Sitting of 15 February 1861

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS,—1° Irremovable Poor; Removal of Scotch and Irish Poor; Tramways (Scotland); Locomotives.

SALMON FISHERIES.—QUESTION.
MR. GREGSONsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, when the Report of the Royal Commission on Salmon Fisheries will be issued, and if the Government intend to introduce any Bill on the subject of Salmon Fisheries during the present Session?
SIR GEOEGE LEWISsaid, he believed that the Report of the Royal Commissioners on Salmon Fisheries had been presented, but he was not aware whether it had yet been circulated among Members. He thought it would be right that before the Government came to any decision on the subject, hon. Members should be in pos-
472
session of the Report and should have time to master its contents.

HIGHWAY BILL.—QUESTION.
MR. HARDYsaid, he would beg to inquire, Whether, as the Highway Bill is not yet in the hands of Members, it is the intention of the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary to proceed with the second reading of the Bill on Monday next?
SIR GEORGE LEWISstated, that he would not press the second reading of the Highways Bill on Monday, but would on that evening fix a later date for that stage.

THE DISTURBANCES AT CHATHAM PRISON.—QUESTION.
MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONSsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he can give any information concerning the outbreaks of the convicts at Chatham; if he is aware of any alleged causes for those outrages, and what steps have been taken to prevent their recurrence; and whether all the convicts now at Chatham have undergone the preliminary reformatory discipline at Millbank and Pentonville?
SIR GEOEGE LEWISsaid, that perhaps the most satisfactory answer he could give to the question of the hon. Member would be to state what had taken place a Chatham. Early in January six prisoners at Chatham endeavoured to make their escape; but the attempt having been frustrated they were removed to the Penitentiary at Millbank. One day in the beginning of the present month a disturbance occurred while the convicts employed on a small island named St. Mary's, in the Medway, were at dinner. The ten convicts who were implicated in that disturbance alleged as the reason of it the poverty of the soup which was furnished for their dinner. That complaint, however, was entirely unfounded, and was merely a pretext for creating a disturbance. These ten men were removed to separate cells to await the decision of the Director of Prisons, Captain Gambier. That gentleman went down to Chatham on Monday the 11th, and was engaged in trying the prisoners; when he received information that the men on parade, returning to their work, were in a state of insubordination. A number of the convicts, who began shouting and throwing up their hats, were separated from the rest by the warders and

473
obeyed the order of the Governor to return to the prison, and the first four parties were locked up in their respective cells. Some of the others began shouting and creating a disturbance, and shutting the doors of the cells, preventing a number of the convicts from re-entering their cells. Upon this the disturbance became general and the excitement great. The Governor of the prison and Captain Gambier remonstrated with the unruly convicts, but without effect, and the military were therefore sent for. During the interval that elapsed before the arrival of the soldiers the convicts broke some windows and upset some stoves. That was, he believed, pretty nearly the extent of the mischief which they did. When the military arrived they suppressed the disorder in a short time without loss of life or bayonet wound, and the prisoners were all locked up. No warder was injured as stated in some of the newspapers. On Tuesday Sir John Jebb and Captain Gambier went down to the prison, and forty-six of the ringleaders were punished by thirty-six lashes each, on that and the following day. All the prisoners who had taken part in the disturbance were placed on bread and water and confined to their cells, and all their gratuities and privileges were withdrawn. The number of convicts engaged in the outbreak was about 850. He had investigated the matter with some care, but was unable to give any very clear explanation of the affair; nor could the officers of the prison satisfactorily account for it. The general cause, however, which certainly operated to a very large extent, was that the refuse of the hulks were transferred to Chatham Prison on its first opening and tainted the prison population, together with some of the inferior officers. Hence it was difficult to enforce strict discipline, without creating discontent, and the discipline at Chatham was strict compared with that which prevailed in the old hulks. It was necessary for him to observe that there was no change of discipline or diet to account for the outrage, and no specific grievances had been alleged by any convict engaged in the disturbances, either before or after they took place. A picket of about forty soldiers was now stationed at the prison as a measure of precaution. He could not say whether the convicts had undergone the reformatory discipline at Millbank and Pentonville, as he had received no notice of the question.
On Motion That the House at its rising do adjourn till Monday;—

INDIA.—LOCAL LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL,
MR. EWARTrose to put a Question to the Secretary of State for India as to establishing improved Local Legislative Councils in India. He complained that there was too much centralization in the administration of India. The number of Englishmen who were settled, both among the hills and upon the great plateaux, such as that of Mysore, was rapidly increasing, and, considering how greatly they contributed, and must in the future contribute, to the prosperity of India, and what valuable assistance they rendered to the Government in suppressing the recent mutiny, it was desirable that they should be represented in these local Councils. Nor ought the Natives to be excluded from them. It was on all hands admitted that it was most desirable that the Natives should be encouraged to local action, and he knew of no greater encouragement which could be held out to them than the admission of representatives from their body to these Councils. In Ceylon the introduction of British settlers and of Natives into the Legislative Council had had most beneficial results, and he could not but think that it was desirable to extend the same system to India. The hon. Gentleman concluded by asking the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for India, whether any measures would be adopted by Her Majesty's Government for giving improved Local Legislative Councils to India, of which British settlers, as well as Natives of India may, to a certain extent be members, in conformity with the Recommendation of the Select Committee which lately considered the subject of British Settlement in India?
SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, that it was impossible to overrate the importance of the subject introduced by his hon. Friend; but that importance was almost equalled by its difficulty. The recommendation of the Select Committee over which the hon. Gentleman presided was that some Native as well as an English element should be introduced into the Legislative Council at Calcutta, and not that Legislative Councils should be established in other parts of India. Lately, however, the tendency of opinion had been in favour of constituting Councils in different districts of the country, rather than adding to the

475
Legislative Council at Calcutta. The question had occupied the attention, not only of himself and the Indian Council, but also of the noble Lord who preceded him in office; he had communicated with the Governor General upon the subject, and he expected, if not by the next mail, at least very shortly, to receive a communication from him. Until he had done so, he should be sorry to express any opinion upon the question. He entirely agreed with his hon. Friend as to the desirability of employing the Natives in offices of Government— indeed, both in Oude and in the Punjab, Lord Canning had given to the Native chiefs large powers, both fiscal and magisterial, which they had administered, not only with great advantage, but also with a degree of impartiality which might hardly have been expected. This, however, was a very different thing from taking part in the deliberations of a Legislative Council. It would obviously be impossible to bring Natives from distant parts of India, who did not understand English, and spoke half a dozen different languages, to the Legislative Council at Calcutta, and the educated Natives of that city no more represented the inhabitants of the upper parts of India than persons who were sent out from this country. What might be done with local Councils was quite another question, because the smaller the area the less were the difficulties in the way; but he must remind his hon. Friend that the experience of Ceylon, which was hardly more extensive than a large collectorate in India, did not afford any fair example or precedent for what might be done in so large a district as one of the Presidencies of the latter country. This subject had occupied, and would continue to occupy, his attention, and, probably, in the course of the Session, he might have to introduce some measure in regard to it; but at present he must decline to express any further opinion.

ANNEXATION OF MENTONE AND ROQUEBRUNE TO FRANCE.—QUESTION.
MR. BAILLIE COCHRANErose to ask the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs a question respecting the annexation of Mentone and Roquebrune to the French Empire. The hon. Gentleman said that it would be in the recollection of the House that the main argument which was put forward by the French Govern-
476
ment last year in defence of the annexation of Savoy and Nice rested upon the geographical boundaries and natural frontiers of the French Empire. It was maintained that the chain of the Alps, and particularly that spur of the Alps which touches the sea at the town of Nice, and which separates Nice from the Principality of Monaco, was the natural frontier of the French Empire. That argument as to geographical limits and natural frontiers was met in some most admirable despatches written by the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in reply to those of M. Thouvenel. The noble Lord said that,—
"If a great military Power like France is to demand the territory of a neighbour upon its own theory of what constitutes geographically its proper system of defence, it is evident that no State could be secure from the aggressions of a, more powerful neighbour."
That, however, was the argument, and the main argument, which was adduced to support what he must always consider the most improper and shameful annexation of those provinces to France. Now, we were suddenly told that the Emperor of the French had purchased a portion of the Principality of Monaco. It was true that the district so purchased was of trifling value, and contained a population of only 6,000 or 7,000 persons: but it seemed to him very hard, especially in these days in which we heard so much of nationalities and of the rights of peoples, that even 6,000 persons should be sold like a flock of sheep, and transferred by a stroke of the pen from an Italian sovereignty to the French Empire. And what became of the argument as to natural frontiers? The Empire was now carried twelve miles across its "natural frontier" on the road to Genoa, and its next "natural frontier" would be at that place. The Principality of Monaco was only ten miles long by some four or five miles wide, but it was a very rich and productive country. It had since the tenth century belonged to the ancient family of Grimaldi, and had never been sold or transferred by them. In 1792 it was taken possession of by the French Republic. Under the Treaty of 1814 it remained annexed to France; but the Treaty of 1815 provided that the relations which had been established by the previous treaty between France and Monaco "shall cease entirely" (cesseront à perpetuité). Monaco then became independent. But in 1848 Sardinia one fine

477
morning occupied Mentone and Roquebrune. This was a violation of the law of nations; but, perhaps not a more flagrant one than some other acts of that Power. It was not the first occasion on which Sardinian troops had interfered unjustifiably in Italy; and, although the Principality was a small one, the step was a serious violation of the law of nations. Of such importance was the matter considered, that at the Congress of Paris in 1856, Baron Hubner called attention to it, remarking that the Roman States were not the only portions of Italy which were occupied by foreign troops, as the commune of Mentone had been hold for eight years by Piedmontese troops, notwithstanding the remonstrances of the Sovereign of the country. But, in spite of this protest, the Sardinians remained in possession of Mentone and Roquebrune down to the present moment. Moreover, he doubted the right of the prince to sell his Principality, as there were rival claimants to the throne, in prejudice of whom the French now stepped in as purchasers. How came it, he would ask, that France never thought of purchasing this Principality till Savoy and Nice had been annexed? It was certainly a curious fact that then, and not until then, France should effect this purchase at an expense of four millions of francs. Another consideration which suggested itself was the part Sardinia had taken in the transfer. It was all very well to talk of a purchase from the Prince of Monaco; but, as the Sardinians were actually in possession of both these towns, it was impossible that the transfer could have taken place without some understanding with the Government of Sardinia. If this understanding had come to the knowledge of Sir James Hudson, Her Majesty's Government would be in possession of correspondence which he had no doubt they would not object to lay on the table; but if the transaction had not been made known to Sir James Hudson, it was evident that a secret understanding must exist with Sardinia for the withdrawal of her troops, in order that the French frontier might be carried twelve mile3 on the road to Genoa. And if such an agreement had been secretly made, probably Europe would be told some day of another secret understanding which would carry the French troops to the gates of Genoa. After the excitement created by the annexation of Savoy and Nice last year, and the discussions which that measure gave
478
rise to, it was perfectly intelligible that France and Sardinia should be anxious that a fresh annexation, whenever such was in contemplation, should not become known till it was a fait accompli, and until the interference of any other Power would be unavailing. The question which he wished to put to the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs was, Whether any correspondence had passed with Sir James Hudson in reference to the annexation of Mentone and Roquebrune?

ITALY.—TEMPORAL SOVEREIGNTY OF THE POPE.—QUESTION.
MR. DARBY GRIFFITHremarked that in the present day political rumours were so speedily converted into facts that it became necessary to investigate even the whispers of secret diplomacy. Now a pamphlet had recently appeared in Paris, professing to enunciate the opinions of persons in high places. Now the Imperial Government might be designated as a despotism illustrated by pamphlets; and the pamphlet in question indicated a possible solution of the Papal difficulty. The suggestion was to the effect that the temporal sovereignty of the Pope with a nominal vicariate of Sardinia, might possibly be instrumental in the settlement of the Italian question. Where, however, that temporal power was so reduced as it had been by recent events, it was idle to talk of its exercising influence beyond serving as a cloak for French interference in Italy — an interference which he held to be fraught with danger. A remarkable change had taken place in the opinions of English Catholics with regard to the temporal power of the Pope. The Irish, of course, were more enthusiastic and less open to conviction; but he, had been informed on reliable authority that Cardinal Wiseman was obliged to report to the Papal Government that it would be very difficult to raise any sympathy whatever among English Catholics in favour of the temporal power of the Roman Court. ["Question."] He had it in a letter from a man of the highest station, and one to whom the liberation of Central Italy was mainly owing, that the Italians were prepared to liberate themselves by their own exertions, and that they would not be content while the temporal government of the Pope continued in operation over any portion of Italian territory. It was a common error to suppose that the French troops had, in the first in-

479
stance, been sent to Rome by the present' Emperor. The fact was not so. It was the late General Cavaignac who had sent them there. A confirmation of that statement would be found in Lord Normanby's memoirs. There could be little doubt that that move of the general was for the purpose of furthering his electioneering prospects—that it was made in order to obtain the support of the Roman Catholic Church. He begged to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether it is to be understood that it is the meaning and intention of Her Majesty's Government to give any encouragement -to the idea that any scheme having for its object the retention of any part of the temporal sovereignty of the Pope, as a possible solution of the Italian question, could, under any circumstances, be satisfactory or acceptable to the Italian People?
MR. HENNESSYasked to be allowed to make a few remarks in reference to the assertions of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. Among the many statements of the hon. Gentleman was one specific statement which he (Mr. Hennessy) believed he had taken from the pages of a weekly paper, The Saturday Review, but which the hon. Member said he made on good authority. The House would be able to form a correct estimate of the amount of credit that ought to be given to the hon. Gentleman's authorities, when he told them that, within the last few days he had had the honour of a personal interview with the illustrious Prelate named in the particular statement to which he now referred; and that Cardinal Wiseman stated to him that there was not one word of truth in the story. His Eminence added that no such letter had been been written, and that no such communication had been made by him, either directly or indirectly. He (Mr. Hennessy) should not go into the hon. Gentleman's other statements; but probably the House would arrive at the conclusion that they were of a piece with that one.

THE STADE DUES.—QUESTION.
MR. DIGBY SEYMOURasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, What stage the negotiations respecting the redemption of the Stade toll had reached; and whether Her Majesty's Government intended to propose a vote on the subject during the present Session?
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Lanarkshire
480
(Mr. B. Cochrane) has put a Question respecting the annexation of Mentone and Roquebrune to the French Empire. The state of the case is this:—Ventimiglia is the boundary of the kingdom of Sardinia, according to the arrangements that have been made. Nice, also, till last year, belonged to the kingdom of Sardinia, though a separate county. Between Nice and Ventimiglia are those two communes— Roquebrune and Mentone, the latter a large and beautiful town on the borders of the sea. On the borders of the sea, likewise, is the town of Monaco itself. With regard to Mentone and Roquebrune, there has been, at various times, and for a long period, a contest between the Kings of Sardinia, as Dukes of Savoy, and the Princes of Monaco. Of late years the Kings of Sardinia have said it was exceedingly inconvenient to those towns which were between different portions of their dominions—enclosed, as it were, within their territories—should be the cause of disturbances, and should prevent the operations of the Customs and. other laws. In 1848, there was a declaration on the part of these towns, first, that they would throw off the domination of the Princes of Monaco, and become an independent State; and, next, that they wished to be annexed to Sardinia. The Sardinian Government thereupon placed in them a small garrison, consisting of forty or fifty men. The Prince of Monaco endeavoured to procure a restoration of the towns; and the British Government declared that they could not consider that transaction to be lawful, or that those places had any right to separate themselves from Monaco. But the Sardinians kept the towns. Last year, however, the position of affairs was materially changed; because Nice, instead of being part of the kingdom of Sardinia, was coded to the Emperor of the French, was occupied by French troops, and was placed under French laws. A totally different situation of affairs had thus arisen. The King of Sardinia had no longer the power to say that those two towns were enclosed within his own territories. At the same time, as the hon. Gentleman has said or implied, a part of the mountain district came into the hands of the French Government. This territory of the Prince of Monaco was not five miles broad, and part of the Alpine range became annexed to the French Empire. The Prince of Monaco had not for a long time received any revenue from

481
these towns. The Emperor of the French offered him 4,000,000f, for them, which it was supposed would yield a revenue of 120,000f, or something under £5,000 a year. That sum was accepted by the Prince of Monaco, and he even wished to place Monaco itself under the protection of the Emperor of the French. The French Government, in answer to that proposal, said that Monaco was recognized as an independent principality by the Treaty of Vienna; that they wished to leave it so; and that they did not ask for anything more than they had obtained by that convention. I cannot see that there is any great political importance to be attached to this transaction. That territory of Ventimiglia was the frontier of the Italian Kingdom before this, and it still remains so; and all the declarations which the Sardinian Government has made are applicable to that frontier, and not to those towns.
The hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Griffith) has put to me a Question, to which if I do not give a decisive answer, I have only as my excuse to ask hon. Members to read that Question. The Question is—
"Whether it is to he understood that it is the meaning and intention of Her Majesty's Government to give any encouragement to the idea that any scheme having for its object the retention of any part of the temporal sovereignty of the Pope, as a possible solution of the Italian question, could under any circumstances, he satisfactory to or acceptable to the Italian people?"
I profess myself quite unable to give a precise or specific answer to that Question, as it passes my comprehension to know what it means. I have only to say that the only idea to which the Government has given any encouragement is the idea that the Italians ought to be left to themselves to settle their own affairs. Therefore, if the King of Sardinia and his Holiness the Pope can come to any arrangement satisfactory to themselves, I do not think it is likely that Her Majesty's Government will interfere. As to any "idea" about the temporal and spiritual power of the Pope I will not venture to say anything on the subject.
The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Digby Seymour) has asked me a Question with regard to the Stade Tolls, I have to state that after various and long discussions the opinion of the law officers of the Crown amounted to this,—that although we might dispute the validity and locality of the Stade Duties, yet we could not do
482
so without complicating the negotiations to such a degree that the only practicable mode of settlement was by paying an indemnity. When we entered into negotiations on that footing Hanover, no doubt, was well disposed to consider the question; but she said it would be a serious detriment to her if she made such an arrangement as would enable one Power to claim exemption from the toll, as in that case every other Power would come to be exempted also, and her entire income from that source would cease. The arrangement ultimately proposed was that one-third should be contributed by Great Britain, one-third by Hamburg, and another third by all the States which now contribute to the payment of the toil. But, at the same time, the Government of Hanover said, it could not agree to carry that arrangement into effect unless six-sevenths of the last third were undertaken to be paid by all the other States. The Board of Trade made objections to this last proposal; but the Hanoverian Minister has expressed the strongest hopes that that payment will be made by all the States. I understand the Question of the hon. and learned Member to be, whether, supposing we get a Vote in this House to pay the portion of the indemnity undertaken to be paid by Great Britain, the British flag will then be exempt from the toll. I have to answer that hitherto the Hanoverian Government have stood on this ground, that they cannot allow any one State to be exempted till an arrangement is made for the payment of the whole toll.

POOR LAW (IRELAND)—QUESTION.
MR. BLAKEasked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether, in conformity with the promise made by him last year, he will, at an early period, move for the appointment of a Select Committee to consider and report on the changes desirable to be made in the Laws for the Administration of Relief to the destitute Poor in Ireland? He suggested that unless the right hon. Gentleman had this Committee appointed soon it would be impossible to carry any measure founded on this inquiry during the present Session.
MR. CARDWELLsaid, that this was a matter which the Poor Law Commissioners in Ireland regarded with deep interest. The only reason why he had not put a notice for a Committee of Inquiry on the paper was that he wished the great body

483
of the Irish Members to be present. After what the hon. Member had said he would lose no time, but would put a notice on the paper for next week.

YEOMANRY CAVALRY.—QUESTION.
MR. PERRY WATLINGTONwished to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, Whether the Government intend to permit the Yeomanry Cavalry to assemble this year for eight days' permanent duty, and to grant the usual pay for that period. That information was now being most anxiously looked for by about 14,000 as loyal Volunteers as any that existed in the country. Last year the Yeomanry were not only not called out, but the money usually voted for that body was diminished from £80,000 to £45,000; and it was to be regretted that the money thus kept back was that which was devoted to the training and discipline of the men. He thought that the course which the Government had pursued in relation to this matter would, if persisted in, not only impair their efficiency and weaken their discipline, but would go far to ruin the force altogether. The Yeomanry had witnessed the Volunteer movement with great interest, and had rejoiced in its success; and he could not but think that the dissatisfaction they had expressed at their not being called out was extremely reasonable. He was very anxious that the intimation of the Goverment should be given as quickly as possible.
STORES TAKEN AT KERTCH.

  QUESTION.
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEasked the Under Secretary for War, Whether he could give an account of the guns, stores, provisions, coals, and steam-factory captured at Kertch and Yenekale by the allied forces in the year 1855, and what amount of them was employed in the public service?
  MR. T. G. BARINGsaid, he was afraid it would be difficult to give some of the Returns asked for by the hon. Baronet. The coals taken were divided among the French and English vessels employed in the expedition to Azoff, and were used by them. As to the machinery of the steam-factory there would be no difficulty in giving a Return of the articles taken from it and now in store; but with regard to other articles he was afraid that no Return could be easily made.
  484
  In answer to the Question of the hon. Member (Mr. Watlington) respecting the Yeomanry, he was himself a Yeomanry officer, and fully sympathised with the hon. Member in the opinion, that unless the Yeomanry were occasionally called out, they would lose their efficiency. He was happy, therefore, to state that it was the intention of the Government to propose a Vote to Parliament for calling out the Yeomanry this year for permanent duty.

THE MISCELLANEOUS ESTIMATES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BENTINCK,in rising to ask when the Estimates would be brought in said, that they had heard a great deal in that House on the subject of high Estimates, and some hon. Gentlemen opposite had addressed a letter to the noble Lord at the head of the Government calling for a reduction of the public expenditure; but he did not think that their notions on that subject had assumed a very practical character. An accusation had been thrown out that the majority of Members who sat on the Conservative side of the House had a direct and personal interest in voting large armaments and heavy taxation. As far as he himself was concerned he, like every other subject of the realm, had a great dislike to any unnecessary amount of taxation, and in saying that he believed that he was expressing the sentiments of the great majority of the Gentlemen on his side of the House. He quite agreed that it was the duty of a Member of the House to defend the interest of his constituents, and protect them from unnecessary taxation; but he apprehended that it would be a very small number in the House or the country who would prefer to sacrifice both the honour and interests of the country to the sordid feeling that would induce them to consider money above everything else, and there were consequently few who were not of opinion that in the present state of Europe it was impossible that there could be any material reduction either of the Army or Navy Estimates. He did not say that a due regard to economy should not be had even while they carried the service out with efficiency; but few would contend that any reduction of those Estimates could be made at present. He thought that the probabilities were that they would have to increase rather than diminish them. That being the condition of the Army and

  485
  Navy Estimates, the only reduction that could be looted for was in that expenditure which was included in the Miscellaneous Estimates. And here, so far from thinking that those Estimates could not be reduced, he was of opinion that they might be most advantageously reduced, and that the interests of the country would in no wise suffer thereby. He thought, however, that they would agree with him that, practically speaking, the House had had during the last two years no control whatever over those Estimates, inasmuch as they had been brought forward at a late period of the Session, and hurried over at a time when there were but few Members in the House, the majority having become jaded and weary with a six or seven months' attendance. If, therefore, they were to be called upon to exercise an economical superintendence over those Estimates, it was necessary that they should be laid on the table of the House at the earliest possible moment; and not only that, but that Her Majesty's Government should bring them on at an early period of the Session. He hoped, therefore, that the Government would give an assurance of that kind to the House, and that the noble Lord, who had not already spoken on the question of the adjournment, would answer the question.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I understand that the Miscellaneous Estimates are in a state of preparation, and that they will probably be laid on the table in a fortnight, It is quite true, as the hon. Member has stated, that a delay has taken place for years past in discussing these Estimates, owing to circumstances that have been unavoidable. No doubt, these are Estimates that deserve and will receive deliberate attention. But the House will bear in mind that some of the heaviest charges have been put on these Estimates by votes of the House of Commons, who have transferred to the Miscellaneous Estimates charges that were previously defrayed from other sources.

POST OFFICE ADMINISTRATION.

  QUESTION.
  SIR GEORGE BOWYERasked, When the Report of the Post Office Committee would be laid on the table, to which he had called attention last Session? On the last week of the past Session the Chancellor of the Exchequer told him that the Report would be presented during the
  486
  Session, but that it would be necessary for the Government to have some time to consider it before it was laid on the table. As the Government had had considerable time since to consider the Report, he trusted it would be laid before Parliament; because it was important, owing to the disorganization and discontent which existed in that department of the public service, that the views of the Government should be generally known.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, as his hon. Friend had not apprised him beforehand that he would put the question, he was not in a position to give him information; nor was he aware that precise information could be given with respect to the dissensions at the Post Office. But, as far as his personal knowledge went, he would acquaint the hon. Gentleman of the matter he was desirous of knowing. The hon. Gentleman had not accurately stated the reply he had given him last Session. The reason why the Report had not been laid on the table was that the Government required time for considering particular recommendations; but it happened that the Committee had made their Report in the absence of Sir Rowland Hill, the chief working officer of the establishment, who had been the life and mainspring of it for many years past. This having been so it became the duty of the Government, when the Report was made to bring it under the notice of Sir Rowland Hill; and, from the state of his health, it was necessary for him to have time to institute the proper investigation. However, he presented, his views upon the Report in the form of a minute a considerable time ago to the Postmaster-General. He could not state the date of that minute, but it was some weeks ago. The minute itself, entering deeply and comprehensively into the consideration of the subject, raised a desire on the part of some gentlemen who had been members of the Committee, or the Committee at large, to sustain their own statements upon certain points where it appeared they had been impugned. He had not heard whether the gentlemen had sent in their supplementary statement; and until this was done it could not be said that the official document had been brought to a conclusion.

  THE NEW LAW COURTS.—QUESTION.
  SIR JOHN SHELLEYinquired of the First Commissioner of Works, Whether he

  487
  intends to introduce any measure for the concentration of the law courts? He remarked that the question was of great importance to those who expected to have their houses pulled down for that purpose.
  MR. COWPERreplied, that negotiations were in progress for procuring a site on which to erect courts of law; and he hoped to be able to introduce a Bill for that purpose very shortly.

CHINA.—DESTRUCTION OF THE EMPEROR'S SUMMER PALACE.

  EXPLANATION.
  MR. VINCENT SCULLYrose for the purpose of offering an explanation of a statement that fell from him in the debate of the preceding evening. He had quoted a French despatch, stating that the French General had forbidden the forces under his command to commence plundering the Summer Palace of the Chinese Emperor until the English troops had arrived. From knowledge which he had since acquired he was led to believe that the despatch was either not authentic or that its statements were incorrect; and he was ready to acknowledge the correctness of the statement made by the noble Lord on the previous evening. The remarks that he had offered had called forth comments from some of the gentlemen of the press; but he should as soon think of tilting at a windmill as of endeavouring to rebut their hostile comments.
  MR. SPEAKERcalled the hon. and learned Gentleman to order. The hon. Member was entitled to offer any explanations referring to a personal matter, but he was not justified in adverting to a past debate in any other manner.
  Motion agreed to.
  House at its rising to adjourn to Monday next.

HAT, & c., CONTRACTS.

  MOTION FOR ADDRESS FOR PAPERS.
  MR. TURNERmoved that an Address be presented to the Crown for
  "Copies of all Contracts entered into by the Government with Alexander Bankier Freeland for Hay, Clover, Beans, and Oats, from the 1st day of September, 1854, to the 31st day of December, 1858; the quantities of Hay, Clover, Beans, and Oats delivered; the sums of money paid in respect thereof, and the dates of payment."
  488
  The hon. Gentleman said that a number of the Members of that House who took on themselves to recommend a course of economy to the Government had been somewhat animadverted upon, and told that they ought to attend in their places in the House, and object to the Estimates; but he thought something else might be done, and that the extravagance of Government in framing their statements of expenses ought to be exposed. He was not one of those who recommended economy with the view of impairing the national defences, or diminishing the dignity which this country ought to maintain in the presence of the other Powers of Europe, but for the purpose of preventing extravagant and unnecessary expenditure. His present Motion pointed to a piece of extravagance which, in his opinion, had been committed by the Government. The contract referred to was framed at the period of the Crimean war, at which time it was necessary to contract for a variety of agricultural produce. No one doubted that the Government would send some active officers to the agricultural districts to obtain the necessary supplies; but, instead of doing so, it appeared that they thought Manchester not only a manufacturing, but an agricultural locality. So two Government agents went down there to make contracts for hay, clover, oats, &c, and, after being looked coldly on by several houses to which the contracts were offered, they met with a gentleman named Alexander Bankier Freeland, and he believed they made a contract with that gentleman at such an extravagant price that £78,000 profit was realized on a sum of £300,000. This person was, it seemed, connected with his brothers in this contract; and having afterwards entered largely into the shipping trade and become bankrupts, they admitted in their examination at the Bankruptcy Court that they had made this profit out of the Government contract. He thought this a piece of extravagance which it was very desirable that the advocates of economy should look into, and for this purpose he moved for the Return. He understood that the Government had no objection to grant it, and he could not understand why it should take any very considerable time to furnish the information. As to the amount of money paid, if the accounts had been carefully kept, a clerk could make them out in a short time, and he protested by anticipation against any statement in answer that there would be a

  489
  considerable delay in the production of the papers.
  MR. T. G. BARINGreplied, that on public grounds there could be no objection to the production of the Returns for which his hon. Friend had moved. The only hesitation he felt was that he understood, in the first instance, from the hon. Gentleman that the information was required not altogether for public purposes. He must beg the House to reserve its opinion with regard to the contracts—for which, however, the present Government was not responsible—until they had seen the papers. With respect to the time that it would take to produce the Returns, he had instituted inquiries, and was informed by the Commissary General-in-Chief that the transactions had taken place during the Crimean war, and that the deliveries were numerous and extensive—it would be improper for him, therefore, to deceive the House and the hon. Gentleman by pretending that these Returns could be presented very soon, though lie hoped they would before long be in the hands of hon. Members. He might further say that he was informed that the supplies of hay made by these contractors were very good and satisfactory, which had not been universally the case with the supplies received by the Government during the Crimean war.
  House adjourned at half-after Six o'clock, to Monday next.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILL.—1a Conservative Notice Amendment.

MONACO.—ANNEXATION OF MENTONE AND ROQUEBRUNE.— QUESTION.
LORD TRUROasked, Whether there had been any Correspondence between Her

463
Majesty's Government and the Government of the Emperor of the French in relation to the annexation of Monaco to France; and, if there had been, whether there would he any objection to lay such Correspondence on the table of the House?
LORD WODEHOUSEsaid, there had been no Correspondence between the two Governments on this subject, but Her Majesty's Ambassador at Paris had reported a conversation in which M. Thouvenel had informed him of the arrangements which had been come to between the French Government and the Prince of Monaco. The noble Lord was not quite correct in speaking of the annexation of Monaco, for the arrangement did not include Monaco strictly so called, which would remain as before, under the Government of the Prince of Monaco; but related to the two communes of Mentone and Roquebrune, concerning which there had been a long negotiation, which was now brought to a close by the French Government giving £160,000 in payment for the rights of sovereignty over those places.

NEW LAW COURTS.—OBSERVATIONS.
LORD ST. LEONARDSrose, pursuant to notice, to draw the Attention of the House to the Report of the Commissioners of Inquiry as to the Expediency of building new Law Courts on the same Spot, and where the Money is to come from, with a view of preserving the Funds arising from the Investments of Moneys belonging to the Suitors of the Court of Chancery for their Benefit and better Security; for which Purpose the Moneys were laid out, subject to certain Charges; and for reducing the Fees payable to the Court by such Suitors, for which Object the Funds stand appropriated. The noble and learned Lord said the question was one of very great importance; for the adoption of the Report would involve an expenditure of not loss than £1,400,000 belonging to the Suitors' Fee Fund of the Court of Chancery, in order to build courts which were not required for these suitors, but which it was thought desirable to build for the advantage of all the suitors in all the law courts. In his opinion all the accommodation required by the Court of Chancery could be furnished without trenching, as was proposed, upon the capital of the suitors, and no inconsiderable part of their income. When he held the office of Lord Chancellor he had to provide accommoda-
464
tion for the Lord Chancellor and the Lords Justices. This was effected by dividing the fine old hall in which the Lord Chancellor previously sat into two, and these courts had answered their purpose very well. The Master of the Rolls, whose court possessed every possible accommodation, had a house adjoining his court, and near it was a magnificent building for the deposit of the rolls, of which he was, as his name denoted, the Keeper. The Master of the Rolls, when before the Commission, expressed his utter disinclination to be removed from his present court and residence. He (Lord St. Leonards) considered that it would be very inconvenient and improper that the Master of the Rolls should not be near the place where the rolls of which he had the custody were deposited. Sir John Romilly said he had every convenience that could be given to him for the discharge of his official duties, and he objected to being removed from his present locality. With regard to the Vice Chancellors they were now three in number. The Vice Chancellor of England had a court built for him some time ago which had answered, and still answered the purpose that was required for the administration of justice. He, himself, practised there a long time, and was able to say that it was well adapted for the purpose for which it was built. There was, therefore, no want of accommodation for the Vice Chancellor of England. The Lords Justices were also provided for; they had very good chambers, but they ought to be in contiguity to their court. But there were two other Vice-Chancellors, and they were provided for as badly as possible. Two courts were built for them by the Society of Lincoln's Inn, upon their own land, and at their own cost; but they were cramped for size, and there certainly was a need of courts for those two equity Judges. Last Session a Bill was introduced to provide a site, and the Society of Lincoln's Inn were willing to advance the money to build the courts. They proposed to lay out £100,000 of their own money; and it was proposed that out of the income of the Suitors' Fee Fund, or the general fund belonging to the suitors of the Court of Chancery, there should be paid an annual rent to the society, which it was estimated would amount to about £4,000; that fund being already burdened with a yearly expenditure of £2,000 for chambers. The plans might be carried into execution in a twelvemonth; and thus, at an addi-

465
tional expenditure of £2,000 a year out of the Suitors' Fee Fund, all that was required for the proper administration of justice would be supplied. The Commissioners to whom the subject had been referred had recommended that a great block of buildings situated between Carey Street and the Strand should be bought, that all the houses should be levelled, and new buildings erected thereon, for all the Courts of justice. In these houses all sorts of trades were carried on, and largo sums would no doubt be required for them. It might he desirable that these houses should be removed, but where was the vast population contained in these closely-packed courts and chambers to find a home and habitation when driven out of their present dwellings? By such a measure as the one proposed, they would create the very overcrowding which it should be the object of the Legislature now to discourage. There were 370 houses in this block of buildings. These had not been valued; there had been no kind of estimate for the new buildings; and yet the Commissioners said that £675,000 would be required to buy the old houses, and £675,000 to erect the new ones. How they arrived at this conclusion he did not know; but it was curious that the two sums said to be necessary should be exactly the same. It was said that all the courts of justice were to be brought into one central position; but justice was transacted in their Lordships' House, and, of course, there could be no change in this respect. There were some courts that would not be included in the plan, and which would remain where they were—the Central Criminal Court in the Old Bailey, and the Court of Bankruptcy. He hoped also that, whatever might be done, the Lunacy Commissioners would not be removed. It was frequented by many suitors, whose mental and physical condition deserved the greatest consideration, and, he trusted, their interests would be duly studied. Then, as to the financial part of the scheme, it was proposed that £1,400,000 should be raised by a seven years' charge upon the Suitors' Fee Fund. But seven years seemed an unreasonable time to wait for the raising of a sum of £1,400,000, when another scheme which had been proposed might be accomplished in one year. Supposing new courts to be provided for the suitors in equity in Lincoln's Inn, a few steps across Carey Street would be all that was necessary to communicate with the new law courts; thus also
466
all exposure to the noise and turmoil of the Strand, which he could not hut believe would greatly inconvenience the sittings of those Courts that were placed in a line with the street, would be avoided. He did not find fault with any general scheme for the concentration of the courts; but into the general question he would not now enter. All he would say was, that those persons who believed that concentration would be all gain were mistaken. There was a debtor side of the account, and in some respects a great loss would be incurred by bringing all the courts together. Great stress was laid upon the argument that, if the courts were concentrated, the Judges would be able frequently to communicate with each other. But in the course of the five years during which he presided as Chancellor in Ireland, where the Courts were all assembled together, and there was but one legal society, he never remembered to have had the slightest communication with any other Court, nor did any other Judge consult with him. With regard to the evidence in favour of the scheme, he believed that its principal promoters were the Incorporated Society of Solicitors in Chancery Lane, and he believed it was a matter of the greatest importance to them, being, as they were, great houses of agency for country solicitors. It was proposed, however, that £1,400,000 should be taken from the Suitors' Fee Fund. He thought he should be able to show their Lordships that without doubt the fund in question belonged wholly to the suitors in the Court of Chancery. He could also show to their Lordships that it had always been dealt with as a fund which belonged to them, and that the proceeds of the whole fund had, with a small exception, been already appropriated by Parliament; so that the charge would eventually fall on the public, for the suitors would have to appeal to the Treasury to make good the fund, which already was barely more than enough to answer the charges that had been fixed upon it by Parliament. Sow the promoters did not venture to ask for this large sum by direct taxation; so they proposed to take it from the Suitors' Fee Fund, and if any loss was incurred to throw such loss upon the Consolidated Fund. So that indirectly a system of public taxation was adopted. They proposed, first of all, to take the money from a particular source, and then to apply to the Consolidated Fund for its recoupment. With regard to the

467
Suitors' Fee Fund, he must beg to remind their Lordships that the origin of this fund dated from the year 1726. Before that time the funds of the Court of Chancery had been paid to the Masters of the Court. Subsequently it was found that these officers, having been entrusted with the money of others, had misappropriated and wasted the funds of the suitors. Lord Macclesfield, as their Lordships would remember, was fined £30,000. This sum, with accumulations of interest, reached £51,000; and that sum, together with duties imposed by Parliament, made up the deficiency. Subsequently an officer was appointed in lieu of the Masters, called the Accountant General of the Court of Chancery, and all moneys paid in by the suitors were directed to be placed to his account. It seemed that the gentlemen who advocated this change were scarcely aware of the extreme complication of that account. The office was a most extensive one, with a numerous staff of clerks. At the Bank of England also the Accountant General had a very complex account where the funds of all the suitors were entered. If that account were disturbed, one of the best systems ever constructed for the benefit of the suitor would be destroyed. At that moment the funds of the Court of Chancery amounted to £49,000,000 of money. He recollected upon one occasion, when he first sat in the House of Commons, hearing a very amiable and animated conversation between the then Chancellor of the Exchequer and Mr. Baring, in which it was proposed to take these £40,000,000 of money, invest in the funds, and give the suitors 3 per cent for their money. It would amount to confiscation, and the confidence of every suitor in the Court would be shaken at once. Since that time, though various Chancellors of the Exchequer had made inquiries about the fund, there had been no attempt to interfere with it. The first time any portion of the money was appropriated was by an Act of the 12th of George II., when a portion of the fund was invested to pay the salary of the Accountant General, who was appointed in order to prevent defalcations and misdealings with the funds in the hands of the Court. The title of the Act stated that the fund "belonged to the suitors in the said court," and that the proceeds of the money invested should be applied in the said court for "the case of the suitors for answering the charges of the office of the Accountant General." The same principle
468
had been acted upon up to the present time, and the money arising from the investments of the fund had always been applied to purposes useful and beneficial to the suitors; and so far from regarding the suitors' fund as applicable to any purpose to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer might desire to devote it, the salaries of the Chancery Judges had actually been transferred from it to the Consolidated Fund. Power was given to the Lord Chancellor by orders from time to time to abolish or reduce existing fees, and to substitute others for them, and in 1854 he (Lord St. Leonards) made changes which would now be equivalent to reducing the fees payable by the suitors by £40,000 a year —a relief which, if capitalized, would represent no less than £551,000. At the present time the fee fund had only a margin of £2,000 a year over the expenditure chargeable upon it. The Commissioners in their Report said that, in time past the Suitors' Fee Fund was exclusively applied for the benefit of the suitors, but that new and varied exigencies had arisen. What were these new and varied exigencies? Why, that seven acres of compact buildings were to be taken down, the space thrown open, and new courts to be erected thereon. The fund, however, belonged exclusively to the suitors. The Lord Chancellor was a great public officer, holding sacredly these funds for the benefit of the suitors; and it would be highly improper that they should be applied to any other purpose.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that while his noble and learned Friend had been delivering his very able and interesting address, the House had gradually disappeared, with the exception of Her Majesty's Ministers who had remained to hear his suggestion on this subject. Although his noble and learned Friend's opinion on the matter was entitled to the greatest consideration, yet, he thought he had made a mistake in bringing the subject prematurely before the House. It had for years been notorious that the courts for the administration of justice in this country were inadequate in their accommodation; and so strongly did the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) feel this when he was in office that he issued a Commission to inquire into the subject. That Commission, in which the different interests were ably represented, consisted of Sir John Coleridge, Vice Chancellor Page Wood, Sir George Lewis, Dr. Phillimore, and Mr. Young considered

469
the subject with great care, and they unanimously concurred in the opinion that it was necessary there should be new courts, that they should be concentrated on the site which had been so severely criticised by the noble and learned Lord, and that the suitors fund might be legitimately applied towards the expense of their construction. If the Report of the Commission had been made before the noble Earl left office, without the smallest doubt, he would have directed a Bill to be brought into Parliament for the purpose of carrying its recommendations into effect. He (the Lord Chancellor) had to announce on the part of the Government to which he belonged, that, though the measure was originated by Lord Derby's Government, they were most anxious to follow in his footsteps in this respect, and they had prepared a Bill on the subject which would be immediately brought into the House of Commons. His noble and learned Friend was quite wrong in supposing that no plans or estimates had been prepared. All those bad been prepared, the usual notices had been served, and all the other preliminary steps taken; and in the course of a few days the Bill would, with the permission of the House of Commons, be introduced, unless the threatened injunction with regard to the Suitors' Fee Fund prevailed. His noble and learned Friend need not be under any misapprehension that he would not have ample opportunities for discussing the measure. On the present occasion he (the Lord Chancellor) would abstain from entering into details in regard to the proposed plan. He would only now say that he regretted leaving Westminster Hall, to which he had the warmest attachment; but their departure had become absolutely necessary. Westminster Hall answered the purpose of a palace of justice most admirably when, as in the time of the Plantagenets, they had only four Courts sitting; but now, from the increase of population and wealth in the country, they had no less than 24 other Courts all sitting together, all of which must be accommodated. He agreed entirely with the Commissioners that it was most desirable that the Courts of Equity and Common Law should be concentrated upon one spot. At present they were dissevered by great distances, and the Judges and counsel practising in them seldom had any opportunity of coming in contact with each other. There would, by such an arrangement, be a clear saving of time and expense to all concerned in the
470
administration of justice. The Commissioners had selected the area to which the noble and learned Lord had referred, and he believed that if the plan were completed it would be most conducive to the health and ornament of the Metropolis, Such a concentration, however, could not be carried out without the application to it of the suitors' fund, a fund which the Commissioners had said might be applied to this purpose without interfering with the rights of property, and without any injustice to the suitors. That fund now amounted to about two millions and a half, and it might properly be applied by the Legislature to any purpose which was connected with the administration of justice. He was unable to see what solid objection could exist to the plan that was proposed. Here was a large sum of money which had been brought into the Court of Chancery, to be retained in the custody of the Court; and was there any harm in applying any profit that might be derived from so retaining it to erect a building for the Court to sit in? He believed that next to having honesty, intelligence, and learned Judges it was essential to the administration of justice that there should be proper offices for the Court. As for lowering the fees, they had already been lowered, and were very moderate now; but, as for the proposal to abolish them altogether, he must say, however unpopular might be the declaration, that he thought it would be unjust to the taxpayer to call on the State to defray all the cost of litigation. He could not sec, then, who was injured, or who had a right to complain of the intended arrangement; but be would reserve anything more to be said about it till the Bill should come regularly before their Lordships' House.
LORD CRANWORTHsaid, he could not agree with his noble and learned Friend opposite (Lord St. Leonards) that the suitors' fund was one with which the State had not a perfect right to deal. Putting the extreme case that every suitor entitled to claim anything at the hands of the Court of Chancery did so at the same moment, and that all the stock was sold for the purpose of paying off these demands, in the present condition of the funds a very large surplus would remain; and to whom but the State would this belong? The suitors were not a corporation; the funds only belonged to them individually in their respective portions, and were to a large extent the result of accumulations extend-

471
ing over a century and a half. In 1725, when, through the misconduct of a Master, £100,000 of the suitors' money was withdrawn, the State, without the least hesitation, made good the deficiency by taxation. On the other hand, he felt it right to say that he did not see what good the State would derive from resorting to the suitors' fund. Nearly the whole of the interest was appropriated by different Acts of Parliament, and a surplus was only to be looked for when in some particular year a larger amount than usual of fees had been received. If therefore, the Chancellor of the Exchequer appropriated the fund for the purpose of building the new courts, he would be obliged by a concomitant measure to charge on the Consolidated Fund the amounts now chargeable on the interest arising from the suitors' fund. There could be no doubt as to the desirability of the contemplated measure; the only question was whether its advantages sufficed to countervail the cost. As to concentrating the courts in the same locality, he thought that it would certainly be productive of great convenience; but it was on the State, not on the suitors, that the expense should fall.
House adjourned at Quarter before Eight o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.