Sitting of 12 July 1861

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1o Pensions (British Forces), India; Public Works and Harbours; Lord Clerk Register (Scotland); Enlistment in India.
2o Conjugal Rights (Scotland).
3o University Elections; Vaccination; White Herring Fishery (Scotland); County Voters (Scotland).

PAROCHIAL AND BURGH SCHOOLS (SCOTLAND) NO. 2 BILL.

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  House in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 9 (Parochial Schoolmasters not to be required to sign Confession of Faith or Formula, but to make a Declaration and to undertake to conform to the Shorter Catechism).
  MR. HADFIELDobjected to the test proposed in the clause, and said that he would take the sense of the Committee upon that proposition. The paltry sum of £35 a year which was paid to these persons ought not to be made the means of violating the principles of civil and religious liberty—the very weakness of such persons ought to be a protection against such legislation. The present Bill was a renewal of the Text Act in its most odious forms. It was an act of gross cruelty to stultify a poor schoolmaster, and demora-

  793
  lize him by applying to him this test and calling upon him to take a solemn oath, which throughout the whole of his life would bear heavily upon his conscience. He appealed to the learned Advocate General not to insist upon this test. Entertaining a strong opinion to the principle embodied in the clause, he should move its omission from the Bill.
  Question put, "That Clause 9, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 45; Noes 9: Majority 36.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 10 (Jurisdiction of the Presbytery in cases of immoral Conduct or Cruelty transferred to the Sheriff),
  MR. DUNLOPobjected to the omission in this clause of charges for neglect of duty, which instead of being transferred along with those for immoral conduct and cruelty to children were still left to be tried by the Presbytery, and contended that neglect of duty, like other charges, should be tried by the sheriff. He proposed the insertion of words which would have that effect. Presbyteries, he maintained, were the worst possible tribunals for judicial functions, and the result of the jurisdiction allowed them by the Act 1803 had been that, although their sentences were declared by the statute final and not subject to revision, yet their blunders in procedure, and not keeping within the Act, had so constantly laid them open to challenge, and so many of their sentences had been quashed after long litigation, the expenses of which fell on the mentors or the Presbytery themselves, that scarcely any process was ever instituted now against a schoolmaster, and many improper parties were thus allowed to continue in office. Besides, it would be a mockery to open the parish schools to teachers of other denominations and leave them liable to be tried and deposed by the church courts of that establishment.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEobjected to the Amendment. The jurisdiction of the sheriff was confined to criminal cases, and the general superintendence of the Presbytery was preserved by the Bill. He would not object to take from the Presbytery the power of deposing a schoolmaster, but he thought cases of neglect of duty ought to be under the superintendence of the Presbytery.
  MR. BLACKsaid, that the position of these unfortunate schoolmasters appeared to be very hard indeed; for, not content
  794

  with compelling them to pass through the meshes of numerous examinations, it was proposed to establish something like a police in the shape of the Presbytery to watch over him as though he were a person not fit to be trusted. He could not help thinking that the whole Bill was a mockery and a delusion, and one which would not be attended with any beneficial result to the cause of education in Scotland. He hoped that the time would soon come when they would have a Ministry not afraid to deal with this question in a liberal spirit. It would be very much better if the Bill were lost, and they had to wait a little longer for a better measure.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, it was no doubt quite true that the Bill did not go so far as could be wished, but still it was a step in the right direction, and one which would open the schools to the children of both classes, and would form a useful basis for future enlightened and liberal legislation.
  MR. BUCHANANconsidered that, although the Bill was not altogether satisfactory, he still regarded it as a step in the right direction, and hoped that the hon. Member for Greenock would not press his Amendment.
  MR. DUNLOPsaid, that his Amendment was, in his opinion, essential to the good working of the Bill, and declined to withdraw it.
  SRI EDWARD COLEBROOKEattached great importance to the Amendment, and thought that they ought to deprive the Presbytery of every rag of judicial power which they now possessed, in order that the Dissenters might be convinced that justice would be done to them in the management of the schools.
  MR. MUREsaid, the Bill had been framed with a view to the satisfaction of all parties, and to secure its passing in that and the other House. If they were to deprive the Presbytery of all power of interference in the case of neglect of duty, they would reduce them to a state in which they would have no power of superintendence whatever.
  MR. BLACKBURNsaid, the effect of the Amendment would be to separate the schools from the Church altogether. That would be entirely opposed to the object of the Bill.
  MR. CARNEGIEhad no fears that the Presbyteries would abuse the power granted to them by the Bill, and opposed the Amendment.
  MAJOR CUMMING BRUCEasked why they should deprive the Presbytery of that remnant of connection with the schools which they had so long enjoyed? It was to the Church they owed the schools, and it was the connection of the Church with them that had led to the happy union of secular and religious teaching which had so long distinguished the schools of Scotland.
  COLONEL SYKESwould support the clause as it stood, as it was only by preserving it in its integrity they could hope to pass the Bill.
  MR. G. W. HOPEthought they should at least leave the Presbytery to judge of the daily doings and shortcomings of the schoolmaster. They had deprived them of every other power in connection with the school; but, as they must be the best judges of the schoolmaster's conduct, he thought they should be allowed to retain the superintendence that was still left to them.
  MR. DUNLOPwould withdraw his Amendment, provided the Lord Advocate would consent to take from the Presbytery the power of libelling the schoolmaster.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSONthought each side ought to make concessions on this question; but he begged to observe that the withdrawal of powers from the Presbytery proposed by this Bill would create pain among many persons in Scotland.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he was prepared so to amend the Bill, that the Presbytery should be invested merely with the power of censure and suspension, and not with the power of dismissal.
  LORD STANLEYasked how long the suspension of a schoolmaster might continue, and whether it would involve a loss a salary?
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, that the suspension, like an ecclesiastical censure, could be prolonged indefinitely, and that it would involve a loss of salary as long as it continued.
  MR. G. W. HOPEsaid, that there was no reason to apprehend that the heritors would allow the school to be closed for any length of time; so that practically the power of suspension would not be of an indefinite extent.
  LORD STANLEYsuggested that some positive limit should be placed on the power of suspension.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he was
  796
  ready to adopt that suggestion. He would limit the power of suspension to a period of three months; and he hoped that under those circumstances the hon. and learned Member for Greenock would not press his Amendment.
  MR. DUNLOPsaid, that in answer to the appeal of the Lord Advocate, he would withdraw the Amendment. He felt less difficulty in doing so, as he had reason to think that, on a division, he would not receive the support of many of those Members who agreed with him upon the general principle.
  Amendment, by leave, withrawn.
  MR. DUNLOPproposed the insertion of words which would entitle the Presbytery to institute proceedings against a schoolmaster on the application of the heritors and minister, or of any six heads of families in the parish who had children attending the school.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEaccepted the Amendment.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSONthought the Amendment would give power to persons in the parish needlessly to annoy a schoolmaster.
  Amendment agreed to.
  On the Motion of Mr. MURE, words were added to deprive a schoolmaster of his salary when under suspension, and to appropriate it towards providing a substitute.
  Clause as amended, agreed to, as was also Clause 11.
  Clause 12 (Repeal of Clauses of the recited Act requiring an Estimate of the Value of Grain to be made at successive Period),
  THE LORD ADVOCATEproposed to add words to the effect that the right of electing a parochial schoolmaster jure devoluto, conferred by a 15th section of the recited Act on the Commissioners of Supply of the county after the expiration of four months from the time when the vacancy in any parochial school had taken place, should not arise or accrue to the Commissioners of Supply until the expiration of six months from the time of such vacancy.
  Amendment agreed to,
  Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 13 omitted.
  Clause 14 (Schoolmaster's House to consist of Four Apartments),
  MR. LOCKHARTproposed the addition of words to enable heritors to take ground for the schoolmaster's house, &c.,

  797
  and to provide an adequate supply of water.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEobjected to the Amendment, which would impose a heavy expenditure in many instances.
  LORD STANLEYsaid, the words proposed gave a very great power to a very limited body. They would enable the heritors to take any ground they might fix upon.
  Amendment withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 15 agreed to.
  Clause 16 (Schoolmasters in Royal Burghs not to be required to sign Confession of Faith or Formula of Church of Scotland),
  MR. DUNLOPmoved to insert, in line 12, after "thereof," the following words, "nor shall any such schoolmaster be subject to the trial, judgment, or censure of the presbytery of the bounds for his sufficiency, qualifications, or deportment in his office."
  THE LORD ADVOCATEassented to the Amendment, and the clause as Amended was agreed to.
  Clause agreed to, as were also the remaining Clauses.
  MR. DUNLOPmoved a new Clause to enable heritors from time to time to discontinue existing side schools.
  Clause agreed to.
  MR. DUNLOPmoved a new Clause to enable the heritors to appoint a female teacher.
  Clause agreed to.
  MR. DUNLOPmoved a Clause to the effect that teachers might be required to resign, provisions being made for them during life.
  Clause agreed to.
  MR. DUNLOPmoved a Clause to enable the electors of schoolmasters to choose more than one candidate to be tried by examiners.
  Clause negatived.
  SRI JAMES FERGUSSONmoved a Clause to the effect that, upon agreement between the heritors and schoolmaster, the office of schoolmaster might be declared vacant, a retiring pension being provided.
  Clause agreed to.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEproposed that the following should come after Clause 9:—
  "It shall be competent for the Presbytery of the Bounds, or for the heritors, whensoever they shall see cause for instituting proceedings against the schoolmaster of any parish for contravention of the said declaration, to present a complaint to one of Her Majesty's principal Secretaries of
  798
  State against such schoolmaster; and it shall be lawful to the Secretary of State thereupon to appoint a Commission to inquire into the said charge, and to censure, suspend, or deprive such schoolmaster, as they shall find to be just, provided that no such sentence shall take effect until it has been confirmed and approved by the Secretary of State."
  MR. BLACKobjected to the clause. He believed it would not be put in force; but if proceedings were never taken under the clause it would be a mere sham, and ought not to be enacted.
  MR. ADAMalso objected to the clause, and contended that the only true course was to separate religious from secular teaching, and leave the people to say what religious teaching should be given to their children.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, the people of Scotland were divided in opinion upon many things, but they all agreed in this, that secular and religious teaching should not be separated from each other.
  MR. ADAMdid not mean to exclude religion from the schools; but held that the people should be left to choose religious education for themselves and their children.
  SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEobjected strongly to the test that had been introduced into the Bill.
  Clause agreed to.
  MR. ADAMmoved a Clause to the effect that were a schoolmaster was absent for more than three weeks continuously, except in vacation time, it might be lawful for the heritors to appoint a substitute to be paid out of the salary and fees received by such schoolmaster—absence from ill-health not coming within the meaning of the clause.
  Clause negatived.
  On the Motion of MR. LESLIE,a Clause was adopted to the effect that on the retirement of a schoolmaster the house and premises of the school should be made over within a certain time to the successor, and where the house and premises formed part of the retiring allowance, the heritors should make reasonable compensation to the ex-schoolmaster.
  Clause agreed to.
  A Clause was added, on the Motion of Mr. MURE, providing for the resignation of a schoolmaster declared by the inspectors to be incompetent to discharge his duties from infirmity or old age, also providing for the resignation of a schoolmaster, who from negligence or inattention shall fail efficiently to discharge his duties; and providing for the payment of a retiring allow-

  799
  ance when the resignation shall not be caused by any fault of the schoolmaster.
  Preamble agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered on Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 243.]

IRREMOVABLE POOR BILL.

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  House in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 9 the following addition, moved by Sir JOHN PAKINGTON on Tuesday, was again proposed—
  "Provided also, that extra-parochial places which have heretofore paid no contributions to the common fund of the unions in which they are comprised shall, notwithstanding anything herein contained, be hereafter exempt from such contributions."
  MR. HENLEYsaid, it was impossible to discuss this important clause and Amendment at that hour—half-past three; and he, therefore, moved that the Chairman should report Progress.
  MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, the right hon. Gentleman who proposed the Amendment (Sir John Pakington) was not present to press it, although he expected that it would be settled that day. He begged to remind the Committee that the Amendment received no support on Tuesday.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSwas surprised to hear it stated that the Amendment of his right hon. Friend (Sir John Pakington) had received no support. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carlisle and other Gentlemen certainly stated that they would support his right hon. Friend's proposition as he had altered it.
  MR. C.P. VILLIERSsaid, there was no support given to the original proposal made by the right hon. Member for Droitwich, but he admitted that some support was given to it in its modified form. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Droitwich had informed him that he could not be present, but that he expected his Amendment would be decided upon that day.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 33; Noes 115: Majority 82.
  Amendment again proposed,
  MR. KNIGHT,amid cries of "Divide," opposed the Amendment.
  MR. PEACOCKEmoved that the Chairman leave the chair. It was now near four o'clock, and the right hon. Gentleman must see that it was impossible to make any progress with the Bill that day.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."
  The Committee divided:— Ayes 24; Noes 104: Majority 80.
  House resumed.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again on Tuesday next, at Twelve of the clock.

  PUBLIC WALKS—QUESTION.
  MR. SLANEYsaid, he wished to ask the First Commissioner of Works, If permission will be given to open the Terrace at the back of Somerset House for respectable persons to walk there, at such hours and under such rules as shall be thought right, according to the recommendation of the Committee on Public Walks in 1833; and if there is any prospect of a Public Walk or open Ground being made in the south-east of London, near Bermondsey, or in Southwark, as suggested by that Committee?
  MR. COWPER,in reply, said he was anxious that every public place in London which could afford a pleasant view, or promote or provide for the recreation of the public, should be turned to the best account. Doubtless the terrace in front of Somerset House would afford a pleasant lounge to a great number of persons if it were thrown open to the public; but there were certain objections made to that public use of it in consequence of the nature of the occupation of Somerset House. At the present moment, he had not satisfied his own mind that those objections could be altogether obviated. With regard to the proposal for another park, no doubt any one who saw the great delight that was caused by Battersea Park to thousands of the inhabitants of London would, like the hon. Gentleman, wish for another park at the south-east side of London. But he was unaware of any fund which could be appropriated for that purpose, and therefore, he could not hold out any distinct prospect of such an excellent arrangement being adopted.

  PORTERS' RESTS.—QUESTION.
  MR. SLANEYsaid, he would now beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If the Metropolitan

  801
  Board of Works or the Vestries of different parishes in the Metropolis, will assist in placing Porters' Rests for poor persons bearing heavy burdens in proper places; or would suggest proper places for those willing to erect Porters' Rests, and seats near, at their own cost?
  SIR GEORGE LEWIS:Sir, this is a matter over which the Home Department has no control. Neither have I any reason to believe that the Metropolitan Board of Works have power or means applicable to such a purpose. But I believe the Vestries, if they are so disposed, can erect these rests for porters. In certain cases they have done so; and I have no doubt, if proper representations were made to them, that they would be willing to extend these advantages.

  GOVERNMENT SCHOOL AT BERHAMPORE.—QUESTION.
  MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, Whether any Papers have been sent home relative to an application made by Mr. Martin, Principal of the Government School at Berhampore, to the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal, for permission to open a Bible Class in the School under his charge; and, if so, whether he has any objection to lay them upon the Table of the House? And if they have not been received, whether he will direct their early transmission in order to lay them upon the table?
  SIR CHARLES WOODreplied that some Papers on the subject had been received, but not from the Government of India, and he was not prepared to lay them on the Table. He would, however, write to India on the subject.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.—QUESTION.
  COLONEL FRENCHsaid, he wished to ask the Chairman of the Standing Orders Committee, If, after the experience of the plan for facilitating Public Business in the House of Commons recommended by the Select Committee during this Session, it is his intention to move for a Committee to revise the Standing Orders?
  COLONEL WILSON PATTENsaid, he was not authorized by the Committee on Standing Orders to make any Motion of the kind. Having consulted Mr. Speaker, the right hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir James Graham), who was Chairman of the Committee on Public
  802
  Business which sat in the early part of the Session, and other hon. Members, he found it to be the impression that the House had not had sufficient experience of the recommendations of that Committee to warrant him in moving for a Committee to revise the Standing Orders. If those recommendations had not been favourable in some of their results, unquestionably they had been so in others. It had been supposed by more than one hon. Member that the plan of putting Supply down for Tuesday evenings would prove abortive; but the experience of Tuesday last afforded ground for supposing that the fact would be otherwise. Under these circumstances, he should not move for a Committee to revise the Standing Orders. Indeed, under any circumstances he should scarcely feel justified in taking such a step, after the appointment of a Committee presided over by so distinguished a Member of the House as the right hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle.

CHURCH RATES AMENDMENT BILL.

  QUESTION.
  SIR CHARLES DOUGLASsaid, he wished to ask the hon. Member for Preston, What course he intends to pursue respecting his Bill for the Amendment of Church Rates, which stands for the 24th instant; and whether, after the opinions expressed on the withdrawal of a similar Bill on the 10th instant, he will persevere in moving the Second Reading at so late a period of the Session?
  MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURTsaid, he had received a letter from his hon. Friend expressing his surprise and mortification at finding that some of his friends in London had expressed an opinion that, owing to the advanced period of the Session, it was not desirable to proceed with the measure; but that, under the circumstances, he should on Wednesday next move that the Order of the Day for the second reading of the Bill be discharged.

  A BENGALLI PLAY.—QUESTION.
  SRI JOHN SHELLEYsaid, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for India, Whether the Government has received any information relative to the circulation by the Government of Bengal, in official envelopes marked "On Her Majesty's Service." of an English translation of a "Bengalli Play," containing attacks on British set-

  803
  tlers connected with the manufacture of Indigo in Bengal, on their wives and families?
  SRI CHARLES WOODreplied, that if his hon. Friend had any curiosity to read the play, he would send him a copy; but he had received no information whatever that it was of the character which his hon. Friend described.

  Order for Committee (Supply) read.
THE FRENCH AND BELGIAN TREATY.

  QUESTION.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, The cause of the delay of the Belgian Government in applying the new Tariff Arrangements between France and Belgium to this Country? The House was, no doubt, aware that the trade between this country and Belgium had been very much diminished by the peculiar policy of the Government of Belgium. It was not merely a protective policy in favour of their own manufactures, but a policy of preference of almost every other country over this country, and especially a preference of France. He much feared that the disadvantages of this policy would be increased in consequence of the commercial treaty between this country and France, from which, in other respects, we derived considerable advantages. On the conclusion of the commercial treaty between France and this country, negotiated by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Cobden), France offered almost the same terms to other countries, and amongst others to Belgium. The result was a commercial treaty between France and Belgium, by which French goods would be admitted to Belgium on much more favourable terms than English. That treaty was not extended to England; and the result would be that the differential duty against English goods and in favour of French goods would be very much increased. In worsted and woollen goods, with which he was best acquainted, the present duty on French goods was 22 percent; after the 1st of October it would be 15 per cent, to be reduced to 10 per cent in 1864. The duty levied on English goods of a similar description was about 35 per cent. So that while the differential duty against us was at present about 50 per cent, it would be increased to 130 per cent in October, and in 1864, if no new arrangement took place meanwhile,
  804
  to 350 per cent. He believed the same was the case with regard to cotton, and also with linen. The duty on French silk was 4 francs per kilogramme; after the 1st October it would be 3 francs. On English silks the duty was 11 francs 60 centimes; so that the duty on English silks was now about three times as much as on French silks, and would soon be four times as much. He could understand why the Belgians might be afraid of English woollens; but their course with regard to the admission of silks appeared to him to be an especially unfriendly action, giving as it did a large preference to French over English silks. But we laboured under a disadvantage not only in the amount of the duty but in the mode in which it was levied. One of the greatest benefits of the treaty between England and France consisted in the substitution of ad valorem for specific duties. If anybody wished for proof of the disadvantageous working of the system of specific duties he would obtain it by observing the working of the importation into Belgium. The hon. Member read a letter from Huddersfield describing the evils attendant on the levying of duties in Belgium. The Belgium tariff in English goods, the writer said, was a very complicated one, and minute specifications were required; the Custom House officer put his own construction on these, and if he considered the specification inaccurate a heavy fine was levied, one-half of which went to the Custom House officers themselves. Not only, then, had the French goods an enormous advantage in point of amount of duty. but after October of this year, they would have the great additional advantage of an ad valorem instead of a specific duty. The manufacturers did not contest the right of the Belgian Government to adopt either a protective or a differential duty; but they did not expect that Belgium, towards which this country had always showed such a friendly feeling, and who had received, he might say, so many obligations at our hands, would have placed this country at a disadvantage as compared with others. It was not to France alone, but to other countries, that preference was shown, for Belgium had a general tariff on the admission of the goods of all countries; but there were special exceptions in favour of France, Holland, Luxemburg, and the Zollverein, so that English goods almost alone remained subjected to the general tariff. The reply of the Belgian Government to the re-

  805
  monstrances of our Foreign Office was that they intended to remove this preference, but that they were waiting till the expiration of the special treaty with France. That special treaty expired on the 1st of March last, and, as it was understood that a new and more favourable treaty was in contemplation, the Chamber of Commerce of Bradford memorialized the Foreign Office that it would use its exertions to put our manufacturers on the same footing with France. This was in November; but the Foreign Office did not reply till January. He did not complain of this, as he had no doubt that the noble Lord was otherwise much occupied about that period; but it was matter of regret, for he had no doubt that during those two months the terms of the treaty had been arranged between Belgium and France. On the 11th of January the noble Lord directed Mr. Hammond to assure the Bradford Chamber of Commerce that the Belgian Government had given assurances that they had no intention to make the slightest distinction between the woollen mannufacturers of France and those of Great Britain, and that no concession would be made to the manufacturers of any country which was not also conceded to the manufacturers of Great Britain. Still nothing more was heard of the matter. In May the Treaty with France was completed, and a fresh memorial having been addressed to the Foreign Office, the following answer was received on the 31st of May:—
  "Foreign Office, May 31, 1861.
  "Sir, in reply to your letter of the 27th instant, I am directed by Lord John Russell to acquaint you that there is no discrepancy between the letter dated the 11th of January last, which you received from Mr. Hammond, and that which I addressed to you on the 22nd instant. Her Majesty's Government had in January last received, and have lately again received, from the Belgian Government, assurances that there was no intention on their part to make any distinction between the import duties on French woollens and those on woollens the produce of Great Britain, and Her Majesty's Government are now in communication with the Belgian Government, with a view to concluding a new treaty of commerce, which shall give effect to those assurances.
  "I am, Sir, your most
  "Obedient humble servant,
  "WODEHOUSE."
  Since that time a law had passed the Belgian Chambers sanctioning the treaty with France, but nothing whatever was said about a treaty with England. He wished now to ask the reason for this delay, and
  806
  he hoped that the reply he should receive would be a satisfactory one. He could hardly sit down without stating that such were and had all along been the relations between this country and Belgium that they had a right to expect the conclusion of a treaty of commerce as favourable as with any country in the world, not even excepting France. It was under the guidance of the noble Lord now at the head of the Government that the Kingdom of Belgium was established; no one knew better than he what a prominent part the British Government had taken in assisting that Government—none knew better the obligations under which this country was placed with regard to it—indeed, the noble Lord occasionally reminded them of some of which they were not before aware—and he would only say that if the Belgian Government wanted to retain the friendly feeling of this country they had better trust to a good commercial intercourse than to any parchment obligations, however strong they might be.
  MR. PAGETrose to confirm the statement of his hon. Friend as to the great anxiety with which our merchants and manufacturers regarded the new treaty between Belgium and France. They felt that the French manufacturers were formidable competitors with them in ordinary circumstances, and they looked with regret, and with some degree of indignation, on a treaty which admitted the goods of their competitors at an unfair advantage.
  MR. HEYGATEbegged to add a few words on behalf of his constituents, who were deeply interested in this matter, and who entirely concurred in the representations of his hon. Friend the Member for Bradford. He would not repeat all that had been urged by his hon. Friend, but the facts of the case were shortly these:—For years past the products of Great Britain had been subject to higher rates of duty on admission into Belgium than similar manufactures imported there from France and other countries. Almost every country except England enjoyed certain exemptions and privileges in Belgian tariffs, whilst England alone came in under the general tariff. Now, there was no possible reason or pretext for any such distinction. Not only were we on terms of the closest amity with Belgium, but if there was any one country more than another from whom we had a right to expect a different treatment it was from Belgium, to whom we had always afforded the advantage of our

  807
  friendship, and which enjoyed the blessings of a free Government and liberal institutions nearly identical with our own. Unfortunately, however, a liberal commercial policy did not in this case follow, as might have been expected, from those institutions, and so far from being admitted upon terms equal to those of the most favoured nation, our trade was marked out by them for special hostility. And if the trade with Belgium had been hitherto in a languishing state, it followed that when the new Franco-Belgian tariff came into operation on October 1, that trade would be annihilated. The duty on French woollen yarn was now 45 f. per 100 kilogrammes, and would be then further reduced to 30 f. to 40 f.; whilst the duties on corresponding English goods remained at 116 f. So, too, as regarded woollen manufactures, the present French duty on which was to be reduced from 225 f. per 100 kilogrammes to a 15 per cent ad valorem duty, whilst the duty on English was 381 f., equal to 37 1/2 ad valorem. England asked no privileges or special advantages, but only the opportunity of free and fair competition. It was true Lord Wodehouse had written, on May 31, that the Belgian Government assured us they had "no intention to make any difference between the import duties on French woollens and those produced in England," but, meantime, nothing was done, and they had reason to ask the cause of this delay. He would add one other reason why the Foreign Secretary should urge this matter forward as rapidly as possible—namely, that owing to the unhappy civil war now raging in America, and the restrictive tariffs adopted by the Northern States, the American trade in the midland districts was nearly annihilated; considerable distress was already the consequence, and that distress would be greatly aggravated unless some modification of the Belgian tariff should be made so soon as the new Franco-Belgian Treaty came into operation. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, too, was deeply interested in the matter, for unless something was done to save this trade he would himself be disappointed in the sanguine Estimates of Customs revenue which he had formed, and which he (Mr. Heygate) earnestly hoped might not be unequal to the results hitherto anticipated.
  MR. NEWDEGATEwished to state that the depression in trade in the district which he represented, especially in Coventry and for eight miles round it, was
  808
  not in the least degree abated. The manufacturers were in great measure ruined, and the operatives were now, as a last resource, emigrating. Several of them had emigrated lately from the parish adjoining that in which he resided, and from the parish adjoining. This rendered it the more important that their manufactures should have the advantages referred to by the hon. Member for Bradford, to whom he begged to offer his thanks for having called attention to the subject.
  LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he could not altogether wonder at the complaints made with respect to the conduct of the Belgian Government. When early in the Her Majesty's Government applied to the Belgian Government they were told that they were negotiating a treaty of commerce with France, and that, until the terms of that treaty were arranged, it was not convenient to be negotiating with different Powers on the same subject at the same time. But at the same time they always assured Her Majesty's Government that whatever terms were granted with respect to French manufactures should also be conceded to English manufactures. On that assurance Her Majesty's Government relied—namely, that as soon as terms were arranged with France the Belgium Government would make the same terms with Great Britain. The negotiations between France and Belgium were considerably protracted, and it was not without difficulty that the provisions of the treaty in regard to the questions respecting woollen manufactures and other articles were carried through the Belgian Chambers. When the British Government again expressed their expectation that the same terms would be extended to this country, the Belgian Government answered that it was too late, at the end of the Session, to submit to the Belgian Chambers concessions to this country, and that without a law any concessions made by the Belgian Government would be of no value. According to that statement the Belgian Government had not chosen to introduce any Bill on the subject, and he thought that the British Government had reason to complain of that conduct. For his part he considered such conduct very unfriendly to this country; for he conceived that it might have been possible to protract the sitting of the Chambers for a fortnight or three weeks, and it appeared to him that the concession to this country of similar terms to those granted to France was what the British Govern-

  809
  ment had a right to expect on grounds of general policy, and seemed, after the assurances given, to be only matter of good faith. The British Government had always behaved with the greatest liberality in these subjects. For the last ten years we had effected changes in the tariff without making them matter of bargain, and when we recently concluded a commercial treaty with France we extended the same terms to all the nations of Europe. Consequently, though the Belgian Government had not granted to this country all the advantages it had a right to expect, they enjoyed themselves all the advantages resulting from the changes made in the English tariff. The British Government had again very recently remonstrated with the Belgian Government, and had asked them immediately to conclude a treaty of commerce which would place this country on an equal footing with France, and he did not think that they could fairly take any objection to that course; but he was sorry to say that, as the Belgian Chambers were not sitting, nothing could yet be definitely done on the subject.

DENMARK AND HOLSTEIN.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  SIR HARRY VERNEYsaid, he rose to call the attention of the House to the Correspondence on the Affairs of Denmark, Schleswig and Holstein of 1860 and 1861. The hon. Baronet said he thought that England was called upon to interfere in the dispute as a mediating Power, and that we were in a much more advantageous position than France and other Powers for bringing about a peaceful solution. The hon. Baronet, whose statement was very imperfectly heard, referred at some length to the occurrences of 1849 and 1850, and said that the German Bund had undertaken to obtain for the Duchies the rights and privileges for which they had taken up arms, and that in 1852 the King of Denmark had engaged to maintain a separate national existence for Holstein, and equal rights for the Danish and German population of the kingdom. These promises had been openly and systematically broken, and the consequence was that there had been excited in Germany a strong feeling which might induce the German nation generally to take up arms to restore to Schleswig and Holstein those rights which they claimed to be entitled to. The hon. Gentleman then proceeded
  810
  to read extracts from communications of Mr. Ward, who was now Consul-General at Hamburg, and whom he characterized as a most able and trustworthy public servant; of Mr. Howard, and others, to show that a considerable degree of oppression was exercised by the Danish Government towards the German inhabitants of Schleswig and Holstein. He had himself met with clergymen who had been compelled to leave their congregations because they refused to Danicize the German inhibitants of the Duchies. The German inhabitants of Schleswig were not permitted to approach the throne with a respectful statement of their grievances. It was stated that the Treaty of London was not binding; perhaps the noble Lord, if he made any reply to these observations, would give his opinion on that subject. The Treaty of London, he believed, was abrogated, so far as respected this country and France towards Russia, by the fact that war had intervened. The effect of that treaty was most hostile to Germany. It would bring a Russian prince to the throne of Denmark after the death of the present monarch. That would be very injurious to the small German interests, and he could not conceive that it would be beneficial to us. He was quite aware that the subject he had introduced to the notice of the House was not very interesting to many Members, but he could not help regarding it as one of the utmost importance, and he begged to thank them for the patience with which they had listened to the extracts he had read.
  LORD HARRY VANEsaid, he was glad that, after having kept the question suspended for some time before the House, the hon. Baronet had at length brought it on for discussion. He could not quarrel with the hon. Baronet for the view he took of the question, but the (Lord Harry Vane) thought it would be desirable that the House should not be led away by partial statements. He did not intend to defend the Government of Denmark in the conduct which they had pursued towards Schleswig; but looking at the matter generally, he thought the House would come to a different conclusion from that arrived at by the hon. Baronet. The hon. Baronet seemed to be under the impression that the Treaty of London had been abrogated, and that it was no longer of any force or validity, because of the war which had since taken place between England and Russia. But the hon. Baronet was in

  811
  error. Russia was only one of the parties to the treaty, and the subsequent war could not cancel it. Besides, there was an ancient treaty, dated in 1720, between France, England, and Germany, which was in force, and which guaranteed Schleswig and Holstein as part of the possessions of the throne of Denmark. Much might be said about the succession to the crown of Denmark. But it was thought at the time when there was a probability that the succession to Schleswig and Holstein might become doubtful, that it would be better it should be settled; and seeing that Denmark was but a small State and held the keys of the Baltic, it was, in his opinion, wisely decided by the great Powers, that the succession to Denmark and the Duchies should descend to the same Monarch rather than that Schleswig and Holstein should be separated from Denmark. The question of Schleswig and the question of Holstein were totally distinct. Holstein had, no doubt, been a part of the German Empire up to the time of its termination in 1806. But since 1815 the Duchy had been in the position it now occupied, and the rights of Denmark over Holstein were very limited. As regarded Schleswig the case was very different, and the difficulties between that Duchy and Denmark had arisen in consequence of a large German population having become inhabitants of the Duchy. There were in the Duchy two parties, which were to a certain extent hostile to each other, and unhappily nothing but time would entirely remedy all the complaints made, and smooth down the feelings which existed among the people. The Danish Government had lately shown a disposition to remedy all complaints which were well founded, and quite ready to do full and equal justice to both nationalities. In his opinion the best course to pursue would be for Denmark to allow the autonomy of Holstein, and for the Government to fix a certain sum as the contribution of the Duchy towards the general expenses of the kingdom. He also thought it right that new laws binding Holstein should be submitted to the Holstein Diet before being put into force. No Danish statesman would consent that Schleswig should be disunited from Denmark—
  Notice taken, that Forty Members were not present; House counted, and Forty Members being present
  The noble Lord proceeded:—When he was interrupted he was calling the attention of the House to the management of the
  812
  finances of Denmark and Holstein, and he thought the only true mode would be to stipulate that there should be a vote of a certain sum by the Diet of Holstein for the general expenses of the Government, and that all votes required over and above that should be specially submitted to the Diet of Holstein. No doubt there was a very strong feeling on the question, both in North and South Germany. But the Germans were bound to respect in others the feeling of nationality that animated themselves. They were bound to respect the Scandinavian feeling, that was not confined to Denmark; Sweden had expressed its readiness, under certain circumstances, to come to the aid of Denmark. It was impolitic on the part of Germany to raise a question that might hereafter bring down an intervention with which she would find it difficult to contend. It was most desirable that some definitive measures should be taken to settle this question. He hoped the Foreign Secretary would be able to tell them that a disposition existed on the part of Germany to accept proposals for a settlement, but it could only be effected by Germany respecting the rights of Denmark.
  SIR MORTON PETOsaid, he did not believe there was any part of Germany in which more liberty was enjoyed than in the Duchy of Holstein. All that had been said about the language to be used in schools and churches and the restrictions on private education no longer applied. The state of things that had been complained of had been done away with. He believed the Danish Government felt that it had been wrong to permit such a state of things to exist. Denmark wished to obtain the good offices of England, and was ready to grant the Duchies a liberal Constitution; but the great difficulty in the way of a settlement was the contribution of Holstein. He believed it might be necessary to separate the Customs' duties of Holstein and the Duchy of Schleswig. The people of Denmark were strongly impressed with the necessity of free trade; but in Holstein, as in the greater part of Germany, the feeling was of an opposite kind, and it might be necessary to establish a line of Customs on the Eider. As for personal freedom in the Duchy of Holstein it was complete. Such a thing as a permission to travel or a passport had been unknown for nine or ten years. He earnestly hoped that the good offices of the Government might be successful.
  MR. DUNLOPwished to ask a question

  813
  as to the extent to which the Government held this country bound by the treaty of 1852. It was incomprehensible to him how any Government of this country should ever have entered into a treaty, the main effect of which was to open the way for the speedy accession of the Imperial family of Russia to the throne of Denmark. The possession of Denmark by Russia, and the command of the North Sea and the entrance to the Baltic by that Power, would be dangerous to the interests of this country. But under colour of a treaty for preventing a separation between Denmark Proper and the Duchies of Holstien and Schleswig, we had become parties to an arrangement by which nineteen heirs, standing between the present King of Denmark and the Emperor of Russia, were to be cut off from the right of succession, and only four left, with a limitation too, to heirs male exclusively, which made the failure of the intermediate heirs much more likely to happen. As to the Duchies, the succession was limited to males, while by the Lex Regia, intoduced into Denmark in the course of last century, the succession to the Kingdom of Denmark was thrown open to females. On the death, therefore, of the present King and his uncle, neither of whom had heirs male, there would have been a separation of the Duchies and the Kingdom. The simple way of preventing this would have been by doing at once what has been done since the treaty—namely, repeating the Lex Regia in Denmark. But this would not have suited the views of Russia, and so an agreement was come to between the Emperor and the King of Denmark by which the Prince of Ghuhsburg should be declared heir both of the Duchies and the Kingdom, disinheriting no less than nineteen intermediate heirs, and thereafter he himself was connected only by females, limiting the succession in future to heir male, and rendering much more probable the early extinction of his line, and the opening up of the succession to the Emperor of Russia. The consent of the States of Denmark had, after much resistance, been obtained to this scheme, but hitherto those of the Duchies had steadfastly refused to sanction it. Now the question he wished to put to the noble Lord, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs was this:—Did the Government consider that this country was by the treaty of 1852, bound, under all circumstances, on the death of the King of Denmark and his uncle, to recognize the Prince of Ghuhs-
  814
  burg as Sovereign of Denmark and the Duchies, or was the obligation of the treaty simply this—that if the succession should be lawfully and constitutionally changed by the competent authorities in Denmark and the Duchies, this country would recognize their act to this effect, and not promote the cause of any of the disinherited heirs against the will of the nation? To illustrate what he meant he would suppose that before the death of George IV., he and the other Sovereigns of Europe had entered into a treaty for securing the succession to the throne of Britain as well as to that of Hanover, of the Duke of Cumberland to the exclusion of our present Queen. Such a treaty might be merely an engagement to recognize his succession provided the Legislature of this country should lawfully have adopted it, or it might be a combination to force on the people and Legislature of this country, the heir male in preference to the heir female. Now, he wished to know whether the Government considered this treaty of 1852 to be of the former or the latter character and import? It was a question of the highest moment to the future well-being of this country and to the cause of liberty in Europe, and he trusted that the noble Lord would be able to give a satisfactory answer.
  LORD JOHN RUSSELL:The House will perhaps allow me, although I have already addressed it, to answer the appeal that has been made to me by the hon. Member for Buckingham and other hon. Members. In doing so it is not my intention either to enter into the arguments as to the rights of the different parties, or of the Germanic Confederation, or of the King of Denmark, or to point out the terms on which I think the existing differences might be terminated. I will confine myself to stating what I consider to be the present state of the question which the hon. Baronet has brought under our notice. I have myself been very anxious with respect to the question of Federal execution. The House is aware that the Germanic Confederation came to certain resolutions, to the effect that if the King of Denmark would not submit to certain propositions within a given time Federal execution would take place. I have been anxious on that subject, because it is one of such a delicate nature, and the passions of men are so much excited, that I could not but fear that it would endanger the peace in those provinces, and that it might

  815
  eventually cause disturbance in the interior of the country. However, I am glad to hear that it is likely that the King of Denmark will make propositions, either to the Germanic Confederation, or to Austria and Russia, by which it is hoped that Federal execution may be postponed for the present year, and negotiations may be entered on. Now, what those negotiations or what the terms to be proposed by the King may be, I am not able to say, but I think it is perfectly fair and just, the Germanic Confederation having declared that a certain requirement should be complied with by the King, that His Majesty should, on his side, either announce his intention to comply, or give reasons why those requirements cannot be fairly placed before him as conditions to which he ought to subscribe. I conceive that those negotiations may end in a solution of the whole question. The subject is one on which a good deal of correspondence has taken place between the different Powers of Europe. All I can hope at present is that at least some time may be allowed for negotiations, and that Frederal execution may not immediately take place. Certainly the subject is one on which I think every State in Europe is entitled to take an interest. With regard to the question of my hon. Friend who last spoke (Mr. Dunlop) I shall not undertake to state on a hypothetical case what might be the interpretation of the treaty signed in 1852, in the negotiation of which I had no part, and the terms of which I have not accurately in my mind now; but, as to the general purpose and scope of that treaty, I may observe that it is quite different from what my hon. Friend apprehends it to be. I believe it was supposed that if different titles could be set up to the Danish monarchy on the death of the present Sovereign, in that case Russia might revive her claim as against other claimants, and that, if she did, she would not be likely to fare the worst among the contending parties. Therefore, it was thought desirable by other Powers of Europe—Russia assenting to the arrangement—that the Danish monarchy should pass in a certain direction, in order that the ambitious hopes of the various claimants—Russia included—might be terminated, and that Denmark might be preserved as one kingdom. No one can tell what may be the effect of that treaty at the time of the death of the King of Denmark. It is binding on the Powers that signed it. It is binding in this way: If
  816
  the Emperor of Russia, on the death of the King of Denmark, should claim to add Holstein to his dominions, all the other Powers would be entitled to allege that Russia had signed a certain treaty by which she was precluded from putting in that claim. I cannot give any further answer. It is a treaty which is not cancelled. It is in vigour and in force, and it is a treaty to which Great Britain is a party. I will not now enter further into the subject, but will only say that it is not desirable to give any Correspondence at the present moment.

THE DANISH CLAIMS.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. MACAULAYsaid, he rose to call attention to the several Addresses to the Crown by this House, and the Treasury Minutes issued thereon, empowering the Commissioners for Danish Claims to receive, examine, and judicially determine the claims of certain British subjects for losses arising out of the confiscation by the Danish Government of ships and cargoes in the year 1807; to the fact that after such losses had, in pursuance of Her Majesty's commands, been judicially determined, and the Commissioners' adjudication and Report thereon had been presented to the House, the House of Commons, by its Address, 10th June, 1841, prayed Her Majesty to advance to the claimants the amount of the losses so adjudged, with the assurance that the House would make good the same; to which Address Her Majesty returned a favourable answer; but that, nevertheless, such claims remain unliquidated; and to the Petitions of Thomas Ward and others (Presented 26th April, Appendix to Public Petitions, No. 524, also Parliamentary Paper, No. 257, of the present Session), fully setting out the facts, and praying for redress. The persons who urged these Danish claims were the relatives of those whose ships were confiscated on the occasion of the seizure by the English of the Danish fleet at Copenhagen in 1807. The hon. Member said that the subject had been so repeatedly discussed in Parliament, and were so familiar as matters of history that he would not attempt to open the case in any detail. He would only remind the House that an expedition was sent to Copenhagen by the British Government in August, 1807, and possession of the Danish fleet was demanded as a matter of precaution, it being suspected by the British Government, acting

  817
  upon secret information, that there was an understanding between the Emperors of Russia and of France to take possession of that fleet and use it against this country. The object of the expedition was avowedly kept secret while it was being fitted out, and the Proclamation addressed to the Danes, on its arrival in the Danish waters, was couched in terms, not of hostility, but of friendship; and it was distinctly stated on the part of the English that it was for their own safety that they made the demand. The Danish Government refused the demand made upon them to deliver up their fleet—and, indeed, it was a demand which was scarcely, if at all, to be justified; and on August 16 they did that which was the most ordinary act of retailation—they ordered an embargo to be laid on British ships and property within their reach. On the other hand, on the 25th of August, by an Admiralty order, an embargo was laid by the British Government upon all the Danish property in the harbours of Great Britain, amounting to 850 ships. Ultimately that embargo was turned into confiscation, and the proceeds of the sales amounted to £1,300,000, which was paid into the Exchequer. Out of these proceedings sprung the claims of those who now prayed the House to consider their case. The case of the claimants was that the proceeds of the confiscated property ought to have been applied, in the first instance, to indemnifying those innocent sufferers, whose losses had been occasioned directly by the acts of the British Government. While the preparations connected with the Danish expedition were proceeding, not only was its destination kept secret, but licences were granted to English ships in the months of July and August to proceed to the Baltic; and which sailed, therefore, without any suspicion that hostilities were about to be commenced, and he believed there was no instance of an insurance being effected upon them. If the English Government thought the English ships in the Baltic were in danger of capture, it was their duty to have left a sufficient convoy to protect them; but, instead of this the whole English fleet left the Baltic, and many English merchant ships were snapped up by the cruisers of the Danish Government. If it was necessary that the Danish fleet should be seized under circumstances so peculiar, and if such reprisals were rendered inevitable on the part of the Danes, it was not right that private persons should be the sufferers,
  818
  and the State should make good to them the loss brought upon them by a step deemed necessary for the safety of the empire. He was not aware that any legal refinements could be applicable here; but the case should be decided upon the principles of natural justice. This House had intervened time after time in favour of these claims, while the Crown had expressed its willingness that they should be met if the House would furnish the necessary funds. After the return of the English fleet from the Baltic, negotiations were still going on with the Danish envoy, who remained in London till the 16th of November—the bombardment of Copenhagen having taken place on September 7—and up to the middle of November all the acts done were committed without any expression of a determination to proceed to hostilities, unless an arrangement should be come to. It was not till November 4th that the Act for reprisals was issued in this country, and that was considered as the day when the war between England and Denmark commenced. The next step was to appoint a Commission to realize the enormous amount of Danish property on which the embargo had been laid. About this time the Crown Prince of Denmark was addressed by certain Danish merchants who thought their property would be endangered if the Danish Government maintained their embargo on British property. In his answer, dated the 27th November, the Crown Prince stated that the measures of the Government amounted to merely a sequestration of the property, so as not to lead to a condemnation of Danish property by way of retaliation. By this answer the Crown Prince limited the action of the Danish Government to a mere sequestration of the property of English merchants, in order that by so moderating their own measures the English Government might be induced to moderate theirs. He would now call attention to the manner in which those claims had been treated from 1807 up to the present time. In 1808 Lord Sidmouth brought them before the House of Lords in the form of Resolutions—[Hansard's Debates (First Series), vol. x., p. 645]—in which he called in question the justice of the proceedings —that there was neither right nor honesty in the seizure of this property—still less in the confiscation—unless it were done for the purpose of compensating those of our fellow-subjects who had suffered by the Danish confiscation. For a period of twenty years afterwards the English sufferers were inces-

  819
  sant in their applications to the Treasury for compensation. It was the seizure under the embargo of the 16th August which formed the ground of those claims, and the claims put forward for compensation arose in three different ways—First, in respect of book debts due by Danish to English subjects; secondly, in respect to goods on shore belonging to English subjects; and thirdly, in respect to the property of English merchants in the shape of ships and cargo afloat. In 1834 the question was brought before the House of Commons by Mr. John Parker in the shape of a Motion for the appointment of a Committee. Lord Althorp, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer, expressed himself very strongly against the right and title of those persons being considered by the Crown at all, but the tone of the House on that occasion was evidently in favour of something being done in the matter. Lord Althorp seeing that, induced Mr. Parker to withdraw his Motion, on the promise that the Government would take the matter into their consideration. The Executive took action by the appointment of a Commission. Several Treasury minutes followed, in which the Government expressed a readiness to carry out the wishes of the House, coupled, however, with a determination not to go beyond the limits prescribed by Parliament from time to time. Lord Althorp directed the Commissioners to inquire into the claims arising in regard to book debts and goods on shore, and drew a distinction adverse to the claims of those who had suffered from the seizure of their ships and cargoes afloat. The first Treasury Minute, dated November 4, 1834, authorized the Commissioners to receive, examine, and classify all the claims that might be brought before them, in order that the House of Commons might have the fullest information whenever its attention should again be drawn to the subject. The Commissioners were required also to bear in mind that all the Government undertook to do was to afford the parties the opportunity of establishing the fact of their losses, and that the Lords of the Treasury were not pledged to recommend the grant of compensation to any of them. Upon the issue of that Minute the Commissioners proceeded to adjudicate on the amount of book debts, and goods on shore, and between 1835 and 1837 Votes for compensation to the amount of £280,000 were passed by Parliament. The Commissioners, however, declined to examine beyond those
  820
  claims for book debts and goods on shore. In 1838 Mr. Cresswell (the present distinguished Judge) brought before the House of Commons the case of the claimants in respect to the ships and the cargoes, and moved an Address to the Crown praying that the Commissioners might examine into their claims. On that occasion the whole merits of the matter were most amply discussed, and after two or three divisions the Motion for the Address was carried, and a favourable answer was received from the Crown, consequently the Government referred the examination of those claims to the Commissioners, and passed a Minute, dated June 22, 1838, desiring the Commissioners to report on the subject, in order that the Report might be laid before the House of Commons. Under this reference the Commissioners did not conceive themselves to be at liberty to proceed to a judicial investigation of the matters, but made a rough estimate of the claims, which was of no use to any one. After this, Mr. Cresswell, in 1839, moved another Address to the Crown praying that the Commissioners might be directed to proceed to a judicial investigation, and after one division the Address was carried; and on the 5th of April a Minute was passed by the Government directing the Commissioners to make an adjudication on each individual claim, but giving notice to the parties that they would not be bound by this adjudication to bring forward any Motion in the House of Commons for a Vote of money. Step by step the Government had, on the part of the Crown, acceded to each thing done by the House of Commons, avowing at the same time that they would go no further if they could help it. On the occasion of the Address of the adjudication of the claims being carried, Mr. Spring Rice, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, stated that he objected to the House requiring a judicial inquiry into the claims unless the House came to some Vote involving the grant of money; and he advised the House not to put the claimants into a fool's paradise by making them suppose that they would be compensated, when all that they would get would be the right to enter into an expensive process, which would end in nothing to them. The language of the then Chancellor of the Exchequer was in strict conformity with that which the Government had used in various Minutes. The adjudication, however, took place, and on the 12th of May 1840, the Commissioners presented their Report; but the Government took no steps in conse-

  821
  quence of it. Thereupon Mr. Cresswell in 1841 moved an Address setting forth that if the Crown advanced to the claimants the amount of their respective claims, as ascertained by the Commissioners, the House would make good the same; and the answer to the Address expressed the readiness of the Crown to give effect to the wishes of the House whenever the means should be provided by Parliament. He asked the House whether that was not an acquiescence, as far as the Government were concerned, in the justice and propriety of fulfilling the prayer of the Address? The subject had since the date of that Address and answer been mooted in the House of Commons three or four times, but he was not responsible for the course which had been taken with respect to it on those occasions. Indeed, he very much doubted whether, the House having once addressed Her Majesty in the language which he had quoted, and having received a reply such as he had read, it was open to them to proceed to move another Address in the same form, and he, for one, should have expected that a Motion rather would have been made to the effect that, owing to the different measures which had been taken by the Crown on the one side, and the claimants in question on the other, the public faith had become effectually pledged to the liquidation of the claims of the latter, not as a mere matter of grace or favour on the part of the Crown, but by reason of the action of those responsible in the conduct of a suit on behalf of the State, as against those individuals by whom the claim on it was made. He did not know of any reason which had ever been urged for the non-fulfilment of these claims, except an argument that was used some years ago by the right hon. Gentleman the present Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Cardwell). That right hon. Gentleman contended that as the seizure of the ships was not illegal, but was a fair act in war, therefore, the petitioners had no claim to compensation. But that was a total misapprehension of the case. The confusion arose in this way. There were two classes of seizures. There was first the ships afloat, and there was next the book debts and the goods ashore. In 1835 the Government agreed to give compensation for this latter class, because they said their seizure was illegal, and contrary to the law of nations; and as their predecessors had omitted to claim compensation from the Danish Government at the proper time they felt
  822
  bound to make that compensation good. But he must observe that there was no written or public law which drew any distinction between the legality of seizing ships afloat and book debts and goods ashore; and the British Government in 1808, having their attention drawn to the matter, decided that no distinction could be drawn between the two cases. But whethere that were the case or no with the goods ashore, the present petitioners did not rest their claim on the illegality of the seizure, but on its high legality—on the ground that the Danes were justified in the seizure by the extreme step our Government had taken—very possibly for its own salvation; but still, according to the known principles of law, that the Government which gave occasion to the wrong was answerable for the wrong, therefore, the British Government ought to make good their claims. This was the view taken twenty years ago, and less, at least by two Gentlemen who were now high in Her Majesty's Councils, by that severe economist, Joseph Hume, and by Sir Stratford Canning, who was connected with the diplomatic transactions of the period. He did not propose to make any Motion, but he had great hopes that the renewed consideration of this matter by the Government would lead to a solution favourable to that which he believed to be a thoroughly honest and a thoroughly just claim.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, his hon. and learned Friend had brought this subject before the House with great ability and in a very temperate spirit; but he had concluded without making any Motion. Having, therefore, no tangible issue with which to grapple, his observations in reply must necessarily be more general than they might have been had any precise Motion been submitted to the House. The circumstances of the case certainly suggested that it might be desirable to consider how long and to what extent questions of this kind could be seriously entertained. In courts of justice it was found necessary to impose some limitation of time by express enactment. And, although no mere lapse of time could be set up as a bar to any inquiry the House might think fit to enter upon, yer, when a matter so old as this, dating so far back as fiftyseven years ago, and which had slept profoundly for ten years past, was again brought before the House, it was incumbent on those who invited attention to it to show that a clear and decided case

  823
  of injustice was made out. Now, he contended that the course adopted on this subject by successive Governments had been perfectly fair. Did his hon. and learned Friend venture to say, after the lapse of time that had taken place, and having regard to the facts and legal considerations attaching to them, that this case was so free from doubt and difficulty, and so clearly in favour of those whose claims he advocated, that it ought to be seriously entertained? His hon. and learned Friend had admitted fairly that there was a state of war, and that the Danes had belligerent rights. If so, the case of these claimants was untenable; for one of the most obvious of belligerent rights was the right to seize and confiscate the ships and property of the enemy afloat. His hon. and learned Friend was, therefore, driven to another argument—he would not call it another expedient. His hon. and learned Friend was driven to argue that there was something unjust and not to be defended in the conduct which the Government of that day pursued towards Denmark in commencing the war, and upon that absence of justice, and that alone, he had based his appeal to the House. The Circumstances of the capture of the Danish fleet were well known. It was the intention of this country, suddenly and without notice, to seize the fleet of Denmark, so as to make it impossible that that fleet could be made use of by an enemy. It was on that seizure of the fleet that the present case arose, and the argument his hon. and learned Friend relied on was that the proceedings of the British Government were unjust, and, therefore, these British subjects were entitled to compensation out of the public funds. It would be most alarming if the House were to act upon such a view, because it came to this —that a war being undertaken by the competent and responsible authorities of the country, involving, as any war with a naval Power of any strength would do, great injury and ruin to many of the merchants of this country by the confiscation of their property afloat, that House might 50 or 100 years afterwards be called upon to vote money out of the taxes of the country by way of compensation, because the persons whose vessels had been captured and confiscated or those representing them, thought that the British Government had been wrong in commencing the war, or in not submitting to requirements by yielding to which it might have been avoided. That was an entirely novel proposition, and
  824
  one for which there was no authority whatever. This, however, was the substance of his hon. and learned Friend's argument, and but for some incidental observations which he had made, he should hardly have thought it necessary to trouble the House further upon the subject. His hon. and learned Friend had endeavoured to make out what in courts of law was called an estoppel, and had argued that, as the Government had paid claims No. 1 and No. 2, they were bound to pay No. 3, and ought not to be heard in refusal. That argument implied that No. 3 stood upon precisely the same footing as No. 1 and No. 2, which was by no means the case. Claims No.1 and No. 2 were made in respect of the confiscation by the Danish Government of book debts and goods on shore. This claim, No. 3, however, was made in respect of the confiscation of ships and cargoes afloat. It had not been laid down as a rigid and inflexible rule that book debts and goods on shore were not liable to confiscation; but that description of property, and ships and cargoes afloat, had been treated by writers on international law and belligerent rights in a very different manner. No writer of authority denied the right to confiscate the ships and cargoes of an enemy's subjects afloat; but great doubts had been expressed whether the seizure and confiscation of book debts and goods on shore were, under any circumstances, warranted by the law of nations. Vattel laid it down that a Sovereign declaring war could not retain in his dominions the subjects of the enemy, or their effects; and Mr. Wheaton said that it appeared to be the modern rule of international usage that the property of an enemy found within the territory of a belligerent State, and debts due to his subjects by the Government or by individuals at the commencement of hostilities, were not liable to be seized and confiscated as prize of war. In the two earlier cases, therefore, the Government was justified in contending that the Danish Government had violated the fundamental principles of international law, and a reasonable claim for compensation was made out in turn on the part of the British against the Danish Government, and by British subjects against their own Government. No such argument, however, could be advanced in favour of the third claim, which was now revived. It had been said that the claim might safely be acceded to, because the war in which the petitioners suffered broke out under

  825
  very singular circumstances, and that a similar case never occurred before, and was never likely to occur again. But the establishment of a precedent involved the acknowledgment of a principle, which might be applied to other cases, even where the circumstances were somewhat different; and if the Government yielded in the present instance they could not, in any future war, consistently refuse to entertain the claims of sufferers who maintained that, as an unjust war was the cause of their losses, they were entitled to compensation. A most mischievous precedent would thus be created, quite at variance with the principles of international law. War, no doubt, was often the cause of heavy losses to individuals for which the State made no reparation, and the source of great gains which the State applied to its own purposes. It could not be maintained as suggested by the Petition before the House, that the State was bound to compensate the losses of its subjects out of the prizes of war. Such a proposition was as novel as it was untenable. Fifty-four years having elapsed since the occurrence of these events, and the parties interested having been engaged for at least forty-four years in agitating their claims, it was not surprising that the subject had been frequently before Parliament. Sometimes, no doubt, Parliament had been disposed to favour the claim; but it was to be observed that, on the admission of the petitioners themselves, the last three applications to the House had been unavailing. Having for ten years been allowed to slumber, the question was now again brought forward; but he believed that hon. Members would prefer to be guided by the more recent decisions of the House, rather than by any which might have been come to at a remote period, under circumstances which were now not very well understood.
  MR. LOCKEsaid, that the arguments of the Attorney General amounted in fact to an attempt to set up the Statute of Limitations on behalf of the Government; but he hid not think that that plea would hold good in such a case in any court of law; and he (Mr. Locke) was not aware of any precedent for saying that the House was prevented from remedying an injustice because it had been committed more than a certain number of years ago. The Attorney General said, there might be an equitable right on the part of persons who had goods on shore; but it seemed extraordinary that for twenty-seven years those
  826
  claims which were now admitted to be just should have been resisted. It might be the law of nations to make compensation for goods landed on the quays, and not for goods afloat; but it was not common sense, and he did not believe that it was the law of nations, as he presumed that all laws were founded on common sense. The Attorney General wished the House to suppose that all seizures of cargoes in ships afloat were seizures of cargoes on board ships on the high seas; but against his bare assertion was the fact that the Commissioners adjudicated on these claims, and set down the sums of money to which the claimants were entitled opposite their respective names. He believed that the right principle to be recognized in this case was that as the nation had committed a trespass, the nation, like an individual, should be held answerable for all the results of its illegal act. The Attorney General had not said a word in vindication of what he would venture to call this marauding expedition. By the treaties which existed in 1807 between England and Denmark merchants were to have six months' notice of war. No notice was given. A secret expedition was despatched, and those who suffered from that illegal act were clearly entitled to compensation. The English merchants did not ask to be recouped their losses out of the taxes of the country. Independently of ships of war the English Government seized Danish vessels which realized £1,300,000. In 1809 they paid out of it in prize money £348,261. In 1835 claimants classed as A and B were compensated with £286,000, and the Government put into their pockets £665,739. In 1841 the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that the adjudication ought to be carried out upon just and honourable principles. The House of Commons voted an Address to the Crown upon the subject, and the Queen returned a favourable answer; all that was wanting was a Vote of the House of Commons. A dissolution of Parliament occurred, and if he were told that with the honour of the country pledged to a certain course a new Parliament was free from responsibility, all he could say was that it was a blot upon the Constitution. He thought that the answer of the Attorney General to-night did not at all meet the statement of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cambridge, and that no subsequent Government or subsequent House of Commons ought to repudiate the decision which a former Par-

  827
  liament conceived to be honourable and just.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that there were one or two points with regard to this subject to which he wished briefly to call the attention of the House. If, as had been stated, his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General had rested his case simply upon the Statute of Limitation, he did not think that argument would have been a very unsatisfactory ground for resisting the Motion; for it was a very serious matter that claims of this kind should be made without limitation of time and after a long course of years, when the impossible had changed hands and it was impossible to trace the proprietary rights. But it was not the Statute of Limitations simply or mainly on which his hon. and learned Friend took his stand—it was the Statute of Limitations plus the important fact that upon three occasions consecutively the House had distinctly refused to entertain these claims for compensation. When these claims were first raised, the House, no doubt, received them with considerable favour; but it had taken a less and less favourable view of those claims as the matter had been prolonged, and in the year 1851, when a very formal application was made by the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck), the number in favour of the claims was 49, and the number against them 126, or nearly three times those who voted in the minority. He thought this was a great fact in the consideration of the case. His hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Locke), said, he could not see the justice of making a distinction between the seizure of goods afloat and the seizure of goods on shore, and thought it better to fall back on common sense, whatever international law might say on the subject. It was true that nothing could be right which was at variance with common sense; but when they came to argue this controverted matter it was so difficult to discover where the common sense lay that every gentleman was firmly convinced that common sense was ranged entirely on the side which he himself espoused. In the difficulty, therefore, of discovering the whereabouts of common sense in these cases, the Attorney General thought it was not an unsafe course to fall back upon what was called the law of nations, which really meant the general practice of the civilized world, and be guided by the concentrated wisdom of those en-
  828
  gaged in reducing the practice to rule. There could not be a higher authority than Sir James Macintosh, and what did he say about the distinction between goods afloat and goods on shore? Sir James wrote—
  "I do not say there is a difference in abstract reasoning as applied to either, but that there is a difference according to the established practice of European nations. Maritime plunder is not in its nature as injurious as plunder on land; and in all European states there is a recognized difference between the seizure of property on the water and its seizure on the shore."
  The hon. and learned Member for Southwark, however, said the Government had invented this distinction twenty years after the fact. He denied the Government were entitled to the invention. It belonged to the friends of the Danish claims, who put forward first those portions of their case on which they felt themselves strong, and declined to encumber themselves with that portion on which they felt they were weak. Then he understood his hon. and learned Friend to fall back upon the doctrine that the war made by great Britain in this case was to be distinguished from other wars by its injustice. He protested entirely against their occupying that ground, because it seemed to him nothing could be more destructive than to introduce into the practice of the House retrospective discussions as to the propriety of wars long gone by, and to endeavour to classify them as having been more or less unjust, and then to found on these distinctions claims for compensation for individuals who had suffered by them. The allegation was that there was no regular war at the time. It appeared that on the 2nd of September the British Government had laid an embargo on Danish vessels, and the doctrine of Lord Stowel with respect to such an embargo was that if instead of an accommodation following the embargo the differences continued and were inflamed into hostilities, in that case the hostilities had a retrospect effect upon the embargo itself, and the war must be held to have commenced from the date of the embargo. All acts done subsequent to the embargo must be judged by the laws of war, and no claim, therefore, could arise for compensation in respect to any act of the Danish Government which was thus justified by the law of nations. With regard to the answer to the Address in June, 1840, to which reference had been made, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was ready to make this amount of admission, namely, the terms of the answer

  829
  had something of a peculiar character. He believed the true explanation of the terms used was to be found in the date of the answer. It seemed the answer to the Address was made by a Government which had been greatly distinguished by its energy in the work of legislation, but which was unhappily at the time in articulo mortis. In the same month a vote of want of confidence had been carried, and it only held office on the terms of dispatching the necessary business in order that an appeal might be made to the country. Under those circumstances it was natural that the Government should decline to bind their successors, but should have left them free to advise the Crown to whatever course they might think fit. It did not lie with the House of Commons alone to award compensation to these parties. By the salutary rule and practice of the Constitution there must be the concurrence of two authorities, the Executive Government and the House of Commons. Governments of whatever politics had denied the justice of these claims. As long as there existed a disposition to entertain them, and authority was divided upon the subject, their agitation in Parliament was quite legitimate; but for the last fifteen years the House of Commons, though often solemnly challenged, equally with the Executive Government had repudiated the demand. And, ably as the hon. and learned Gentleman had urged what could be said in favor of his case, he had laid no sufficient grounds to induce the Government to go in the teeth of such a course of precedents and combination of authority. Both on the grounds of prudence and justice he believed it would be wrong to give further encouragement to the discussion of these claims.
  MR. MACAULAYsaid, his argument had been entirely misunderstood by the right hon. Gentleman. He had not founded his arguments upon any contention that the war between England and Denmark was an unjust war; but upon the fact that the English expedition to Copenhagen being undertaken at a time when both Powers were in friendly relations, the expedition was, therefore, an admitted trespass on the part of England. That being so, it legally provoked a reprisal on the part of Denmark; and he had contended that, according to the rules of public law, when a sovereign State did anything which legally invited reprisals by another State, the State to which the subjects upon whom
  830
  those reprisals were made belonged was bound to indemnify those subjects.

OFFICERS OF THE INDIAN ARMY.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, he rose to ask the Secretary of state for India, Whether Officers of the Indian Army who accept the invitation to volunteer for general service, or into the Staff Corps in India, in any way whatever compromise the rights guaranteed to them under the Act 21 & 22 Vict., c. 29, s. 56, of 1858, and the Act 23 & 24 Vict., c. 100, s. 1, of 1860, with respect to pay, pensions, allowances, privileges, promotions, and otherwise; and, whether the reported appointment of Colonel Highland, C.B., of Her Majesty's 56th Regiment, to command the 1st Bombay Fusiliers, in supercession of the Field Officers of that Regiment, had the sanction of the Secretary of State? The hon. and gallant Member was understood to say that in the Act which transferred the Government of India from the Company to the Crown, certain rights respecting pay, promotion, and allowance were guaranteed to the local European army, and that the discontent and mutiny of the European regiments were owing to faith not having been kept with them. Subsequently, faith had been broken in the case of the degradation of the three distinguished regiments of Bombay Regular Native Cavalry by their conversion into Irregulars. Nothing could be more explicit than the guarantees in the clauses of the Acts of 1858–60, which insured to officers, all allowances they then held, also prospects of command; successors to regimental staff situations, troop, and company allowances, and other regimental allowances. Nevertheless, the conversion of these regular regiments, with twenty-three officers, into irregulars, with only four or five officers each, deprived the captains and senior subalterns of the command of their troops and troop allowances, and the officers generally of successors to office on the regimental staff, and to ultimate command of their regiments. The proposed conversion of the regular infantry into irregulars would have similarly injurious results. Moreover, the Military Commission, sitting in Calcutta have reported, that of the 5,000 European officers of the local army 1,445 officers chiefly of the senior ranks will be thrown out of employment by the amalgamation, abrogating the privileges and allowances guaran-

  831
  teed to them by the Acts of Parliament. Equally it would be a breach of faith to appoint officers from the Line to command the European regiments which have accepted bounty for general service, in supersession of the claims of the field officers of those troops to succeed to the command of their respective regiments. The above cases and others of a similar character have raised great distrust in the minds of the local officers, and with the exception of those officers who have volunteered with the European Artillery and Infantry, nine-tenths of the officers were deterred from volunteering either for general service or the Staff corps. He (Colonel Sykes), therefore, hoped his right hon. Friend would be able to state that, in case the officers volunteered, they would not compromise their guaranteed privileges.
  SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, that he should have no difficulty whatever in showing the House that the rights and privileges of Her Majesty's forces in India had been substantially maintained, it was proved by every communication which had been received from India. There was not the slightest reason for saying that the General Order had not given satisfaction; and so far as the returns had been received, the volunteering had exceeded all expectations, however sanguine they might have been. No returns had been received from Bombay and Madras; but those from the Bengal army showed that the troops had almost volunteered in a body. Of 8,000 men, upwards of 7,000 volunteered for general service; and about 300 declared for local service; and, of the remainder, most of those who claimed their discharge had afterwards applied to be enrolled. The whole of the officers who had volunteered certainly had not been called at once into general service, for the best of reasons—there was no possible mode of employing the whole of the officers of the Indian army in it; most of them would be employed in local duty. Of the Artillery of the Bengal army, 172 officers had volunteered for general service, 8 for local service, and 1 for the Staff Corps. Of the Cavalry, 62 officers had volunteered for general, and 17 for local service; of the Engineers, 1 officer had volunteered for local service; the others had not yet declared themselves. Of the infantry, 92 officers had volunteered for general, 102 for local service, and 47 for the Staff Corps. This showed the opinion of the officers of
  832
  the Bengal army, and was the best possible proof that the question might be most satisfactorily answered. If these officers had thus volunteered for general service in the Staff Corps, it proved that they did not consider they compromised any rights by so doing. It was a perfectly voluntary transaction on their parts. They had a free choice, and they declared either for general service or the Staff Corps, according as they thought it most to their advantage. In conclusion, he must say it would be a great injustice to His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief not to state that he had, on every occasion, shown the most anxious desire to promote the wishes of the Indian officers.
  Motion agreed to.

  Supply considered in Committee.
  House resumed; Committee report Progress, to sit again on Monday next.

UNIVERSITY ELECTIONS BILL.

  THIRD READING.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER.I feel it my duty, Sir, to state to the House my objections to the Bill in its present form. It was my intention, when my hon. Friend first introduced it, to take no part in the discussion on the Bill, because I felt that the seat which I hold, and which has often been the subject of contest, would naturally cause any part which I might take, no matter what it might be, to be open to misconstruction. I also felt that the Bill of my hon. Friend was one of which much might be said in its favour, while much might be said against it; it undoubtedly involved a very great novelty in principle—and on the whole, I think that the balance was against it. At the same time I admit that there was a strong primâ facie presumption in favour of a Bill the object of which was stated to be to increase the facilities possessed by certain peculiar constituencies for exercising the franchises with which they had been intrusted. I did not approve the principle of the Bill which my hon. Friend introduced, but I think he is entitled to say that the House acceded to it on the second reading without the expression of any marked difference of opinion. It is not my intention to make any Motion on the

  833
  present occasion, though I feel it is my duty to say "No" to the third reading, because I think the better course to take—if the House be so inclined—is to move the recommittal of the Bill. ["No, no!"] I have merely stated that, in my opinion, that would be the right course, and Gentlemen who say "No" simply assert that in my opinion that is not the right course. Being an authority on that point, I must say' "Yes." I think the proper mode of proceeding would be to recommit the Bill, with a view of raising the question as between the principle of the Bill as now before us; and the principle of the Bill as introduced by my hon. Friend, and assented to by the House. I want hon. Gentlemen to understand what I really mean when I desire the principle of the Bill at the present moment as being different from what it was when the Bill was introduced by my hon. Friend. I may be wrong; but I do not believe that many hon. Gentlemen in this House are aware of the extent to which the Bill has been altered, and how deep these alterations have cut into its very essence. As I understand, the principle of the measure was this:—My hon. Friend said, "Parliament had chosen to create constituencies, of which a large number are non-resident; and, that being so, it is fit to give those non-residents facilities for tendering their votes without their personal presence, which facilities would not be necessary in the case of constituencies in which the bulk of the electors are resident. I will introduce a Bill to enable them to give their votes by voting papers." I must say that I think the Bill of my hon. Friend was prudently and well drawn for the purpose of effecting the object which he had in view. My hon. Friend did not leave it to chance in what way the votes were to be given or transmitted, he provided that the votes should be given in the form of a written declaration made before a justice of the peace, who was obliged to declare that the voter was personally known to him, and that the vote so given should be transmitted to the returning officer through the medium of a registered letter, the effect of which was to make the Postmaster General, a public officer, responsible for the delivery of the voting paper to the returning officer. Now, how did the Committee deal with this Bill? It is no longer a Bill to enable non-residents to vote by means of voting papers instead of by personal attendance. That is supposed to be its object; but it is cer-
  834
  tainly not the essence of the present Bill; and I must say that I have heard no attempt to justify the Bill as it now stands with reference to the peculiar constitution and needs of the University. The Bill is one to authorize all electors, resident or non-resident, to adopt proxies which are to give an authority to the holders either to vote or not, as they may think proper. That proposition certainly is of a most extraordinary character, and as strange and startling an innovation on our electoral law as has ever come before us. I am aware—and I admit it at once—that the change was made by a Select Committee entitled to great authority in this House, and I trust the House will not think their time wasted in the discussion of a measure of this kind, in respect to which, though it is primarily applicable only to a University constituency, the day may come when the precedent established by the Bill may be taken by those who wish to adopt it as applicable to other constituencies in the country. I believe the object of the Select Committee was to make a provision against errors in the form of the voting papers, and they, likewise, wished to make some further provision for the purpose of ascertaining the identity of the person, and the genuineness of the vote. Now, in my opinion, as regards the first of these objects, the Bill is totally ineffective; and as regards the second, it is entirely unnecessary. There is no reason why we should not have been satisfied as respects the identity of the voter with the proposal of my hon. Friend; and with respect to the prevention of errors, the mere fact of the transmission and re-transmission of the voting paper not only greatly increases the risks of error but of fraud. There is no security for the delivering of the voting papers, they may be lost or duplicated, and how could the voter who was called on to sign a new paper declare conscientiously that he was not called upon to sign it because it was cancelled? It appears to me that very great difficulties, indeed, will arise from the transmission and re-transmission of these voting papers between the proxies and principals, notwithstanding that the object of the Committee may have been to give increased security and correctness in the voting papers. The paper may be lost, and the voter will not know how the fact is. [Mr. HUNT: Oh!] I do not know why the hon. Member for Northampton should take this extraordinary course.
  MR. HUNTrose, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer declined to give way. In resuming his seat, the hon. Gentleman said, I only rose to say that I meant no discourtesy.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. Now, just let us see how this extraordinary system—as I must call it—of voting by proxy is likely to work. And, first, I must consider the case of possible fraud, for the Bill takes in that view by providing penalties against it. However unlikely—I may say impossible—the case of fraud may be in a University election, yet we must include it. If we sanction these principles in University elections in consequence of what we may think of the high character and intelligence of the constituency, it will not be easy to deny to others what we give to Universities, even though we may think them of low character and intelligence. Now, let us consider the provisions of the Bill. In the first place, there is no limit to the number of proxies one person may hold. Any number of voters, without any limit what ever of a numerical description, may empower any voter to become their proxy. The only limit is that the proxy shall be able to say, on presenting the vote, that the voter is personally known to him—that he is personally acquainted with the voter. Now, take the case of the Master of Trinity College, Cambridge. The Master of Trinity is brought into acquaintance every year with, perhaps, 150 young men, a large proportion of whom become part of the constituency of that University; so that the gentleman holding that office would be able to say that he was acquainted with, perhaps, not less than 1,000 of the constituency. He would, therefore, in all probability, become the holder by proxy of many hundred votes. What is the next provision? It is that any number of voters may delegate their power of voting to any single proxy; that every voter may choose any number of proxies he pleases, and may indicate in the voting paper any number of names, by any one of which persons his vote may be tendered at the poll. I believe an unlimited number of proxies may be named by any one voter, just as any number of voting papers may be held by any one proxy. That is not all. Besides this provision, every voter who has thus given a proxy may run a race against his own proxy, and it may depend upon the accident of who gets first to the poll who shall
  836
  give the vote. That appears to me to be an extraordinary provision, for which I have not heard the shadow of a reason assigned. But further than that—under the singular provisions of the Bill, the voter and the proxy may both come to the poll at once, and may both, at different polling places, tender the same vote without the possibility of any objection; and, to complete the ridiculous effect of the provision as it stands, this may happen:—A B, the voter, may go, and may in one polling place honestly tender his vote for C, while D E, the proxy, may, at another polling place, honestly tender the vote of A B for F. ["No, no!"] It must be remembered that, of late, power has been given to the Vice- Chancellor to increase the number of polling places. [Mr. DODSON: Not exceeding three.] Clause 2 says that the vote may be given by proxy at any one of these polling places, and the voter may also vote at any of the polling places. I think I have shown the climax of the errors and inconveniences which have been forced upon my hon. Friend. I have stated the effect of the provision, which would be to give occasion to an immense amount of error and inconvenience for no purpose whatever connected with the object of the Bill; and, if we are to suppose the existence of fraud, to open the door to the perpetration of frauds innumerable. Let the House remember that there is already one vicious element in a University constituency with which all those who have been connected with University elections cannot fail to be practically acquainted. It may not hitherto have told so much in Parliamentary as in other elections, but under this Bill I think it would be found more conspicuous in Parliamentary elections. I refer to the disposition towards College combinations, and the working out, through those combinations, of selfish wishes and limited views, instead of adopting the broader views connected with the whole University. College organization is in fatal conformity with the other injurious provisions of the Bill as it now stands, because, of course, the authorities of a College would be able to say that they were personally acquainted with all who had passed through the college, although their acquaintance may have diminished to the lowest degree, and a number of proxies may be accumulated in the hands of these authorities which may be intrigued with, or used as a means of obtaining an illegitimate influence over a candidate, to obtain pledges from him,

  837
  and to destroy the pure and honest freedom of all parties at such elections. These are consequences for which I am determined to be in no degree responsible. I was not favourable to the original principle of the Bill, because, although the present mode of University elections has its inconveniences, still I think it has the effect of keeping up the academical constituencies in contact with academical influences; but under the system proposed by my hon. Friend, we should cease to see this accademical influence operate as before. However, I do not now raise the point for contest. I challenge my hon. Friend to state why he has acceded to his extraordinary scheme, which is quite apart from the principle of his Bill—introducing between the voter and the recording of his vote a third and independent party, who may actually frustrate the intentions of the voter, subject to the almost ridiculous remedy that the voter may compete with his proxy who shall be soonest at the poll. I shall not detain the House longer, and thank it for its patient attention to a statement of details. As far as my own academical interests are concerned as a Member of this House, I do not know that it should at any time have any material interest in the provisions of this Bill. At all contested elections in which I have taken part in the University of Oxford, I have always been returned by a majority both of the resident and of the non-resident voters, conjointly and separately. I have no idea what the operation of these provisions would be as regards myself at future elections, but they are so extraordinary in their character, and so needless for the professed object my hon. Friend has in view, that I trust they will not receive the sanction of the House.
  MR. DODSONsaid, he could not congratulate the right hon. Gentleman upon the accuracy of his reading of either the original or the amended Bill. The right hon. Gentleman spoke in high-sounding words and grandiloquent phrases of the strange and startling innovation introduced by this Bill. But the provision he especially objected to was discussed in Committee for three hours last week, and the most arrange and startling thing connected with that discussion was the absence of the right hon. Gentleman. If the right hon. Gentleman felt so strongly on the subject, how was it that he was not present to express his opinion and divide the Committee? Not only was there a
  838
  discussion of three hours, but there was a division in which the right hon. Gentleman took no part; but within half an hour afterwards there was another division upon an Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Youghal, and upon that the Chancellor of the Exchequer voted. It would be an interesting fact to learn how far off was the right hon. Gentleman when the first division took place. When it was wanted to get rid of anything. people had only to give it a bad name, and so the right hon. Gentleman grounded his attack on this Bill by calling it the introduction of the proxy system of voting papers was the system of voting by proxy. The legal definition of a proxy was "one person appointed by another to represent him." That is not the description of a man who hands in a letter. The form of voting given in the schedule was as follows:—"I, A B, do hereby declare that I have signed no other voting paper at this election, and do hereby give my vote at this election for" so and so. The Cambridge University Reform Bill, on the other hand, allowed any member of the Senate to vote at the election for Chancellor or High Steward of the University by proxy. The schedule in that Act gave the form of a real proxy, which was as follows:—"I, A B, a Member of the Senate, do hereby appoint C D to vote in my name for Chancellor (or High Steward) in such manner as the said C D may think proper." The right hon. Gentleman declared that the bearer of the voting paper under this Act was a proxy, pointing out that the Act imposed no pecuniary penalty if he failed to deliver it. But if an elector had the privilege given him of voting without attending in person, it was not too much to require him to find a man on whom he could rely to deliver his voting paper. The right hon. Gentleman thought it strange and startling that the arrival of the vote at the poll should depend on the will of another. But this was very much the condition of things at present. If a voter, living ten or twenty miles from the polling place, depended upon a friend to call for him with his carriage, or to lend him a horse, or a pair of boots, and if that friend changed his mind and did not come, he must be, according to the right hon. Gentleman, the proxy; for it depended upon him whether the voter reached the poll or not. The right hon. Gentleman's next objection was the concentration of

  839
  votes in a few hands at the University. He thought that this apprehension was exaggerated. The resident members of the University were continually changing. He took his M.A. degree ten years ago, and there was now only one single resident at Oxford who knew him sufficiently well to make the declaration that he was personally acquainted with him, and as this gentleman was opposed to him in politics he was not likely to send his voting paper to him. For himself, therefore, he should not send his voting paper to the head of a College, but should select some neighbour of his own who might be going to Oxford to take charge of his vote. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of College combinations as likely to take place under this Bill. But were such things never heard of now? As to concentration of votes in a few hands, why, under the present system promises were asked for and obtained for particular persons even before they had declared themselves candidates. He held in his hand a circular issued yesterday from the University of Oxford. It was dated "Balliol College," and set forth that it was generally understood to be the intention of Mr. Gladstone to retire from the University of Oxford as soon as the Bill giving an additional seat to South Lancashire was passed. This vacancy would give members of Convocation (it continued) an opportunity of vindicating the character of the University. Sir Stafford Northcote and Mr. Roundell Palmer were likely, it was added, to be put into nomination, and, as it was desirable to secure Sir Stafford Northcote's return, voters were requested to announce their determination to vote for that Gentleman. Then followed the names of four leading gentleman who were willing to receive promises for Sir Stafford Northcote. Now, a thousand written promises might be concentrated in the hands of one gentleman, who would thus exercise quite as much influence on an election as if he had received a few voting papers; but with this difference, that many of the promises for Sir Stafford Northcote would be coupled with the condition—"I will come and vote if you will pay my expenses." The voting papers would get rid of the travelling expenses, which, as they all knew, operated as an inducement for electors to give their votes for particular candidates. The right hon. Gentleman had also urged the number of transmissions and retransmissions of the voting paper which might take place between the elector and the bearer. The
  840
  House were not bound, he thought, to inquire into this point. It was for the deliberation of the voter how his vote was to be conveyed to the poll, and if the voter complied with the provisions of the Bill he did not see that it was a matter of more concern which of the voter's friends was selected to convey the vote for him than which train he travelled by if he attended in person. Then, again, the time within which the papers were to be signed was strictly limited. The vote was not to be signed until after the returning officer had given the three clear days' notice of the day for proceeding to the election, and until that notice was given the voter could not go before the justice. Another objection urged by the right hon. Gentleman to the Bill was that the voting paper might go up to one polling place and the voter himself to another to deliver his oral vote. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: At the same time.] But Clause 2 provided that the voting paper was to be delivered at "one of the appointed polling places." Now, by the 16 & 17 Vict., the Vice Chancellor might appoint any number of polling places, not exceeding four in all, and declare what Colleges were to poll at those polling places. He apprehended that if the voting paper of a Christ Church man were presented at the polling place for Lincoln, the bearer would be told that was not the appointed polling place. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: That is not stated in the Bill.] No, but the Bill provided that the votes were to be received by the Vice Chancellor or his deputy, "in the manner heretofore used, in all respects as if such votes had been given by the electors attending in person." Now, would it be recording a vote "in the manner heretofore used" if it were received at the polling place not appointed for receiving the votes of a particular College? The right hon. Gentleman's objection in regard to possible frauds went off altogether, for the right hon. Gentleman did not allege any danger of fraud under this Bill, but only apprehended it might be a precedent for the introduction of voting papers for other constituencies where they might lead to fraud. But the House were dealing in the present Bill solely with the University constituencies, and it would be quite sufficient if they took precautions against fraud in the case before them. The adoption of voting papers in University elections would form no precedent for their adoption in other cases, because the University elec-

  841
  tors, being chiefly non-resident, and voting in virtue of an educational franchise, presented no possible analogy with other constituencies. The right hon. Gentleman had also spoken of the measure destroying corporate or academical action; but how could he reconcile that objection with the approval he had given to the Bill as it originally stood? That supposed academical influence of University electors over each other was a pure figment of the right hon. Gentleman's own brain. Was it to be imagined that men would spend their time and money in going up to the University in order to deliberate with other people as to how they should vote? Men who were so politically undecided of indifferent as that would surely stay at home. The right hon. Gentleman talked of pledges being extorted by the heads of Houses. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER made an observation.] He believed he had rightly understood the right hon. Gentleman's words, and the right hon. Gentleman's constituents would hardly feel flattered when they read his remarks in The Times to-morrow. For his own part, he had that confidence in the character of the University electors that he did not believe either that they would seek unfairly to extract pledges from their brother electors, or that their brother electors were in such a defenceless position as to submit to such a proceeding. He had now dealt with all the right hon. Gentleman's objections. That was a Bill simply intended to enable persons recognized as having a right to vote to exercise the privilege with that reasonable facility which they were at present denied. He believed it would have the effect not only of increasing the number of electors who polled at the University elections, but that before long it would very much enlarge and improve these constituencies, because when they found that they could easily exercise their franchise by means of voting papers many men who now took their names off the books would allow their names to remain there. It was rather ungracious that the right hon. Gentleman should object to a measure tending in fact to the enfranchisement of his own constituents. The vote of the right hon. Gentlemen's colleague, the Home Secretary, might at all events be claimed in favour of the Bill, on the ground of what he stated the other night in reference to the Scotch Universities. The Home Secretary had said that until lately it would have been a great objection to enfranchising the Scotch Universities, that their con-
  842
  stituencies, unlike those of Oxford and Cambridge, would consist only of a small body of professors and very limited number of graduates. By this measure that large body of non-resident graduates in whom the right hon. Baronet took such interest would be enabled to exercise the same influence as was now almost exclusively enjoyed by about 10 per cent of the entire constituency. He, therefore, trusted that the House would now read the Bill the third time.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he had confounded the first with the second printed edition of the Bill. He had, in consequence, described the first version as containing good securities which he was now bound to confess he did not think it provided.
  MR. HUNTrose to address the House; but the repeated cries for a division rendered his observations almost undistinguishable. He was understood to say that he had no wish to speak in opposition to the desire of the House, but having taken a great interest in the measure, and introduced some Amendments into it in Committee, he trusted the House would indulge him for a few moments whilst he replied to some of the objections urged by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In the first place, he was anxious to set himself right with the right hon. Gentleman and the House in reference to the interruption which he had noticed. He (Mr. Hunt) stated at the time that he intended no discourtesy to the right hon. Gentleman. On the contrary, he could assure him that he valued too highly any criticisms he made to think of interrupting him, if he had not felt that the right hon. Gentleman was misrepresenting the provisions of the Bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said if the voting paper was lost, the voter might sign another paper. Now, according to the provisions of the Bill, whether the voting paper was lost or not, it was impossible for him to give a second paper. The only way left to him to correct the matter would be to come up and give his vote in person. There was an objection to the papers being sent direct to the returning officer, on which the right hon. Gentleman had not touched—and that was that votes so sent, and of which no public notice was taken at the hustings, was neither more nor less than the ballot. Besides, it did not provide any security against forgery, which, though not likely to happen, was still a contingency to be guarded against.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he would not detain the House by any argument, as his right hon. Friend seemed to him to have exhausted all that could be said on the subject. But he was unwilling that the House should go to a vote on the third reading without his explaining that he concurred in the objection taken to the measure by his right hon. Friend. He thought its principle entirely new, and liable to great abuse; and if the House should agree to it, and it should be carried into practice, he believed they would soon see reason to repent of their decision.
  MR. CONINGHAMexpressed extreme objections to the principle of the Bill, but the cries of the House for a division were so loud and persistent that his observations were totally inaudible. The hon. Member concluded by moving, as an Amendment, that the Bill be re-committed.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "be" to the end of the Question, in order to add the word "re-committed,"—instead thereof.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 165; Noes 80: Majority 85.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read 3o, and passed.

  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTORS (IRELAND):—LEAVE.
  SIR WILLIAM SOMERVILLEmoved for leave to introduce a Bill to prevent the disfranchisement of Parliamentary electors in Ireland by reason of their letting out portions of their holdings in the ordinary course of the occupation of the same.
  MR. VANCE and COLONEL DICKSONopposed the introduction of the Bill at the present late period of the Session, when many Irish Members were absent.
  Motion made, and Question put,
  "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prevent the Disfranchisement of Parliamentary Electors in Ireland by reason of their letting out portions of their holdings in the ordinary course of the occupation of the same."
  The House divided:—Ayes 20; Noes 22: Majority 2.
  Motion negatived.
  House adjourned at half after One o'clock till Monday next.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Landlord and Tenant Law Amendment (Ireland) Act Proceedings.
2a London Coal and Wine Dues Continuance.
3a Inclosure (No. 2); Local Government Supplemental; Transfer of Stocks and Annuities.

UNITED STATES—THE MORRILL.

  TARIFF.—QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVON THE EARL OF CARNARVON rose to ask the noble Duke the Secretary for the Colonies a question of which he had given him private notice. It would be in the recollection of their Lordships that three or four months ago a tariff called "the Morrill Tariff" came into operation in the Northern States of America. This tariff was thought, and not without reason, to be in antagonism to the interest of both the Southern and the great North Western States, and generally perhaps to the interests of the United States. That was a question on which, of course, he would not enter—but the tariff also acted most unfavourably upon British and Canadian interests. A large quantity of goods was annually sent from this country to Portland, in the State of Maine, to be conveyed thence by railway into Canada. These goods were sent by railway under bond, and until the introduction of the new tariff no inconvenience had been ex-

  773
  perienced. Under the provisions of the Morill Tariff, however, he understood that all packages were opened at the Custom House at Portland, the contents were examined, and the threads of cotton and linen goods were counted as carefully as though a duty had to be levied upon them. This necessarily caused great delay, and in many instances had led to great loss. It was true that the great bulk of the Spring goods which would be exported to Portland this season had left that port before the tariff came into operation; but he understood that there were now lying there several cargoes which had not been examined, and consequently upon which much loss had been incurred. It was, however, of importance that the attention of the Government should be called to this subject, because it was well known that during many months of the year the river St. Lawrence was closed and all the goods which were exported to Canada were sent by Portland and the railroad to British territory. He should be glad to know from the noble Duke, Whether the Government had received any information of the facts which he had stated, and whether, if the inconvenience which he had referred to had really been experienced, any representations would be made to the Government of the United States upon the subject?
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEsaid, it was not in his power to afford any information to his noble Friend on the matter to which he had referred, nor did he think that, for some time, communications could be made with the Governor General of Canada upon the subject; but as his noble Friend had intimated to him that he intended to put this question to him he had endeavoured to ascertain whether any measures had been adopted relative to the Morrill Tariff and been made known to any Department of the Government, and with that view he had communicated with the Foreign Office and the Board of Trade, but all he had been able to learn was that no representations had been made to the Board of Trade by merchants or others interested in the American trade. He was unable to say whether the anticipations of his noble Friend opposite were correct; all he could say was, that if the inconveniences of which the noble Earl complained really existed, and were such as could be removed by representations to the United States' Government, Her Majesty's Government would not be backward in
  774
  making such representations; but, at the same time, he thought his noble Friend would perceive that these were evils which were certain to correct themselves; and he could not but hope that the Untied States' Government would become convinced of the objections to this tariff, and would themselves, and in their own interest, make all the alterations that were required.

  RAILWAY BILLS—STANDING ORDER CLXXXV.
  LORD REDESDALEproposed an alteration in the Standing Orders in regard to Private Bills, and said, that many of the railway schemes that were brought before their Lordships were often got up by a solicitor, and engineer, and a contractor, who were sure to make a profit out of it, whether it was sanctioned by Parliament or not. They were often very imperfectly prepared, did not accommodate the district which they traversed to the full extent, and were defective in the junctions which they made with main lines. The funds, also, were frequently proposed to be derived only in a small degree from the promoters, and chiefly from some large Company with whose line they formed a junction. It was of great importance that the persons who appeared as the promoters of branch lines should be obliged in the first instance to communicate with the Companies whose main lines they joined; and he believed that that could be done in no other way than that which he suggested. A noble Lord opposite (Lord Portman) had given notice of an Amendment, in which he sought to secure the same object in a different manner; but he (Lord Redesdale) maintained that it would be accomplished more effectually and more legitimately by the means he proposed. The noble Lord's scheme was, in fact, the present system with several additions, which rendered it more objectionable. The noble Lord then moved—
  "That the Standing Order No. clxxxv. (formerly 223) be considered, in order to its being Amended in the following Manner: after paragraph 2, to insert—
  "3. That no Provision authorizing any Company to raise money, or to subscribe towards, or to guarantee any Money in the Undertaking of another Company, shall be introduced into any Bill which is not brought in by the Company thereby authorized to raise Money, or to subscribe, or to guarantee, or of which such Company is not a Joint Promoter with the other Company, and shall have been named as such in all the

  775
  Notices required by the Standing Orders of the House prior to the Introduction of the Bill to Parliament."
  LORD PORTMANhad given notice to move as an Amendment,
  "That when in any Bill a Provision is inserted authorizing any Company to subscribe towards, or to guarantee, or to raise any Money in aid of the Undertaking of another Company which Bill is not brought in by the Company so authorized, Proof shall be required before the Examiner whether the Company so authorized has any Bill before Parliament in which such a Provision could be inserted; in the event of there being such a Bill before Parliament the Examiner shall report the Name or short Title of such Bill to the House; in the event of there being no such Bill before Parliament the Examiner shall report whether Proof has been given that the Company so authorized has consented to such Subscription Guarantee, or raising of Money at a Meeting of the proprietors of such Company, held specially for that Purpose, and that such Provision was approved by the Proprietors of the ordinary Shares of the Company, present in Person or by Proxy, holding at least Three-Fourths of the paid-up Capital of the Company represented at such meeting, such Proprietors being qualified to vote at the Meeting in right of such Capital only; in case no such Proof had been given no such Bill shall proceed without the special Order of the House."
  The noble Lord said, that he had the same object in view as the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees, but he thought his proposal would avoid the very large expense which would be entailed in the case of small lines, if the great Companies who were to assist were made joint promoters of the Bill, in the manner suggested by the original motion. He intended by the words in the last paragraph to provide that the Bill should not proceed in the absence of proof of the Order being complied with, precisely in the same way as when the Examiner reported that the Standing Orders of the House had not been complied with; and if those words did not give effect to that intention he had no objection to alter them. Any suggestion from the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees came with great weight, and any counter-proposal from another Peer came with greatly diminished weight; but he thought the safest course would be to be well-advised before either Resolution was adopted, and in a matter of such difficulty as this he hoped his noble Friend would consent to the appointment of a Select Committee, who, in a few hours, might consider the point and advise the House upon it.
  LORD EBURYsaid, he regarded the ordinary shareholders in a railway com-
  776
  pany as the mortgagors and the debenture holders as mortgagees; and he, therefore, thought the former should have a voice in any increase of debt which would diminish the value of their reversion. All lines of railway conferred great benefits, especially on the working classes, who were enabled to travel over them, and many lines could not be undertaken without the assistance of larger companies. He trusted, therefore, that their Lordships would pause before they threw difficulties in the way of the construction of these small lines, which were often of the greatest value to agricultural districts.
  EARL GREYsaid, that no one could dispute that railways were the source of immense advantage to the country, but it was greatly to be lamented that so many millions of capital had been uselessly wasted on those undertakings. It was quite clear that if there had been a proper system of railway legislation a greater amount of accommodation would have been afforded to the public at the same time that a higher amount of interest would have been secured to the shareholders. Both the noble Peers who had spoken concurred in stating that under the existing system there was great abuse, and it was the duty of Parliament to guard against that abuse as much as possible. Parliament ought not to be asked to pass Bills for branch railways on the faith that great companies would subscribe unless the question was fairly brought before the shareholders of those companies whether they would subscribe or not. The directors should not be permitted to engage in undertakings which could not pay, and which could only result in loss to their shareholders, without first having their sanction. It was not very material in what manner the difficulty was met, but on the whole he preferred the Amendment, with the omission of a few words towards the conclusion of it.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEsaid, he was not surprised that their Lordships should have digressed into a discussion of much more importance than the consideration of a Standing Order. There had been a great waste of money upon railways as compared with the accommodation which they afforded, and this was partly owing to the vicious tribunal which dealt with them, and partly to the assistance given by the great companies to new lines, not in consideration of the wants of the districts, but of the extent of territory which

  777
  they could thereby secure against their rivals. He agreed that the shareholders in large companies should give their assent to any scheme on which it was proposed that their money should be lent, and he thought the Amendment of the noble Lord (Lord Portman) would give effect to that object in a more temperate manner than the original proposition of the Chairman of Committees. It was mostly on compulsion that the great companies had given their assistance to the small lines. Their Lordships ought to be very cautious how they imposed further checks on the construction of small lines, which were essential to the improvement of the country.
  THE EARL OF LUCANhoped their Lordships would pause before they adopted either noble Lord's Resolution. He had had considerable experience of railways in Ireland, and if this Resolution had been in force for the last eight or ten years the progress of the railway system in that country would have been very much impeded.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, there could be no doubt that the tendency of this Standing Order would be to check the promotion of branch lines, which, in many cases, were very advantageous to the country. The two noble Lords who had spoken first on this subject agreed as to the existence of the evil, but differed as to the remedy to be applied, and of the two he thought it would be much safer to appoint a Select Committee, composed chiefly of noble Lords who were in the habit of taking part in the private business of the House, than to rush into the adoption of the Resolution which the noble Lord opposite had moved.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, he was perfectly prepared to acquiesce in any proposition which would tend to remove the evil of which he complained, and if noble Lords would give their time and attention to a Select Committee he should be very glad to have the matter referred to it. He must protest, however, against the doctrine that great Companies should be compelled to subscribe their money to make lines which were in no way profitable to them. It was not fair that because many of their directors happened to be mixed up a great deal with persons who were concerned in getting up these schemes that, therefore, the shareholders should be injured by having their money subscribed to lines which could be no benefit to them.
  778
  The small remuneration which railway property now earned was owing chiefly, he believed, to competition to get hold of districts which did not enter into their original schemes. Railway companies had shown too great eagerness to become great concerns, and with that view had undertaken matters which did not repay them the price they had to pay. What he desired was that railway companies should carefully consider all these points before they came forward to undertake new schemes. He would consult with the noble Lord opposite as to the appointment of a Select Committee.
  Motion (by Leave of the House) withdrawn.
  Select Committee appointed,
  "To inquire into the Manner in which Companies shall be authorized to subscribe or guarantee any Money to be employed in the Undertaking of any other Company." The Lords following were named of the Committee; the Committee to meet on Monday next, at Four o'Clock:—

  E. Lucan.

  L. Colchester.

  E. Lonsdale.

  L. Portman.

  L. Wycombe.

  L. Overstone.

  L. Redesdale.

  L. Churston.

  STATE OF TURKEY—ADDRESS FOR PAPERS.
  VISCOUNT STRATFORD DE REDCLIFFE,moved that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for
  "Copies or Extracts of any Correspondence which has passed between the Foreign Department and Her Majesty's Embassy at Constantinople in the last and present Years on the Subject of Financial or Administrative Reforms in Turkey, especially of such as were proclaimed in the late Sultan's Hatt-i-homayoon of the Year 1856, and more particularly since the Accession of the reigning Sultan,"
  The noble Lord said, it will be within your Lordship's recollection that about a fortnight ago I put a question to the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs relative to the late demise of the Sultan Abdul Medjid. I did not anticipate at that time that it would be necessary for me to go at any length into the question, because the answer which I received was sufficiently satisfactory; but it may also be within your recollection that my noble and gallant Friend opposite (the Earl of Hardwicke), stimulated by the interest which he takes in all public matters, and especially in this particular subject, made what I may be allowed to call an onslaught, not upon me

  779
  personally, but upon questions with which I had been intimately connected in Turkey. The rules of the House prevented me from at once going into those observations in the manner which the importance of the question and the authority of my noble and gallant Friend required, and I was, therefore, compelled to announce my intention of bringing the subject before you on another occasion. At this moment I should be glad to be permitted to put off the subject to another day, from personal causes of indisposition, but on looking at the notice paper I find no opportunity will be open to me for another fortnight, and the Session will be so far advanced then that the opportunity will be lost altogether. The noble Earl seemed to be under the impression that the policy pursued by us with respect to Turkey for some years back had been one of an entirely mistaken character, and had been productive of mischief instead of good. If I understood him aright, his impression was that there was not the slightest prospect of any effect being produced on the great interests of that empire, that the reforms which had been adopted were merely of a formal character, and would lead to no consequence, and that the only chance of succeeding was by the conversion of the whole Mussulman population to Christianity. I should be sorry if at a moment that may be called critical in the affairs of Turkeys—that of the transfer of the chief authority from one Sultan to another—any false impression should go abroad of the opinion of this House. It is on that account that I venture to trespass for a few moments on your Lordships' indulgence, not with a view of affording any information to your Lordships, but of calling attention to some points of the subject that ought not to be lost sight of at a time like this, when the supreme power has devolved from one member of the Imperial family to another. It is important to consider whether the system that has been pursued so long in Turkey is to be counteracted by a Sultan of a different character; or, whether, by taking up the late Sultan's policy, he will, by greater energy of character, give hopes that the dangers connected with the state of the empire may be averted. I have already paid what I think is but a fair tribute to the late Sultan, under whose reign of more than twenty years Turkey has undoubtedly made great progress in improvement. I think it would be sad if, now he has passed from life under the shadow of the
  780
  calamities that clouded the last year of his reign, all that he did for the empire should be subjected to censure and reproach. It is a matter of great interest whether the reforms introduced under his reign shall fall into disuse, or whether, by the proper support of Her Majesty's Government and its allies, we are to realize the expectations formed of them. This, my Lords, is a matter in which this country has a real interest. It is not necessary for me to point out the vast extent of the Turkish empire or the advantages of its extensive commerce with this country. We know that this commerce has been a matter of interest to England for two or three centuries, and that it has lately been considerably increased by trade with Persia and the provinces on the Danube; and this trade may be still further increased for the future. At this moment, when there is a prospect of our suffering severely by the unfortunate events now taking place in America, our commerce with the East is of especial importance. It is the opinion of those well qualified to judge, that much of the soil of Turkey is adapted to the cultivation of cotton. But, of course, no such cultivation can be promoted by British capital unless it is secured by an improved system of legislation in the Turkish Empire. On that ground alone, in addition to others, there is every reason to wish that the reforms that have so often occupied the attention of this country should be carried into effect. We know also that our political influence requires us to attend to our interests in Turkey. If that empire continues to decay, without assistance from Europe, it will be reduced to a state that will excite the attention and ambition of its powerful neighbours, and render necessary some steps to procure a new settlement of Europe. This cannot but be a source of danger—it is shown by the strong steps and the many efforts this country and the other Powers of Europe have made to stave off that peril. The policy of this country, form the earliest period of its connections with the East, proves the interest we have always taken in the affairs of Turkey. In the last century, and even earlier, we interfered between other Powers and the Porte. Of late years the course of events in Turkey has excited apprehensions that that empire is tending to dissolution, and it has been judged necessary to take stronger measures and interfere in a more marked manner to avert the danger apprehended.

  781
  In several cases during the present century England has interfered, not only by her counsel and mediation, but with fleets and armies. And it is natural to ask the question whether all these costly sacrifices are to be thrown to the winds, or whether we are further to seek to realize the results for which we have so strenuously endeavoured. The alternative presented to us is, whether we will see the whole of that part of Europe engaged for a lengthened period in a sanguinary struggle, and perhaps ourselves take a share in the spoliation, which must be the result of that struggle; or, whether we will take such measures as may prevent the contingency of such a struggle arising at all. I think we should expose ourselves to just reproach, and incur a deep responsibility, if, at a moment of so much importance, we left it at all in doubt whether the policy we have always pursued is to be continued. From the accounts recently received from Constantinople I am inclined to think the course of the present Sultan has been satisfactory. He seems to have acted in a manner that does credit to his wisdom and sense of justice. But, at the same time, we must not confide too entirely on these reports. I think some of these statements are founded on great exaggerations. Thus, we have heard that nearly 2,000 ladies have been dismissed from the late Sultan's seraglio. Now, there are only four of the wives of the Sultan who are recognized by law, but there is a minor rank of wives that extends to three others. But even if we double this number, which would be a fair allowance, we must suppose that each of these ladies had seventy or eighty attendants. I have no doubt that my noble Friend has more authentic information that I can possess, and I trust that he will be able to tell us whether present appearances are such as to justify the hopes which are entertained. Such being the case, it is most important that there should be no mistake as to the opinion of this House. The Sultan will be exposed to unpopularity amongst persons connected with his own immediate circle in prosecuting the reforms which have been promised; it would be most disastrous if that unpopularity were encouraged by any mistaken idea of the feelings of this House, and it would on the other hand, no doubt, cheer him to find that his policy meets with the cordial support and sympathy of Her Majesty's Government. I trust your Lordships will
  782
  allow that the view I have taken of this subject is consistent with historic truth and with the policy which has long been pursued by this country. I cannot exaggerate the importance of continuing in the same line of policy. But we are told that that policy is useless—that the Turkish Government is exposed to so many dangers that it is impossible to prevent them entirely, and that our utmost efforts cannot guard against that catastrophe which we all dread. There is no doubt as to the extent of the danger to which the Ottoman Empire is exposed, arising from a long continued system of mal-administration, which has reduced that country to its present unsafe, and, in some respects, degraded condition. Still, as I have said, there has been progress in recent times. Strangers who have visited the country have noticed improvements, and have published their observations upon them — especially improvements in the condition of that part of the population which is most entitled to our sympathies—the Greek population. I remember the time when the establishment of a Greek Kingdom was a most popular idea in this country. There were then persons who thought that we were dealing a violent blow to the existence of our old ally by the part we took in the contest which led to the formation of the kingdom of Greece. I took a different view of the matter, and thought I saw ground for expecting great improvement in the condition of the Turkish Empire from the establishment of an independent Greece. How could it have been possible to establish an independent kingdom of Greece without compelling the Turkish Government to improve the condition of the Greek subjects who still remained under its sway? And, again, how could the condition of their Greek subjects be ameliorated without involving an improvement in the condition of the Mussulman population? I believed that I saw a prospect of vast improvement throughout the East. If all the hopes I then entertained have not been entirely realized considerable progress has been made towards their fulfilment, and when we look around us and see what are the reforms attempted in other parts of Europe, and what great changes have taken place during the present century, we must admit that there have been great difficulties in the way of effecting reforms, and that time was required to carry them into complete opera-

  783
  tion. On the whole, I think that the present aspect of affairs in Turkey is calculated to encourage our hopes, that by persevering in the policy which is disapproved by my noble and gallant Friend we may yet avoid the evils which are apprehended, and succeed in establishing peace and order in that empire. There is another circumstance which we must bear in mind. Notwithstanding the degree of weakness into which Turkey has fallen, there is no doubt about her vast resources; and if, by the due execution of these reforms which have been recorded in treaties, a better state of things could be brought about, those resources will be opened out more fully than they are at present. There is hope of that result being arrived at if we persevere in the same course of policy which we have hitherto adopted. A large portion of the Turkish population are very fanatical in their opinions; and, in order to obtain the complete carrying out of the reforms which have been promised, and which alone can lead to the full development of the resources of Turkey, there must be a steady, friendly, but sufficient pressure upon the Turkish Government But I admit that all these motives for perseverance would be inadequate to prevent hesitation as to our policy if there was not another reason. Beyond the reasons I have given, I must remark that we are positively bound by solemn obligations to support and assist the Turkish Empire to the last extremity. I maintain that the honour of England under our present engagements requires us to use our arms and expend our treasure to prevent the Turkish Empire from falling to pieces; just as we made sacrifices and incurred great risks to redeem our pledges to Portugal early in the present century. If the Turkish Empire is in danger, if it be true that we have a great interest in seeing that Empire placed in a more secure position it is, I say, only consistent in us to do all that lies in our power to redeem our pledges to that country in order to prevent the occurrence of the apprehended mischief. It seems, therefore, plain that we ought to persevere in the policy which we have so long adopted. The House will hardly be surprised that I, although one of the least worthy of its Members, should attempt, before it is too late, to elicit from them an expression of opinion in favour of the maintenance of the Ottoman Empire, in order that the statement of my noble and gallant Friend may not go forth without being accom-
  784
  panied by some declaration of this House that we should continue to follow that course of policy which has already been attended with great results, and which justifies sanguine hopes for the future. This is the more important, because, in preparing for an apprehended evil, we are not called upon to make any immediate sacrifice nor to embroil ourselves with any other Power; but in persevering in the course I have suggested, we shall obtain, if not the complete fulfilment of our hopes, yet great beneficial results, by giving additional security to our commercial relations, and giving greater stability to the empire which we have undertaken to support. My Lords, I have been unwilling to enter into details on a subject which, in its general bearings, is so well known to all of us; but which, at the same time, is not known to the country at large to the extent that could be desired—a subject, indeed, in respect to which so great a degree of ignorance prevails, that one of the most intelligent writers on such questions has lately made a remark which I take the liberty of reading to your Lordships. The work to which I refer is written in French, and this is its opening sentence—
  "Il est remarquable que, dans I'etat actuel dela politique en Europe, la Turquie, malgre I'importance de son role, malgre la navigation a vapeur, malgre les progres de la statistique moderne continue a etre aussi peu connue comme elle I' etait durant les deux derniers siecles."
  Although it would be great presumption on my part to suppose that I could convey any instruction in this matter to your Lordships, and still less to Her Majesty's Government, yet it is to be feared that a very large proportion of the people out of doors, who have the means of learning what passes in this House, are in want of information in regard to it. It is of great consequence that the country at large should understand the nature of our relations and interests connected with the Turkish Empire—what is the policy that we have pursued for many years, the obligations under which we have been placed, and the danger against which we have to provide; because how can we expect Her Majesty's Government to feel themselves at liberty to adopt a stronger policy, and, above all, to incur any immediate sacrifices, should that unfortunately be necessary, unless they have an intelligent and instructed public to back them? I humbly conceive, therefore, that I am discharging a duty in drawing attention, even beyond the precincts of this

  785
  House, to a subject of so much importance, and which, in times like these of great and sudden changes, may perhaps be brought home to our own doors sooner than we expect. It is, my Lords, with much reluctance that, even without entering into details, I have trespassed on your notice, especially at this advanced period of the Session; and most happy should I be if, in retiring from your Lordships' presence, I should feel that I had so fully discharged my duty towards this question that, whatever may happen hereafter, I should never again have to open my mouth upon it. If I have the good fortune to have impressed your Lordship's minds with the truth of the facts and the correctness of the arguments which I have brought forward, I shall hope that, upon reflection and fair consideration of the great and leading points of the question, I shall have the satisfaction of eliciting from Her Majesty's Government a declaration sufficient to an answer the expressions which lately proceeded from a noble and gallant Earl opposite; and to show that the Turkish Government, in its new circumstances, will be adequately encouraged and sustained in the arduous task which it has undertaken, but which it has hitherto been so imperfectly executed. It is surely no exaggeration to say that, in the present state of the world, the Government and the Parliament of England have a great duty to perform in this matter, and that a heavy responsibility must attend any indifference or negligence in its performance. The mission which they have to fulfil is one of the most solemn and sacred nature. It is a mission of knowledge, of freedom, of humanity—a mission dictated by the purest motives, and, I may add, sanctioned by Christian principles. For its due fulfilment, the power and influence which we posses as a nation have been entrusted to us; and it should ever be remembered that any apathy or lukewarmness in respect to that great end may involve the forfeiture of the means. I thank your Lordships for the kindness with which you have listened to me, and beg to conclude by moving the Address of which I have given notice.
  LORD WODEHOUSEsaid, that his noble Friend spoke with so much authority on all subjects relating to Turkey that it was with some hesitation that any one must differ from him; yet he ventured to think that the present moment was not peculiarly opportune for raising a discussion on internal reforms in the Turkish
  786
  Empire. He quite agreed with the noble Lord in the general necessity for those reforms in that country; and probably there was not one Member of that House who had paid any attention to the subject who was not of that opinion. Having had occasion more than once to trouble the House with observations of his own on this matter, he was the more reluctant now to repeat what he had already stated; but while concurring in the general necessity of reforms in Turkey, he thought that at the present moment, when there had been a recent change in the reigning Sovereign of that country, and when the Government had had, as they conceived, distinct proofs that the new Sovereign was disposed to inaugurate his reign with salutary reforms, it was more becoming in foreign Powers to wait and see whether the Sultan persevered in the course he had commenced, than by advice which would now be unreasonable and premature, to deprive him, in the eyes both of his own subjects and of Europe, of the credit which he would naturally reap from having begun his rule as he had done. The new Sultan had proclaimed his intentions in the most authoritative manner, by what was called a hatti-scheriff, and from that document, as published, their Lordships would perhaps allow him to quote one or two sentences. The Sultan says—
  "I am firmly resolved on what all the world knows it is, with the help of God, my most earnest desire to increase—the prosperity of the State and the well-being of all my subjects without distinction; and I have confirmed in their entire fulness all the fundamental laws which have up to the present been promulgated and established with a view to promote this happy end, and to insure to all the inhabitants of my dominions life, honour, and the enjoyment of their property."
  And his Majesty concluded in these words—
  "I also firmly proclaim that my desire for the prosperity of my subjects will know no distinction, and that those of my people who are of different religions or races shall find in me the same justice, the same solicitude, and the same perseverance in assuring their prosperity. The Progressive development of the rich resources with which God has endowed our empire, the true progress of the welfare which is to result therefrom for all who live under the shadow of my imperial power, and the independence of my great empire, shall be the object of my constant thoughts."
  It was impossible that a more distinct assurance than this could be given that it was the intention of the present Sultan to maintain the laws established by his predecessor, and, what was more to the pur-

  787
  pose, that he would endeavour to carry out those laws. It was manifestly too early yet to judge of what the result of those promises might be, because it was only a few days since His Majesty had ascended the throne; but it was only due to the new Sultan to say that the actual measures which he had already taken gave an earnest that he did not mean to confine himself to mere words. The Government necessarily had not much information as to events that were so recent; but it appeared certain that the Sultan had taken measures for putting an end to the extravagant expense of the establishment of the late Sultan, thereby destroying one of those abuses which undoubtedly brought most discredit on the late reign. And although the Government were not at all prepared to lay on the table, as his noble Friend rather seemed to expect, the statistics of the late Sultan's seraglio, as his noble Friend had alluded to that subject he might say that the present Sultan shared with his Christian subjects the advantage of having only one wife, and also shared with his Mahommedan subjects that peculiar temperance in wine which was one distinguishing characteristic of their religion. Nothing reflected greater credit on the deceased Sovereign than the way in which he treated the brother who had succeeded him; because him; because it was owing to that treatment that the present Sultan enjoyed that freedom of intercourse with the world, and those opportunities of improving himself which were formerly denied to members of the Imperial family. The present Sultan was believed to be a man of considerable energy of character, and was said to have declared to his Ministers, in the most distinct and earnest manner, his determination to apply his mind and all the power he possessed to the reform of the abuses which prevailed in his empire. It was most desirable that he should have the sympathy and support of the Christian Powers, and in no way could that support be better given than by allowing him time to show to his subjects that it was because he himself saw the necessity of reforms, and not because they had been forced upon him by foreign Powers, that he had adopted them. In that way he would be able to establish his throne far more firmly than he could by carrying out any measures which were dictated to him by foreign Powers. After all, the stability of every Government must depend upon the principles which itself
  788
  professed, and not upon those which were imposed upon it from without; and if the present Sultan was convinced, as he trusted he was, that the reforms which he had promised were necessary to the safety and welfare of his empire, and showed that he entertained that conviction, he would produce an effect upon his Mussulman subjects and obtain an influence over them such as could not be obtained by any Sovereign the adoption of reforms by whom was suspected by his subjects to have been forced upon him by foreign Powers. He agreed with his noble Friend that this was a most important crisis in the history of the Turkish empire and of its relations with foreign Powers. He was anxious that the Turkish Government should have full leisure to carry out the measures of reform which had been promised: but, at the same time, he admitted that, considering the interest which we must take in the preservation of the independence and integrity of the Turkish Empire, in the maintenance of our treaties, and in the promotion of everything that could conduce to the prosperity of that empire, it would ill become Her Majesty's Government—and he was sure that it was far from their intention—to lose sight of those reforms, to the adoption of which we attached the greatest importance, and which he trusted that the present Sultan would soon carry into effect. If his noble Friend would consent to alter the terms of his Motion, so that it might not include Correspondence during the reign of the present Sultan which was of such extremely recent date, he should have no objection to the production of the papers moved for.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKEsaid, that he was very much tempted to reply to many of the arguments of his noble Friend opposite: but the noble Lord the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs had made so clear and distinct a statement that the Sultan was to be allowed to conduct his affairs as an independent Sovereign that he did not think it necessary to prolong this discussion. He was anxious that, in carrying out any reforms which he might be disposed to adopt, the Sultan should receive all the support which Her Majesty's Government could give; and he hoped that in giving this Correspondence the noble Lord would also produce that which took place during the visit of his noble Friend opposite to the Sultan.
  LORD WODEHOUSEcould not, with-

  789
  out consultation with his noble Friend at the head of the Foreign Office promise to give this Correspondence.
  VISCOUNT STRATFORD DE REDCLIFFEhad no objection to alter his Motion as suggested by the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State. He had no desire to rush into the councils of the Sultan; his only object had been to show that he ought to be encouraged to the utmost extent by Her Majesty's Government in making the reforms which he had promised.
  Motion, as amended, agreed to.

LABOURERS' COTTAGES BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE EARL OF DEVONmoved that this Bill be read a second time. Its object was to promote the building of improved cottages for labourers, by giving, in certain cases, greater facilities for borrowing money to be applied to that purpose. No fact was more firmly established than that inadequate and impure cottage accommodation was the source, not of physical, but of moral degradation to the inmates. The estate, also, suffered from the imperfections of the cottages upon it, and would be benefited by their improvement. There were many cases where proprietors with large estates, through having only a limited interest or legal disability, could not procure the funds to carry out improvements. The object of the Bill was to enable persons so situated, through the intervention of the Inclosure Commissioners, to apply a limited sum of money, under certain sanctions and conditions, to the erection of cottages, and to charge the expenditure on the inheritance. That principle had been repeatedly recognized, both in public and private Bills, and Parliament had also acknowledged that the improvement of the houses of the working classes was worthy of encouragement. As no novel or startling principle was involved in the measure, and as its object was one which their Lordships must approve, he hoped they would give it their sanction.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.
  LORD PORTMANthought that their Lordships would do well to pause before they committed themselves to such a public Bill founded on the principle that the tenant for life should be allowed to charge the inheritance of his estate with the out-
  790
  lay for improvements and repairs of cottages which he had made. The subject had been under the consideration of various Committees, but none of them had admitted that cottage property was of that permanently beneficial character which would entitle expenditure on that head to be charged against the heir, but had held that such wills were peculiarly the duty of the tenant for life. The Bill fixed the amount to be laid out on a cottage at not more than £120; but after deducting £20 or £50 for the expense of putting in motion the ill-considered machinery of this Bill, a sum would be left which might suffice for a Devonshire cob house, but scarcely for a substantial cottage. He believed that the machinery of the Bill as developed in the Clauses, was of so cumbrous a character as would render it practically inoperative, and many of the clauses cannot be amended in consistency with the privileges of the House of Commons. He, therefore, moved that it be read a second time that day three months.
  Amendment moved, to leave out ("now") and insert ("this Day three Months.")
  THE EARL OF GALLOWAYreminded their Lordships that the principle of the Bill had been already sanctioned by Parliament in an Act which was passed last Session in reference to Scotland. It was very desirable that the erection of good cottages should be facilitated; and he hoped the House would at least read the measure a second time. It might be modified in Committee, if necessary.
  LORD REDESDALEthought that what was proposed to be done by means of this Bill could already be done under several Acts of Parliament through the Inclosure Commissioners; and there were also some provisions in reference to persons possessing the fee-simple which seemed to him to be useless. Nobody was more desirous than himself that the cottages of labourers should be improved, but he thought it was hardly desirable to pass this Bill for the purpose of instituting a new way of raising money for the purpose.
  VISCOUNT DUNGANNONsaid, it was important in a moral point of view that cottages should be erected which would conduce to the comfort and health of the occupants, and as many persons in possession of estates could not afford, to make the necessary outlay, he thought it desirable that they should be assisted, if it could be done without detriment to the inheritance. He did not approve some of

  791
  the details of the Bill, but it seemed unfair not to allow it to be committed.
  On Question, That ("now") stand part of the Motion? their Lordships divided:— Contents 13; Not-Contents 16: Majority 3.
  Resolved in the negative, and Bill to be read 2a, this Day Six Months.

BOOK UNIONS BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD BROUGHAM,in moving the second reading of this Bill, said it simply extended to libraries and book societies the principle of the art unions act, which had been found very useful in cultivating the taste of the working classes. Every subscriber would receive a book of the value of his subscription and a chance at the end of the year of gaining by a raffle a choice of books of specified value from a catalogue. No money would be given, and every precaution would be taken that, in encouraging reading, they should not encourage gambling. The Bill came from the other House, where it was unopposed, and, was supported by the Secretary of State for the Home Department.
  Moved, that the Bill he now read 2a.
  EARL GREYsaid, he doubted whether in respect to art unions the principle legalized by Act of Parliament was a wise one. But there was this reason in their favour—that it was impossible for many persons fond of art to purchase pictures for considerable sums, and as purchasers were found for them by the system of combination art was encouraged. The same reason did not apply to books, because there was no difficulty in printing any book which was worth it. If the principle that they ought not to encourage lotteries or games of chance were a sound one, no reason could be assigned for departing from it in the case of books. It was highly inexpedient to depart from the recognized principle of our law without a proved necessity, and he should, therefore, move that the Bill be read a second time that day three months.
  Amendment moved, to leave out ("now") and insert ("this Day Three Months.")
  LORD DENMANsupported the Bill.
  EARL GRANVILLEwas sorry to oppose any Bill proposed by his noble and learned Friend, but if the noble Earl pressed his Amendment to a division he should feel compelled to support him.
  LORD BROUGHAMsaid, that when the Bill was in the other House, the Home Secretary not only voted for it but spoke in its favour. He did not bring the measure forward as one of necessity, but of expediency, and of great advantage, not to booksellers, printers, or authors, but to readers. It would tend very much to encourage reading among a class who, at present, were not much given to it. He wished it to be distinctly understood that it was not owing to any fault of his that the Bill was lost.
  On Question, That ("now") stand Part of the Motion?
  Resolved in the Negative; and Bill to be read 2a this Day Three Months.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Eight o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.