, although a great deal may be said upon the various matters connected with the subject, the immediate point before us, although important, is a narrow one. I will not say anything as to the merits, the wisdom, or otherwise of the agreement that is under consideration, nor will I enter upon two other matters—both of great difficulty—one a contest between the Red Sea Telegraph Company and the contractors; and, secondly, the course that may have been ultimately taken with regard to this unfortunate line. All this is excluded from our present view, and we are now not to consider any matter of policy, but simply a question of good faith, to which I shall accordingly limit myself in the strictest manner. An agreement was made between the Treasury and the Red Sea Telegraph Company in the year 1859, and a Bill was brought into Parliament in the Session of the same year to give effect to that agreement. The nature of the agreement was understood by the public in a particular sense, and about that sense there can be no doubt. It was understood that by that agreement the Government guaranteed to the Red Sea Telegraph Company a minimum dividend, sinking fund included, of £4 10 s. upon a certain maximum amount of capital during a term of fifty years; and although it was stated in the House of Lords by the noble Earl then at the head of the Government

  249
  that this was a conditional guarantee, yet I apprehend the sense in which he used the term was that this was a guarantee conditional and contingent on the execution of the work, and on its being brought into working order. But now I come to speak, not of what was said in the House of Lords, which, I believe, passed without record of any kind, but of what was understood by the public and those who subscribed their money. In the first place, then, what was this understanding? and; secondly, were they justified in entertaining it? The understanding was that the contract was unconditional in one respect, and that, according to the intent and meaning of the agreement, all that the Company had to do was to raise the capital and lay down their line, and then they were not liable to be prejudiced in respect to this guarantee by any subsequent failure of the line to perform its functions. It is undoubtedly true that when that agreement was entered into it was thought by all parties, that the main difficulty consisted in the laying down of the line, and it was conceived that after a submarine telegraph wire had once been laid down a failure was not to be apprehended. The case, therefore, which has occurred was not distinctly in the contemplation of the j parties; and if this were a question I between private individuals I do not know that it might not be made the subject of argument and contest. But any Gentleman who will examine the course of the transaction between the Government and the Company will, I think, come to the conclusion that any subsequent failure of the line to perform its functions, although it was not in the contemplation of either party as a risk to be seriously guarded against, was intended to be borne by the Government; that is to say, although it was not distinctly and expressly so provided, yet the nature of the bargain was this—that the Company having done a certain work—having laid down the line in a proper state, were thereafter to be free from risk. The general facts connected with case are pretty well known. It is, I believe, unquestionable that on that understanding alone money was raised; and the responsibility of the Government in the case was a very peculiar responsibility, because two gentlemen were appointed official directors of the Company; their names were announced, they took part in the proceedings of the Company, and that was considered a conclusive guarantee on
  250
  the part of the Government to the public of the character and security of the undertaking. When I speak of the Government I speak of them in the discharge of their natural and proper functions. They concluded a contract subject to the assent of Parliament, and the assent of Parliament was regularly obtained for that purpose. The Bill passed the Commons in 1859; it did not contain the contract, although it sanctioned it. In the House of Lords attention was drawn to this fact by the noble Lord now the Postmaster General (Lord Stanley of Alderley), and the Bill was amended by having the contract set out in it. When the Bill came down to this House as amended, and the Motion was made to agree with the Lords' Amendments, my right hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Sir James Graham), observed that these Amendments brought for the first time under our view a very important instrument of which we had no cognizance, and he moved that the consideration of the Lords' Amendments should be delayed for a fortnight, in order that the House might become acquainted with the terms and character of the contract to which we were about to give a final assent. Most unfortunately, as I think, and as I thought at the time, the House on a division rejected by a considerable majority the Motion of my right hon. Friend. They were careful lest the slightest suspicion should be raised as to the maintenance of the public faith. Nothing could be more honourable than the motive; the effect was most unfortunate; for I do not at all doubt that if that contract had been subjected to the view and consideration of the Members of the House, by allowing a fortnight to elapse before the Lords' Amendments were considered, the blot in its formation would have been hit, and, to the great advantage of all parties, it would have been removed. The Amendments of the Lords, however, were accepted and the Bill became law. Under that law provisions were made for the payment of dividends during the construction and submergence of the line, and these have been paid to the present time. In the latter part of last year it occurred that in consequence of differences of opinion between the directors, the company, and the contractors, a reference was made to the Government, and the due construction of the contract was brought under the consideration of the law officers of the Crown. They reported, in very unhesitating terms,

  251
  that under the contract the Government were not bound to pay, and had no power to pay anything in the present circumstances and condition of the line. The first question, then, we had to consider was whether we were to avail ourselves of that state of the contract, or whether we should ask Parliament to amend the error in its construction, and pass a Bill which should give effect to the original understanding. Upon an examination of the evidence as to the original construction put upon the contract and the assurance given to the parties, and which they were originally justified in entertaining, we could not doubt but that our duty was to apply to Parliament, and that announcement was made to the Directors of the Company in an official letter, signed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bury (Mr. F. Peel), on the 28th of January. There was another question, of a more delicate and more difficult character, on which the Government also came to a decision as to their duty, and that was the question whether we should at the Treasury assent to certain preliminary steps necessary for the verification of a half-year's accounts, the consequence of which would be to give authority for the issuing of half a year's dividends. The money necessary for these dividends was voted by Parliament, but for the purpose of enabling us to fulfil what was then believed and what we still believe to be a contract. The deliberate opinion, however, of the legal advisers of the Crown, in cutting away from under our feet the contract itself, appeared to us, on the just understanding of our constitutional functions, likewise to cut away from under our feet all title to pay this dividend. We might, in a case where a great practical evil was to be apprehended if any lengthened course of time elapsed, have been justified in undertaking the responsibility of issuing the money, though I am not sure that difficulties might not have been interposed by the Comptroller of the Exchequer. Whether that was so or not, we certainly came to the conclusion that inasmuch as we should have the opportunity within the course of a few days of bringing the matter under the judgment of Parliament, and inasmuch as we should be compelled to do so as regarded the general validity of the contract, it would be but due to Parliament and the respect we were bound to pay to its authority that we should refer to it the whole subject in its entirety,
  252
  and that we should not reduce to an idle form the consideration of the Bill by proceeding at once to anticipate its judgment, and pay the dividends coming due; for they are not yet due, and it is even possible this measure may become law before the time has actually arrived. A Bill has been drawn for the purpose I have described, and re-establishing what we take to be the original contract. For ascertaining that understanding we have, on one hand, various documents that passed at an early period of the negotiations, and the evidence of various declarations in Parliament on record, both that of the late Secretary of the Treasury, and the still more authoritative declaration of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) who expressed his view of the nature of the contract in 1859, when the Motion to which I have referred was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle. The course we propose to take is this:—It is a matter of some nicety to determine the precise form in which an Act of this nature should be passed, because, although it is our duty to give effect to the original intention, it is certainly not our duty to do more. Our desire, therefore, is that the form of the Bill we propose should be narrowly canvassed by the House. I now submit a Resolution on the terms of which, if adopted, I propose to introduce a Bill. I will take the second reading of it on the earliest convenient day, and then I propose to refer the Bill itself to the consideration of a Select Committee for the examination of its provisions—not to go into the merits of the arrangement made, or into the question of what course it may be expedient to take with reference to this unhappy cable now submerged, and of which five out of six links are perfectly useless for all practical purposes; these may be proper subjects for inquiry, but not in connection with this Bill. The Committee will agree with me that the simple question of public faith should be kept distinct; the other questions will be more conveniently handled in a different form. With these explanations I beg to put into your hands the Resolution that it is expedient to guarantee to the Bed Sea and India Telegraph Company a minimum rate of dividend upon the amount of capital bonâ fide called up for the purpose of the said Company's undertaking.
  MR. DIVETTsaid, he could not agree with the right hon. Gentleman in the re-

  253
  marks which he had made as to the inexpediency of entering into the question of the merits, or, as he said, the wisdom, of this undertaking. On that subject he must be allowed to make a few observations. He was not, however, about to cast any blame on the Government. He thought the Government had been forced into the guarantee by circumstances beyond their control. There was an extraordinary clamour for this telegraph at the time. There was great anxiety in reference to affairs in the East, and the press took a strong view on the subject, but the difficulties of the case had not been duly considered. It was incumbent upon Parliament, seeing that a failure of the Atlantic Telegraph had taken place, to take care that a guarantee of the public money should not be given, for nothing could be more clear than that all deep sea cables were failures. The notion of carrying those cables through deep water and their working with success was a perfect delusion as a commercial speculation. He hoped that in future nothing of this sort of guarantee would be entered into without the fullest investigation by the Government. He admitted, however, that good faith required the present Bill should be passed as speedily as possible.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he did not believe that a more important question had ever been submitted to Parliament, as regarded the principle involved, than the one raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer on that occasion. It was undoubtedly true that a contract had been entered into, but there was another question connected with it, to which the right hon. Gentleman had made but a slight allusion, namely, how was the contract in any way guaranteed by Parliament? It was a question involving £1,500,000. He admitted that that fact was of no consequence if it were really a question of good faith. [THE CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: The sum was only £800,000.] Yes, but if the Government guaranteed the interest on that sum for fifty years it would bring the sum up to the amount he stated. The matter came before Parliament in the shape of a private Bill: and, what was still more remarkable, it was an unopposed Bill. Was there not something unsound in their system, when, as in the present case, they might be compelled to pay £1,500,000 for nothing? And yet it
  254
  was absolutely true that, with the exception of certain parties connected with the Government, the Members of the House generally knew nothing whatever about it. It passed as a private Bill, and went through the House without observation, the Chairman of Committees on the occasion being the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie). The measure passed in that way through the last Parliament, and it went up to the House of Lords, where it was suspended in its progress. When the present Parliament assembled the Bill came to that House in the shape of Amendments of the House of Lords for consideration, and he (Sir Henry Willoughby) was the person who called the attention of the House to the question. At the time the House knew nothing whatever as to what it was about. When he had put a question on the subject he received no answer. But the progress of the measure was impeded. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir James Graham) then took up the question and moved the postponement of the Lord's Amendments for a fortnight, in order to give time for a due consideration of the whole matter. Out of 307 Members then in the House 130 voted in the minority in favour of that proposition. Then, for the first time, the House became aware that it had saddled the public purse with this contingent charge; and now came the question, was it ever the intention of Parliament to give this unconditional guarantee? It was true a Resolution passed through the whole House, but in that nothing whatever was said of the extent of the guarantee. On the 14th of March that Resolution passed, fixing upon the country the burden of £36,000 a year for fifty years. Now, it was recommended in "another place," by the Earl of Derby, on March4th, that no unconditional guarantee should be given. It would now be seen that it was possible to saddle the public purse with an annuity of £36,000 a year for fifty years without obtaining one shilling advantage for the public, and almost without the knowledge of the House of Commons. The Contract Committee made a recommendation that should be borne in mind—that those matters should never be advanced unless a Resolution was placed on the Table of the House for a month beforehand, so that due inquiry might be made respecting them. Let them take the present ease for their information. He had

  255
  no doubt they would have to pay the money—indeed, he thought the extreme of good faith would require it; but at least they might learn a useful lesson from the fact. He, for one, adopted the recommendation of the Committee, and would religiously adhere to the advice they gave them, namely, to insist upon a Resolution being placed on the table one month previously, and then, if there was no action taken against it, it might be proceeded with with the sanction of Parliament and upon the responsibility of the Government. As the case, however, stood, he was persuaded that the Government could take no other course than to carry out the terms of the guarantee.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he wished to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Resolution to be submitted to the Committee was in terms that the Government should pay interest at 4½ per cent upon a certain sum under all circumstances. No doubt good faith would have to be kept with those with whom they contracted, but he did not understand that the Government should do more than the prospectus which the Government received stated. The hon. Member having referred to the terms of the prospectus, said there was no engagement to pay a dividend of 4½ per cent, but what the prospectus contemplated was that the Government should pay the subscribers their £800,000 and make the telegraph. That was the only alternative in case of failure, and that was a serious matter, because the working expenses of the Company were formidable, and the last half year published showed them to be larger than the income. Now, he believed, there was no income but expenses. He quite admitted that they were bound to act in good faith with the Company, whatever might be the construction of the contract.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, with reference to the duties which the Committee would have to discharge, he wished to ask whether it was proposed that the Committee should give an opinion upon the legal effect of the contract, because, if so, it would be better for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to act on the opinion of the law officers of the Crown than to have the matter discussed in that House. On the other hand, were the Committee to give an opinion upon the question whether the contract was conditional or unconditional? If so, that would admit of their receiving parol evidence upon the matter. If the Govern-
  256
  ment did not think that should be done, the safer course would be to take the Bill through the House in the usual way, and that the House should act under the authority of the responsible advisers of Crown.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, that in reply to the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) he wished to observe that in regard to the working expenses the Government would have the matter practically under their own control, because they had on the Board two officers directors, who would control the proceedings of the company, and prevent any unnecessary expenditure or charge being thrown upon the country. With regard to the penalty for the non-efficient conduct of the service, the Government might certainly take the line into their own hands; but there was no compulsory obligation to that effect. It was entirely optional for them to do so. He was not at the time this arrangement took place in the Treasury, and therefore was not cognizant of much that had taken place on the subject; but he had heard it was a proposed arrangement that if the company should fail the Government should be compelled to take the line. That proposition was, however, objected to, and therefore formed no part of the arrangement. In regard to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Evesham (Sir Henry Willoughby) as to the recommendation of the Committee last year, he apprehended that it would be impossible in future for any such bargain again to pass through the House without a distinct vote of the House had previously been come to. It should not be forgotten, at the same time, that the course pursued with regard to the Red Sea Telegraph Bill, though inconvenient enough, was not unusual, but that, on the contrary, it was the precise course which up to that time had been followed in all similar cases. Nor, he was sure, was there the smallest idea of deliberate concealment. Those who introduced the Bill had every reason to suppose that the terms of the contract would be made the subject of a rigid inquiry. There were seated at that time on the Opposition benches men of great intelligence and talent, who were perfectly well aware of the negotiations that had been in progress with the Red Sea Telegraph Company while they were themselves in office, and who knew that the Company had declined to undertake this service, except on the terms of an uncon-

  257
  ditional guarantee. He referred especially to the late Mr. Wilson, who had taken an especial interest in these negotiations, and who was not likely to allow any attempt to pass a measure of that sort unfairly through the House without exposing the proceeding. If, as had been stated, the law officers of the Crown had advised the Government that the contract was not binding upon them, he supposed there was no other course open to the Chancellor of the Exchequer than that which he had taken, though he could not himself see where the difficulty lay. Some surprise had been expressed that the Government had agreed to secure to the Telegraph Company a dividend of 4½ per cent, whether the line was kept in working order or not. It should be recollected, however, that it was shown by the correspondence laid before the House and in the evidence before the Packet Contract Committee that it was the deliberate intention of the Government of that day to enter into the contract by which they were to secure to the Company a dividend of 4½ per cent, whether the line was or was not successful. It was a matter which the Government decided ought to be made an exception to the general rule of giving only a conditional guarantee. It was a matter of great political interest and emergency at the time. The line was brought forward when the country was suffering under a double infliction. There was first the mutiny in India, which demanded the speediest communication with that country. There was next the monetary crisis in this kingdom, which rendered it most difficult to obtain money at a cheap rate. Again, it was to be remembered that it was the policy of the Government to lay these private enterprises under restrictions which impeded their commercial success, and gave them a claim to some compensating assistance. The policy of the Government was to prohibit English companies obtaining the monopoly of particular lines as was usually done by foreign Telegraphic Companies, and to demand certain rights in respect of the transmission of Government messages. It was not fair to require this without giving the Company some corresponding advantage. Those were the considerations in favour of this arrangement. The question now was one of good faith. He was glad there was no intention to throw the slightest doubt upon the good faith of the Government. Parties had in-
  258
  vested their money in the undertaking with great confidence. He believed trust money and money under marriage settlements had been invested in the undertaking on the faith of the Government guarantee. It would be most unfortunate if anything should give rise to the idea that beause an unintentional blunder had been committed it should be open to Parliament to consider the contract again upon its merits.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he was not disposed to charge the late Government with any concealment upon the subject of this contract. The Committee, however, was not called upon to go into a discussion of the prudence of the terms upon which the contract was arranged. The simple question they had to consider was, what was the understanding which existed between the parties, and which was ratified by Parliament. It would, undoubtedly, be the wish of the House to give effect to that understanding. Now, he confessed, having looked into the matter with some care, that he felt considerable doubt as to what the real understanding was with respect to the contingency which had arisen—namely, the entire failure of the line. It seemed to him that when the negotiations took place with the late Government, both parties assumed, as a matter of course, that the line once laid down, it would remain in working order, subject to only temporary interruptions. They accordingly entered into a guarantee that during any partial disturbance of the line, or any temporary want of funds on the part of the Company, a certain dividend should be paid to the subscribers; but he did not see any evidence in the papers that either party ever contemplated the contingency which had actually occurred. The contingency which had occurred, and the question the House had to consider was whether they were to pay 4½ per cent on these £800,000 for fifty years without the most remote prospect of any advantage to the public. As it was the desire of every hon. Member that the strictest good faith should be observed towards the shareholders, it would be satisfactory before the question was decided in Committee, or at any other stage of the Bill, that those persons connected with the late Government who were the principal parties in conducting this negotiation should give their assurance to the House that they understood that the contract as passed by Parliament did bind the country to the payment of

  259
  that dividend on that sum in the contingency which had actually occurred. If such an assurance were distinctly given the House would feel, however disadvantageous the contract might be to the nation, the utmost willingness to retain faith with the shareholders.
  MR. DISRAELIobserved that there were two kinds of guarantees in respect to these lines—the conditional guarantee and the unconditional guarantee. The conditional guarantee meant that a certain rate of interest for a certain amount of capital was secured to the Telegraph Company on the condition, first, that the line was laid; and next, that it was kept in working order. If the line were not kept in working order then the guarantee would of course lapse or be suspended. By the unconditional guarantee, however, the Government guaranteed a certain rate of interest on a certain capital, provided the line were laid, and, when laid, placed at once in working order, though not kept in working order. The only unconditional guarantee which was sanctioned by the late Government was this one of the Red Sea Telegraph. The line was laid, and it was first proposed that the guarantee should commence when the line had been ten days in complete working order after being laid down. The Government did not think that a sufficiently long time, and they inserted thirty days in the contract. The line having been completed and in working order for thirty days, the Government felt themselves engaged under the unconditional guarantee. What happened was certainly not contemplated. It was not supposed that on the 31st or 32nd day the machinery would fail; but it was perfectly clear that if the line was in successful operation for thirty days, the Government was entirely bound by the contract. The test which had been agreed upon had been successfully performed, and the case therefore came within the category of unconditional guarantees sanctioned by the Government. He agreed that the present was not the occasion on which to enter into the policy of these undertakings, though he was prepared to do so, were it necessary. He would only remark, in reference to an observation made by an hon. Member (Mr. Divett) who seemed to argue that, after the failure of the Atlantic cable, the Government should not have sanctioned such an operation as this, that the Government entered into the en-
  260
  gagement before the failure of the Atlantic cable.
  MR. EDWIN JAMESsaid, many of his constituents were deeply interested in the question, and had subscribed their money upon the security of the public faith, and on considerations which he thought would influence any gentleman of ordinary prudence. The prospectus was published under the sanction of eminent solicitors in the City, and bankers did not hesitate to advise their customers to subscribe to the undertaking. There could be no doubt that the public faith was pledged to the undertaking, and he could not see that the late Government ought to be taxed with any improvident proceeding. It was easy to find fault after a failure which no human sagacity could contemplate, but at the time the line was proposed it was extremely desirable to have telegraphic communication with India. He agreed with the hon. Member for Evesham, that this proceeding might operate as a warning against the House voting hastily in such, matters, but they had now to deal with parties out of doors, who had subscribed their money on the faith of the Government guarantee. He, however, did not see the necessity for the appointment of a Committee on the subject. Although the Bill was passed as a private Bill, the contract was published in the Estimates, and was therefore fully brought under the notice of the House.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he was glad that the Committee had had so clear a declaration from the right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire of the intention and understanding of the late Government with regard to the contract. He quite agreed with what had fallen from the hon. Baronet the Member for Evesham as to the dangerous practice of inserting money clauses, which made a charge on the Consolidated Fund, in private Bills; and, without presuming to pronounce an absolute opinion on the point, it nevertheless appeared to him well worth the consideration of the House of Commons whether it would not be proper to provide that no such charge should be imposed, except through the medium of a public Bill. The right hon. Member for Cambridge had asked what would be the functions of the Select Committee. He did not think, as he had already stated, that the functions of the Committee would be to enter into the policy or providence of the arrangement made; but the contract

  261
  was an instrument somewhat complex and very peculiar in its form, and it had been a matter of doubt what was the understanding on which the contract was adopted and the Act passed. These were matters which Government had examined for themselves, but the House did not act upon what the Government had done, and it was desirable that it should, by an organ of its own—a Select Committee—try these questions and verify the facts on which the Bill was founded. A Committee could, on the part of the House, very easily satisfy itself by the inspection of documents, and by the examination, perhaps, of a single witness, what was the understanding on which the contract was founded, and whether or not the terms of the Act carried out that understanding. With respect to the objection that the terms of the Resolution were not in conformity with the terms of the prospectus, he would remind him that a Resolution like this proposed in preliminary Committee rarely formed the exact measure of the enactment which was subsequently to follow, as the House could restrict, though they could not enlarge, the terms of the Resolution in its subsequent course. As to the Question whether, in the event of the working expenses of the Company not being defrayed by its receipts, the public of this country and the Indian Government jointly would be liable to be called upon to make good the deficit, the most consolatory answer he could give was, that the working expenses were brought within the discretion of the Government, and would be reduced within very narrow limits. According to the wording of the contract itself, he was afraid the working expenses, as well as the payment of the necessary advances, would have to be borne by this country in the event of the failure of certain resources mentioned in the instrument as originally drawn up. He was glad to find that there was a concurrence in the House, in regard to a question where public faith was involved, toward the side of what the right hon. Baronet called extreme public duty.
  MR. ARTHUR KINNAIRDexpressed his regret that the public credit seemed to have been somewhat tampered with by the course, with respect to the question, which had been, adopted.
  Motion agreed to.
  Resolved,—
  "That the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury be authorised to guarantee to the Red Sea and India Telegraph Company a minimum
  262
  dividend of four and a half per cent, per annum upon a certain amount of capital honk fide called up for the purpose of the said Company's undertaking."
  Resolution to be reported on Monday next.

POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANKS (CONSOLIDATED FUND).

  RESOLUTION.
  Post Office Savings Banks (Consolidated Fund) considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid he would take occasion to state that, in submitting the Resolution to the notice of the Committee, he did not seek to pledge hon. Members to an approval of either the principle or the details of the Bill which it was his intention to found upon it. The object which he had in view in dealing with the question was to afford facilities for the deposit of savings of small amount to those who did not possess them, or possessed them but imperfectly, under the present system of savings banks. The establishment of savings banks had undoubtedly been of immense service to the humbler classes throughout the country; but, while it was the wish of the Government so to improve their constitution as to render them still more advantageous, the mode of doing so was a problem which they found extremely difficult to solve. The main question, that of the liability of the trustees to the depositors, was one which had up to that time baffled the skill of those who had attempted to deal with it. Under those circumstances, they proposed to avail themselves of another description of machinery already inexistence, simple in form, and recommended by its incomparable convenience, for the purpose of carrying out more effectually the objects for which savings banks had been set on foot. Of those institutions there were only about 600 scattered throughout the country, and of that number but a small proportion were open for a sufficient number of hours in the week. Looking, however, to the Post Office Department, he found that it comprised between 2,000 and 3,000 money order offices; that the number of postmasters was perfectly adequate to the transaction of increased money business; that they held their situations under pecuniary responsibility, and that every one of their offices was open six days in the week for not less than eight or ten hours each day. Now, there was a machinery

  263
  ready to hand and admirably adapted for extending the usefulness of the savings bank system. The experience, he might add, of the present winter must have demonstrated to anybody who thought upon the subject that the resources of the labouring population of the country had not of late years increased in proportion to the increase in the rate of their wages and the improvement in their standard of living. A smaller proportion of their gross income was laid by at that moment than was laid by twenty years before. He did not, however, think he was indulging in too sanguine an expectation in supposing that if readier means of laying by their small savings were afforded them than they now possessed, those savings would become much larger in amount, and their ability to cope with periods of distress consequently greater. He did not, of course, intended to propose that the machinery of the Post Office should be applied at once and wholesale to the purpose of affording to the working classes the facilities of which he spoke. The scheme to which he was about to invite the assent of the Committee would, it was true, be worked though the agency of the Postmaster General and not that of the National Debt Commissioners, whose duty it would be simply to receive and hold the funds handed over to them by the Post Office for investment; but then the new arrangements would in no way interfere with the primary objects, for the attainment of which that important branch of the public service was established. He proposed that the Post Office should receive and return deposits with interest in the same way as money orders were now dealt with, charging merely a fair remunerative price for the work thus performed. He might further observe that the principle upon which his scheme was founded differed in some respects from that on which savings banks were based. Those institutions had been established with the notion that the State might very fairly offer to the labouring classes a certain premium by way of inducing them to make deposits; but, while he was far from desiring to cast any censure upon that principle, he did not deem it right in the present case to hold out to depositors the expectation of obtaining any high rate of interest. All, then, that he meant to do was to give a fair and moderate premium to the depositors of small savings, and that premium, he hoped to
  264
  be able to pay them without imposing any additional burden on the State, by turning to account the very extensive and extremely economical machinery of the Post Office. The rate of interest which was now paid on deposits in savings banks stood at the somewhat high rate of £3 5s. per cent, and he proposed that under the operation of the scheme to which he was asking the assent of the Committee it should be fixed at £2 10 s., with power to increase that amount within certain limits. Inasmuch as there were great difficulties in the way of dealing with the finances of savings banks and of attempting to alter their form of constitution, the Government proposed for the moment to pass over those difficulties, and to ask the assent of Parliament to a plan which, avoiding any competition with the existing savings banks, would greatly enlarge the facilities of making small deposits. The main difficulty in the present savings bank system was its imperfect organization in regard to the responsibility of the State. The State could only be responsible for the acts of its own officers, and as no plan had yet been devised by which the State could participate in all the proceedings of the savings banks, it was impossible to carry out the principle of a perfect Government guarantee. The State now only became responsible for the money of the depositors at the moment it received it from the savings banks' authorities. But as in this case the money would be received by the officers of the Government it would be inexcusable not to give a Government guarantee; and he proposed, therefore, to give a Government guarantee in the only effective technical form, by providing that if any difficulty arose in the means of meeting the demands of any lawful depositor it should be charged upon the Consolidated Fund. He hoped the notion of a Government guarantee would not cause any alarm in the minds of hon. Gentlemen, for he had expressly stated that the basis of this new arrangement was that it should be self-supporting. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving a Reso-lution:—
  "That it is expedient to charge upon the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland the deficiency, if any such should arise, in the sums which may be held on account of Post Office Savings, to meet the lawful demands of depositors in such Banks, in the event of their being established by law."
  MR. FRANK CROSSLEYsaid, he thought it was impossible to over-estimate

  265
  the advantages that would accrue to certain classes in the country from the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There were no less than fifteen counties in England without a savings bank. There were also many important towns containing a population of 10,000 to 30,000 without such a thing as a savings bank. Many of the savings banks in existence were only open about one or two hours a week, and at a period of the day when the working people could not visit them. A great deal of fault had been found with the improvidence of the working people in not saving money, but let them first see what was done by the Government. The State provided beer-shops in every street for working men to spend their money in as fast as they earned it; but hitherto it had not been sufficiently forward in giving them facilities for saving their money. Working men were often very much afraid to let their masters know that they were saving money from a notion that it would lead to a reduction of their wages, and under the present system the masters were very often concerned in the management of these banks and could know exactly how each man's account stood. By this now arrangement each account would be a secret between the depositor and the postmaster. He felt very much indebted to the attention which the right hon. Gentleman had given to the representations addressed to him on the subject by Mr. Sykes of Huddersfield. He did not think the Government ought to make a profit on the business, nor ought they to lose by it, for the working classes of this country did not want charity. All they wanted was a fair field and no favour, and he was glad to find they were to have it. He hoped that if it were found at any time that without putting a charge on the country, the rate of interest could be increased, it would be done.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, that no praise could be too high for anything which tended to induce the working classes to lay by against a bad time. He wished, however, to point out what he thought would prove a drawback to the proposition just submitted. It would impose largely increased duties on officers who had already onerous functions to perform. Postmasters were generally shopkeepers who had their own business to attend to as well the duties of the post-office. He would also suggest that each man's account should be kept in a book, as under the present system.
  MR. ARTHUR KINNAIRDtook an opposite view from that taken by his gallant Friend with respect to some of the points referred to by him. He saw brighter prospects in the future before them than his hon. Friend. No one accustomed to study the wants of the labouring population could fail to perceive that the Bill would supply a peculiar want. It was simple and practical, and would save the labouring classes from incalculable loss, entailed by their advancing money on all sorts of schemes because they had no place for depositing their savings with security. He heartily congratulated the Chancellor of the Exchequer on having at last succeeded in one of the fondest hopes of his heart, that of creating a 2½ per cent stock.
  MR. AYRTONexpressed a hope that additional facilities would be afforded by the Post Office authorities for the transmission of small sums of money through the post. Threepence, or even twopence, would be a large sum to pay for the transmission of two or three shillings.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER, in reply, said, he must repudiate the notion that the Government, by this Bill, were about to establish a national bank. Whatever moneys came into the hands of Government under the Bill would be dealt with in precisely the same manner as the moneys which came into their hands under the existing savings banks law. With regard to the proposal that increased facilities should be given for the transmission of money through the Post Office, he could only say that no proposal to that effect had ever been laid before him which had assumed a practical shape. He should, however, be very glad to see the machinery of the Post Office made available for the purpose to an extent consistent with the due performance of the important functions to be discharged by the department. He believed that when hon. Members came to examine the provisions of the Bill they would be found well adapted for their purpose. Let him add that he felt greatly indebted to Mr. Sykes, who had been already referred to, for the labour which he had devoted to this subject. At the same time the Bill did not altogether embody Mr. Sykes' plan. The plan adopted was not precisely a plan of interest notes, but that was a matter of detail on which he would not enter then, as the Bill would be on the table in two or three days.
  Motion agreed to.
  Resolved,—
  "That it is expedient to charge upon the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland the dificiency, if any should arise, in the sums which may he held on account of Post Office Savings Banks, to meet the lawful demands of depositors in such Banks, in the event of their being established by law."
  Resolution to be reported on Monday next.
  House adjourned at Eleven o'clock, till Monday next.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1*; Indictable Offences (Metropolitan District); Fictitious Savings Banks; Houses of Ill-fame; Protection of Female Children.

THE QUEEN'S ANSWER TO THE ADDRESS.
THE LORD STEWARD reported Her MAJESTY'S most gracious Answer to the Address, as follows:—
MY LORDS,
I thank you for your loyal and dutiful Address.
I rely with Confidence on your careful Consideration of the Measures which will be laid before you for the Improvement of the Law, and for other Purposes of public Usefulness.

THE ITALIAN ELECTIONS.—OBSERVATIONS.
THE MARQUESS OF NORMANBYsaid, perhaps their Lordships would allow him
180
to correct an extraordinary misapprehension which had occurred the other night in "another place" with reference to a matter of very great importance, namely, the character and constitution of the recent elections in Italy. He was happy to say he was in a position to give a contradiction to that statement from official papers. The statement to which he referred was made by an hon. Gentleman, he had no doubt, in perfect sincerity and good faith—the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright). The statement was made in the presence of the Foreign Secretary, and ought to have been immediately corrected by him. But as the noble Lord had not done so, he (the Marquess of Normanby) thought it rather important that the contradiction should go forth as soon as possible. That was the reason why he now made this explanation to their Lordships. As far as he understood the statement as it was reported—
EARL GRANVILLEinterposed, and said that if the noble Marquess wished to make a personal explanation, his course would not be irregular; but to enter into details regarding a speech made in the other House of Parliament was most irregular.
THE MARQUESS OF NORMANBYsaid, he was in the hands of the House. He did not wish to do anything which might be irregular. He was about to show, from documents before the public, that at that moment a very erroneous impression prevailed, which might have been corrected at the time and place where it was conveyed; but, he must add, that they had been disregarded to an equal extent by one or other of their Lordships almost every night during last Session.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that the noble Marquess, in making an explanation respecting matters which had occurred elsewhere, in which he was not personally interested, and which might call for an answer in the other House of Parliament, was acting in direct violation of the rules of their Lordships' House.
THE MARQUESS OF NORMANBYsaid, he did not wish to raise any debate. He should of course bow to the strict Orders of the House as laid down by the noble and learned Lord and the noble Earl opposite; but should take the opportunity of the Motion for Adjournment, to state the fact, which ought to be known, without alluding to what had passed "elsewhere."
EARL GREYsaid, that the irregular practice of referring to debates and speeches

181
made in the other House is becoming far too common, and their Lordships ought to check the practice which they must see was highly inconvenient as well as irregular. When the conduct of any noble Lord had been adverted to or impugned "elsewhere," it was sometimes impossible to avoid reference to the debates of the House of Commons; but in this case, where no question whatever was before their Lordships, to address the House for the purpose of correcting a mistake stated to have been made in the other House, did appear to him to push irregularity beyond all reasonable limits.
On the Motion for Adjournment,
THE MARQUESS OF NORMANBYsaid, if any person "elsewhere" had conveyed the impression that the present elections are conducted in electoral districts giving to the population the most extended right of voting equivalent to manhood suffrage, that person had been grievously deceived, as, in point of fact, the franchise was much more restricted and partial than in any county or borough in England.

PUBLIC BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

  MOTION FOE SELECT COMMITTEE.
  EARL GRANVILLE, in rising to move the appointment of a Select Committee on the Public Business of the House said, it would be in the recollection of the House that the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby) at the close of last Session, made some suggestions tending to secure a more rapid despatch of their Lordships' Parliamentary business; since which—on the last evening—as their Lordships were aware, a debate had taken place on the same subject in "another place." The question well deserved the attention of their Lordships. No doubt, the position of the two Houses in respect to the business brought before them was not identical; at anyrate the charge of delay could not be urged against the proceedings of the House of Lords. The number of Peers who took part in the debates was not too great, on the contrary it would add much to the importance of the proceedings if it was the habit of more Peers to attend and to take their share of the debates. Nevertheless, the beginning of every Session was absorbed by various discussions, many of them very interesting and instructive; but with regard to legislative measures very little progress was made, and the consequence was that at the end of the Session there was an inconvenient pressure of business.
  182
  This evil it was very difficult to meet. He had hardly ever heard of any Government that was not willing to bring in its own Bills at a sufficiently early period. And it had been proposed as one remedy that more Bills should be originated in their Lordships' House. But, whatever might be the cause, he believed it was a fact that Bills originating with their Lordships were not regarded with the same favour by the House of Commons as the measures that were first introduced there; and, no doubt, from the greater number of Members in the other House engaged in the active business of life, and from its different constitution as an elected body, the House of Commons was, in many respects, better adapted for originating measures than the House of Lords. It had also been suggested that measures still pending at the Prorogation of Parliament should be allowed to be resumed in the next Session in the stage they had reached when Parliament was Prorogued. That permission had been already given in the case of a dissolution of Parliament with regard to certain private Bills, and the question whether the principle might not be extended to public Bills, suspended by a prorogation, was a proper subject for the consideration of the Committee. The noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) had suggested a joint Committee of both Houses; but he thought, himself, it would be more conformable to practice and more convenient to have two Committees sitting concurrently and in constant communication with each other. Such a mode of proceeding would give more force and character to their inquiries and recommendations. His Lordship then moved,—
  "That a Select Committee be appointed to consider and report, whether, by any alterations in the Forms and Proceedings of this House, the Despatch of Public Business can be more effectually promoted."
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, that this subject had occupied his anxious attention for a considerable time. He would not then enter into the discussion of any particular plan—the more so because he concurred in the suggestion that the whole subject should be referred to a Committee. He presumed Her Majesty's Government had found some insuperable difficulty in the way of appointing a joint Committee of both Houses; and probably the object in view might be attained by an inquiry before two Committees, provided the fullest and freest communication were secured be-

  183
  tween them. But as the noble Earl had observed, the cause of their Lordships' difficulties arose simply and solely from the great lack of business at the commencement of the Session, and the unmanageable accumulation of it at the close. The chief thing their Lordships had to consider was how they were to deal with the mass of business which they must receive at the end of the Session. The noble Earl must bear in mind that whatever might be the recommendations of their Committee they must altogether depend for effect upon the course taken by the House of Commons. It would be perfectly easy for this House to act upon a rule, which he believed they might adopt of their own authority, of suspending Bills at the termination of one Session, and resuming them in the next; but it would be useless to do so if the House of Commons should think it necessary when they sent Bills back to them to pass them through all their stages again. It would, therefore, be important before their Lordships' Committee made any recommendations on that subject to ascertain in what manner the House of Commons would be likely to act. Let them agree as to the question of principle, and it would be easy to settle the details and the limitations under which the plan should be carried out. With regard to the Resolution moved every year by his noble Friend the Chairman of Committees (Lord Bedesdale), fixing the day after which their Lordships declined to proceed with Bills unless they were of an urgent character, the noble Earl said that it worked well, providing that they allowed a little elasticity as to the meaning of the word "urgent." But it appeared to him (the Earl of Derby) that there was a great deal of difficulty about that very elasticity. For instance, an important measure like the Bankruptcy Bill might come up to their Lordships at the end of July. In a certain sense it might be said to be urgent; that was to say, it was urgent that such a measure should become law; but if the noble Earl were to move that their Lordships should take into consideration a Bill of 500 clauses at that period of the Session, though the subject might be an urgent one, it would be a matter of supreme impolicy to deal with it at such a time and under such circumstances. It might be a matter of urgency that a Bankruptcy Bill should pass, but it was not urgent that it should pass at that particular time; on the contrary, it would be
  184
  of great advantage for such a Bill to lie on the table during the recess of Parliament, and next year to be taken into deliberate and careful consideration by the House, in which there were so many noble and learned Lords amply competent to deal with such a measure. But if they were called upon to pass such a Bill at the end of the Session, it was impossible that proper consideration should be given to it, and those noble and learned Lords must either allow the measure to pass without moving these Amendments which they might deem desirable, or if their Lordships did make those Amendments, and send the Bill back, it would be impossible for the House of Commons to consider them; or they must take the only other alternative and reject the Bill altogether, and then all the time and labour which the House of Commons had bestowed upon it would be absolutely lost. It was not therefore desirable to carry the principle of elasticity too far; but the rule of urgency should be considered as applying only to those particular classes of cases which it was not only desirable should be considered, bat that they should be considered at that particular time. If the rule of postponing that class of cases of urgency which did not require to be taken into consideration at any particular time, and then resuming them at the stage at which they had been left were adopted, it would allow of the ground of urgency being more freely applied. He would not enter at that moment into the merits of any particular scheme. He was glad that it was proposed to refer the matter to a Committee; but he ventured to think that it would not be necessary—on the contrary, he thought it would not be desirable—that the Committee should meet until some progress had been made by the Committee of the House of Commons.
  LORD REDESDALEthought that, as far as that House was concerned, they had no difficulty in getting through any business that was brought before their Lordships, and if the other House would follow their Lordships' example there would be no difficulty in the way of sending up Bills in time to be dealt with by both Houses in the same Session. It was, then, for the House of Commons to suggest means to enable them to send up Bills in sufficient time for discussion by their Lordships. It must not be forgotten that it was not only the Bills that originated in the House of Commons which suffered from the present

  185
  system, but amongst those measures which were dropped in the annual ceremony which was sometimes called "The Massacre of the Innocents," there were many which their Lordships had considered with great care, and had sent to the other House in ample time for their consideration, but which were withdrawn by the Minister because that House could not find time to attend to them. He was not prepared to admit the expediency of the noble Earl's suggestion, that Bills should be suspended during the recess and resumed in the ensuing Session. There might be inconvenience, if not danger, in such a course. There were many Bills—such, for instance, as a Reform Bill—which might be sent up from the House of Commons at a late period of the Session, and, if such a measure was to remain suspended during the recess, its ultimate passing depending upon their Lordships' decision, an amount of agitation would be indulged in which would hardly be desirable. He thought the old constitutional principle should prevail, that measures should be begun and finished in one and the same Session. He would venture to suggest that the House of Commons might do a great deal for facilitating public business if they were disposed. For instance, though it was the old constitutional maxim to associate the redress of grievances with the granting of Supplies to the Crown, he could not see how the passing of the Estimates could be considered a grant of supply, and it would be much better in many ways if, on the days appointed for going into Committee on Estimates, the chair was taken at the time appointed, and the early part of the evening devoted to their consideration, instead of permitting Members to introduce discussions upon any subjects they pleased until the House was too much fatigued to deal with that or any other business. There were other ways in which the public business might be much expedited. No ill effect had been found to result from the custom of allowing any Peer to introduce a Bill which might at once be read a first time; whereas in the other House great delay was often occasioned in the preliminary stage of getting leave to introduce the Bill. With respect to the Bankrupt Bill, he wished to say that he did not think any Bill ought to have 500 clauses. It would have been very well if that Bill had been divided into two parts. Parliament, he thought, had of late deviated too much into the mode of
  186
  occupying itself with unimportant details. The noble and learned Lord had that evening laid upon the table the rules which the Chancery Judges had agreed upon for the conduct of their legal business, and he (Lord Redesdale) thought that that was far better than introducing the regulations into the Bill itself. Any measure comprising 500 clauses ran a great risk of not being passed at all.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he thought that many of the matters which had been referred to had much better be postponed till the Committee was appointed. There was a great deal of difficulty connected with the suggestion for a joint Committee of both Houses. The forms of the two Houses would hardly admit of such a proceeding; but, with a good understanding between both branches of the Legislature, the substantial advantages of such a Committee might, nevertheless, be obtained. For that purpose he thought it most desirable that the two Committees should proceed pari passu. The annual Resolution proposed by the noble Lord the Chairman of Committee no doubt worked very beneficially in practice, but theoretically, he thought, it encroached both upon the privileges of the House of Commons and the prerogative of the Crown. He hoped that some effectual substitute would be found for it free from that objection.
  EARL GREYagreed with the Chairman of Committees that the principal difficulty in this matter arose in the House of Commons, and that the great object was to discover some means by which Bills might come up from that House earlier in the Session than they usually did. Still, he rejoiced that the President of the Council had moved for this Committee, because he thought it absolutely necessary that something should be done to render legislation more easy and more satisfactory than it was at present, otherwise great discredit would be cast upon the whole system of Parliament. Only those who looked a little closely at what went on could be aware to what an extent the existing obstructions to legislation interfered with the public interests. There were multitudes of subjects, in themselves apparently not of very first-class importance, but which yet affected the daily welfare and prosperity of the country, on which new laws were required. On many of those questions no difference of opinion, no party feeling, existed; but still they

  187
  demanded a good deal of consideration, and legislation upon them was habitually postponed from year to year, because under the present arrangements Parliament could not find time to deal with them. To choose an illustration of this at random, he might mention that successive Governments had long been alive to the defective state of the highways; they knew that under the existing management more money was spent, or rather thrown away, in different parts of the country upon detestable roads than would suffice to maintain them in excellent condition. Bills had been brought in for the last twenty-five years to remedy this evil, but they had all to be dropped, simply from the want of time to discuss them. Another subject of complaint was the careless and unsatisfactory manner in which a great deal of the work of Parliament was done. No man could look at the Acts which were passed without seeing how full they were of blunders. When the Judges came to apply them, they found their task extremely difficult from the inconsistencies and inaccuracies which had crept into them during their progress through both Houses. Something, therefore, was required, not only to expedite the progress of legislation, but to secure its more perfect accomplishment. As to the first of those objects, he continued of the same opinion as he was some years ago, when the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) brought in a Bill which passed that House—namely, that in some way or other—he did not say in the precise form proposed by that noble Earl—provision ought to be made for preventing all the legislative labour of a Session being thrown away merely because it could not be brought to completion before the prorogation. Whatever valid objections there were to the Bill passed by their Lordships in 1848 might be obviated by another mode of attaining the same end. But, turning to the unsatisfactory manner in which legislation was accomplished, he thought some change ought to take place in the way in which complicated Bills were carried through Committee in both Houses. He believed that a very large proportion of the blunders and incongruities afterwards detected in Acts of Parliament resulted from Amendments being made in Committee, the full effect of which was not seen at the time, and which there was no subsequent opportunity of having properly considered by the persons who
  188
  originally drew the Bills. They wanted a greater amount of scientific assistance—if he might use the expression—for revising their Bills before they were finally passed. It was also desirable that Committees of both Houses should abstain from going into the most minute details of the wording of measures. His experience of business in both Houses of Parliament did not supply him with one case in which that verbal criticism and long discussion of the mode of framing a particular clause ever had any good effect. On the contrary, the Amendments thus inserted, after taking up a great deal of time, generally left the Bill considerably worse than when it came from the hands of its original framers. But, whatever changes might be made in the machinery of legislation, for an effectual remedy they must chiefly look to the manner in which the House of Commons discharged its duty. For many years past the House of Commons had been getting more and more into the practice of mistaking what its proper functions were. It was absolutely impossible that a popular Assembly, consisting of 500 or 600 Gentlemen, could deal effectually with details either in Government or in legislative business. Yet there was a growing disposition in the House of Commons to trust less and less to any other authority. That body wished to arrogate too much to itself. It refused its confidence to the Ministers of the day, whoever they might be, or to any other persons, and in that way it embarrassed itself with an amount of labour which it could not perform. An instanee of this was afforded by the managment of the financial business of the country. Since he had been in Parliament a very great change had taken place in that respect. There was now a continual demand for a greater sub-division of the Votes, the annual Estimates bringing more and more before the House in Committee of Supply all possible details of the public expenditure. He believed there could be no greater blunder. He had never known any advantage to arise from the House of Commons attempting to deal in that way with details. And when great credit was taken for throwing upon the Estimates charges that were formerly on the Consolidated Fund, and for requiring the House of Commons to vote in Supply all the salaries of the revenue officers, while the gross revenue was paid into the Exchequer—in his opinion all these alterations, on which certain persons glorified them-

  189
  selves, tended to divert the House of Commons from its legitimate functions, and to embarrass it with matters which it could not adequately handle. For his own part, he was persuaded that all that pretence of close scrutiny of the public expenditure instead of being favourable to economy and forming a check upon jobs, was the way to facilitate extravagance, and afford a cover for jobs. He had known many questions of expense to be proposed and carried in the Estimates from which a Government would have shrunk if it had had to act solely on its own responsibility. These changes were, therefore, in the wrong direction. He thought the House of Commons would do well to consider whether, by giving a little more confidence to the Ministers, whoever they might be, as long as they were Ministers, by avoiding so much discussion of details, and confining itself more to general principles and arrangements, it could not do more good than by the present system. A great many years ago—so long since as 1828—he had the good fortune to sit opposite with the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) on the Finance Committee appointed in that year by the House of Commons, and he remembered that Committee applied itself most laboriously to the work assigned to it. It chose to go into the details of the Ordnance Estimates, and after many weeks of most arduous labour it presented a Report which he was not aware had ever saved one shilling to the country, or been of any practical use whatever. But the same Committee, after many weeks expended on details, had brought before it by the Government of the day the great question of the Sinking Fund—how it should be dealt with. The question was admirably discussed in the Committee by Messrs. Herries, Huskisson, and Tierney, and several other Members, and a most able Report was presented, which established the wiser principle which had prevailed ever since. That was the result of three or four sittings of the Committee. The proper function of a legislative body was to superintend Government and to enforce great principles of legislation; but it was utterly powerless to deal with the details of expenditure, or transact business which more properly belongs to the Executive Government. He was quite persuaded that if the House of Commons would act on the principle he had pointed out, a great deal of useful time
  190
  would be obtained for the proper work of legislation which was now thrown away. He had mentioned this now because it was a subject which, of course, could not in any way come before the Committee which was about to be appointed; it was a question entirely for the discretion of the House of Commons, with which it was impossible for their Lordships to deal. Before sitting down, as they were on this subject, he could not help saying that he hoped the attention of the Government would be directed, not only to the public, but to the private business of Parliament. He did not ask his noble Friend to extend the functions of this Committee, whose time would, he thought, be sufficiently occupied by the inquiry he proposed to entrust to it; but he was persuaded some more effective arrangement with respect to the private business of the country, was very urgently necessary. In 1858, a Committee of that House had sat on the subject, and very considerable improvements had consequently been made in the arrangements of the transaction of the private business; but still with all the changes then made these arrangements were totally insufficient to insure the proper transaction of business, and especially of that most important section of business which related to railways. They had hitherto done nothing to enforce the adoption of a steady and consistent policy on the part of Parliament with respect to railways; and the amount of loss to private individuals and the public—the immense waste of money belonging to individuals, and of the time and convenience of the public by the unsteadiness of the policy pursued by Parliament with regard to railways—it would be utterly impossible to calculate. The waste of money must be reckoned not by thousands, but by millions. He repeated, therefore, that the proper arrangement of the private as well as of the public business urgently required the consideration both of the Government and of Parliament.
  THE MARQUESS OF NORMANBYsaid, if he for a moment protracted the discussion it was simply that he might be a witness to the evils which prevailed last Session. The noble Lord had rightly said that a very inadequate idea had been formed of those enormities. But he might say it was not the fault of that House, as it had always devoted the greatest attention to the measures sent up to it, and was only prevented doing so when the Session was

  191
  so protracted that their Lordships were worn out. He could site many instances, but he would now speak of one only, which concerned a part of this country requiring the greatest consideration,—since it must be remembered that the Members representing Ireland could not always be in attendance. The Bill he referred to was that having reference to the relation of landlord and tenant in Ireland. That Bill was brought forward at a time which afforded the fullest opportunity for its due consideration; a proposal was made that it should be referred to a Select Committee; he agreed to that proposition; he thought it was the proper course; but the noble Earl opposite resisted it, and it happened that the Government on that occasion had a majority, and the Committee was refused. The Bill having been proceeded with, their Lordships made several Amendments, all of which were of the greatest importance, and received the assent of the Irish Members of this House, not only those who had voted for the Select Committee, but those who are the most steady supporters of the Government, but of every Member of their Lordship's House. The Bill was sent down to the House of Commons, and on the very last morning of the Session, at an unusual hour, with only thirteen Members in the House, all those Amendments were rejected, and their Lordships did not insist on their own Amendments. He could refer to a most able protest on this subject, drawn up by his noble Friend (Lord Monteagle) the whole of whose valuable life has been peculiarly devoted to the study of the practical welfare of his own country. It was a matter of public notoriety that there was no discussion elsewhere, but, on the representation, as stated, of the Attorney General and the Chief Secretary for Ireland; all the Amendments which had received so much consideration at their Lordships' hands were rejected by a majority of seven to six. The Bill—scarcely less important—relative to the licensing in Ireland, was also treated in much the same manner. These matters showed the peculiar evils of the present system, and that the blame was not attributable to that House; and, he must add that evil was aggravated by the composition of the Bench opposite, because, since the Union, there never had been an Administration formed so entirely without any practical knowledge of the affairs of Ireland.
  Motion agreed to.
  And on the Monday following the Lords following were named of the Committee:—

  Ld. Chancellor,

  Ld. President,

  M. Salisbury,

  E. Derby,

  E. Stanhope,

  E. Grey,

  E. Ellenborough,

  V. Eversley,

  L. Rollo,

  L. Boyie (Earl of Cork),

  L. Redesdale,

  L. Colchester,

  Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)

  L. Wynford,

  L. Stanley of Alderley

  L. Chelmsford,

  L. Lyveden,

  L. Llanover,

  L. Taunton,

  Ordered,—
  "That the Committee have Power to communicate from Time to Time with the Select Committee of the House of Commons appointed to consider whether by any Alterations in the Forms and Proceedings of that House the Despatch of Public Business can be more effectually promoted."
  House adjourned at Half-past Five o'clock, till To-morrow, Half-past Ten o'clock.