Sitting of 4 August 1862

PUNISHMENT OF A SOLDIER.

  QUESTION.
  MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONSsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, if there is any truth in the re-
  1190
  port that a soldier at Woolwich has been scrubbed with sand, as a punishment for some barrack offence; and, if true, whether any inquiry into the circumstances has been instituted by the War Office?
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, it was true that a soldier at Woolwich had been punished in the way described by the hon. Member. He (Sir G. Lewis) understood that the sergeant-major who had ordered the punishment had been dismissed by the Commander in Chief. The inquiry ordered into the circumstances had not yet terminated. If it should be necessary to have a further inquiry, the War Office would see that such an inquiry took place.

COMMERCIAL TREATY WITH BELGIUM.

  QUESTION.
  MR. SOMERSET BEAUMONTsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs a Question respecting the Commercial Treaty with Belgium.
  MR. LAYARDsaid, his hon. Friend was doubtless aware that the Treaty between this country and Belgium had not been ratified, and therefore it could not be submitted to the House. However, he would explain its chief provisions. The Treaty contained what was usually called "the favored-nation clause," with one or two exceptions, the nature of which he would state presently. The Treaty was a Treaty of Commerce and Navigation, and gave to British subjects all the privileges which were accorded to the subjects of any other nation. It provided that no duties of tonnage or others should be imposed on British vessels which were not imposed on Belgian vessels, and that no privileges should be accorded to the vessels of any other nation which were not extended to British vessels. It provided that goods of every kind legally importable into the ports of Great Britain and Ireland, our Colonies and Possessions, should be imported into such ports in Belgian vessels without being liable to other or higher duties than if such goods were imported in national vessels. It also provided that goods of every kind should be exempted from transit duty; but the prohibition with respect to gunpowder was maintained, and the two Powers reserved to themselves the right to subject the transit of arms to special authorization. The coasting trade of the two countries was to be reciprocal; and this article was applicable to the coasting trade of such of

  1191
  the British Colonies as should apply for it, conforming with existing Acts of Parliament. The Treaty also provided that the regulations for goods imported from France into Belgium under the Treaty of Commerce of the 1st of May, 1861, should apply to the same goods imported from Great Britain. But with respect to pure or mixed tissues taxed ad valorem, and the value of which was a matter of some difficulty, the Belgian Government reserved to itself the right of admitting such goods by the Custom House at Brussels. It was likewise provided that the subjects of both Powers should enjoy the same protection as native subjects in all that related to trade-marks, patterns, and models, subject always to the special regulations in each country. This stipulation of the Treaty was not to come into operation until the expiration of a year from the date of the signature. The Treaty also provided that British vessels should be exempted from payment of the Scheldt dues as long as the Belgian flag was exempted; and that if the Scheldt dues should be capitalized by a general European arrangement, the tonnage dues imposed in Belgian ports should cease altogether, and the pilotage dues in Belgian ports, as in the Scheldt, should undergo a reduction of 20 per cent on sailing vessels, 25 per cent on vessels towed, and 30 per cent on steamers. The Ionian Islands were to enjoy all the advantages accorded to the subjects of Great Britain, provided the Ionian Government would extend to the subjects and vessels of Belgium the same advantages which were granted to the subjects and vessels of Great Britain. Ionian vessels were to be furnished with a document signed by the Lord High Commissioner or his representative. The Treaty to continue in force for ten years, to be terminable at one year's notice after that period As a temporary exception to that article, it was provided—
  "For two years, from October 1, 1862, the new system will be applied in the following manner:—Cotton yarns, twisted, warped, or dyed, are to pay the duties imposed upon single yarns unbleached or bleached, with an addition of five centimes for twisted yarns, ten centimes for warped yarns, and fifteen centimes for dyed yarns, per kilogramme. The duty on stuff or wool mixed with cotton is to be 22½ per cent until October 1, 1863, and 20 per cent until October 1, 1864. During the continuance of this transitory system, the importer may, at his choice, pay either 180 francs the hundred kilogrammes, or the duties stipulated. The duty upon printed cotton tissues shall be 150 francs the hundred kilogrammes. The present duty on the importation of foreign
  1192
  prints is to be maintained in the British tariff; the article relative to spirits, which is contained in the treaty between Belgium and France, of May 1, 1861, is not to be applied to British spirits, so far as regards the reduction therein stipulated, until October 1, 1865."
  The Treaty had not yet been ratified by the Belgian Chambers; when it had been, it would be ratified by the Government of this country, and would come into operation.

THE BISHOP OF OXFORD AND THE ACT OF UNIFORMITY.—QUESTION.
MR. HENRY SEYMOURwished to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been directed to an Injunction, published in The Times of August 1, from the Bishop of Oxford, as Ordinary, to the Archdeacons of his Diocese, requesting them to communicate to the Clergy of their respective Archdeaconries an official command to use a prayer at the conclusion of the Nicene Creed with regard to the war in America? And whether such a proceeding is not a violation of the Act of Uniformity by adding to the prayers contained in the Prayer Book; and, if so, whether Her Majesty's Government are prepared to take any steps to prevent a violation of the Law?
MR. CLIVEsaid, in the absence of his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who was in attendance on Her Majesty, he had, in reply to the question of the hon. Gentleman, to say, that he had read the letter to which he had referred. As far, however, as he understood the matter, there did not appear to have been any violation of the Act of Uniformity. There had been some alteration made with regard to certain special services; but as no new prayer had been introduced, it could not be said that the matter came within the cognizance of the Act of Uniformity. He would, however, suggest that the hon. Gentleman should repeat the Question on Thursday.

RAILWAYS IN CEYLON.—QUESTION.
SIR FREDERIC SMITHsaid, he rose to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies Whether he has received any and what Tenders for a Railway from Colombo to Kandy; and if the Secretary of State for the Colonies has received any communication relative to a proposed Tram Railway from Colombo to Trinco

1193
malee, with a branch to Kandy, so as to develop the vast agricultural capabilities of the Colony?
MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEreplied that several tenders had been received for the construction of the railway, but it would be unadvisable to state publicly the amounts of those tenders. A proposal, or rather a letter, relating to the construction of tramways, had reached the Secretary of State, from a firm of solicitors acting on behalf of parties at present unknown, and his noble Friend (the Duke of Newcastle) had replied that he had no objection to forward the statement to the Government of Ceylon.

OUTRAGES IN PERU.

  QUESTION.
  CAPTAIN JERVISsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs Whether any steps have been taken to obtain from the Government of Peru satisfaction for the outrages committed against Captain Melville White and Captain Cardwell?
  MR. LAYARDin reply said, the treatment by the Peruvian Government of British subjects had been such as to call for the most grave remonstrance on the part of Her Majesty's Government. The two cases referred to by the hon. and gallant Member were only examples of the unjustifiable proceedings which the Peruvian Government had taken with respect to Englishmen in Peru. Captain White had been arrested, thrown into prison, treated in the most barbarous manner, refused a statement of the charges against him, and suddenly sent out of the country. He was now preparing a statement of his case, which, as soon as it was received at the Foreign Office, would be acted upon by the Government and redress demanded for Captain White. Captain Cardwell had had the misfortune to fall into the jaws of what must in courtesy be called a Court of Justice. Until the legal proceedings were exhausted Her Majesty's Government could not interfere; but the case had been referred to the Law Officers of the Crown, and further papers were expected from Peru. When the Government were in a position to act, they would endeavor to obtain justice for Captain Cardwell. Both these cases were most serious, and the House might rest assured that Her Majesty's Government would insist on full reparation.

FLOGGING AT THE PATRIOTIC FUND ASYLUM.—QUESTION.
VISCOUNT RAYNHAMsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether it is true that the Ladies' Visiting Committee of the Asylum of the Patriotic Fund have resigned; and, if so, whether such resignations have reference to the fact of a girl of the age of sixteen having been flogged in the Asylum?
SIR GEORGE LEWISin reply said, he understood that in January, 1861, a girl between fifteen and sixteen years of age received corporal punishment in the school which was under the management of the Commissioners of the Patriotic Fund, and that punishment was administered by the lady superintendent in the presence of two of the schoolmistresses. The Ladies' Committee, who were a portion of the superintendence of the school, did not take any notice at the time of this matter; but lately they had raised a question upon it, and the General Committee of the Patriotic Fund School had investigated the matter, and decided the question against them, and in support of the discretion of the school authorities. In consequence of that decision a portion of the Ladies' Committee had resigned; and he believed that the Patriotic Fund Commissioners had prepared a Report upon the subject which would shortly be presented and which would contain a full narrative of the circumstances.

CLAIMS AGAINST OUDE.—QUESTION.
COLONEL FRENCHput a question which for some time had stood in his name relating to claims on the State of Oude.
MR. T. G. BARINGsaid, that the papers respecting a portion of the claims were already on the table of the House, and these included the original letter and a Report upon the claims of the representatives of Colonel Frith, and others. The answer of the Secretary of State for India in Council was also laid upon the table; and he could add nothing to the information which was already in the hands of Members. There had also been laid on the table the Report of a Commission with respect to other claims upon the Government of Oude, and the Report was under the consideration of the Secretary of State for India in Council. No answer had yet been sent out to the Report, which had only been lately received.

FISHERIES (IRELAND) BILL.

  [BILL NO. 170.] COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee:—
  COLONEL FRENCHsaid, a period of the Session had now been reached at which it was hopeless to expect that this measure could be carried. Even if it passed through all its stages in the House of Commons, it would have to be submitted to the other branch of the Legislature, whose sanction it could not possibly hope to receive in the present year. It therefore was clearly useless to press the measure on the attention of the House; but he wished before taking any final step in reference to it, to ask the noble Lord at the head of the Government whether he would undertake, on the part of the Government, to introduce a Bill dealing with the question of Irish fisheries? The subject was one of so much importance, and affected such large and varied interests, that it ought really not to be left in the hands of a private Member. The salmon in the Irish rivers ought, under proper management, to form an important element in the food of the people; but, if the present system were persevered in much longer, it must end in the extirpation of that fish, which had already disappeared from an important area of the Irish waters. He hoped his noble Friend would be able to give a distinct assurance that a Bill would be brought in by the Government next Session; or, if he was not prepared to go that length, that the attention of the Government would be directed to the subject during the recess. There was nothing to deter them, but, on the contrary, everything to encourage legislation on the subject. The principles of this Bill had already been sanctioned in England and Scotland, and all that was sought was to assimilate the law in the various parts of the United Kingdom.
  MR. BUTTsaid, he was anxious to say a few words before the noble Lord at the head of the Government answered the question which had just been addressed to him by the hon. and gallant Member for Roscommon (Colonel French). He could not agree with the description of the Bill given by his hon. and gallant Friend. The Bill went much beyond a mere assimilation of the law of England and Ireland. On the contrary, it was proposed to do in Ireland that which had never been attempted in England, and which, he believed, in that country would
  1196
  not be tolerated. The English Bill preserved all existing rights; the Irish Bill, on the contrary, proposed to extinguish them, although they had been secured, if not created, by an Act of Parliament. He had no wish to enter into a discussion of the general subject, but the noble Lord ought clearly to understand that this Bill was strongly opposed by a large section of the Irish Members, and by a still larger proportion of the Irish people. If Government wished to consolidate the fishery laws, or to make any regulations for the better preservation of fish, he should offer no opposition to any measure intended for the general benefit; but he hoped the noble Lord would not think of giving a direct pledge on the part of the Government to legislate in the partial and oppressive spirit of the present Bill, or to give any support to a measure embodying such mischievous and unjust provisions.
  SIR WILLIAM SOMERVILLEfelt compelled to express dissent from the views expressed by the hon. and learned Member for Youghal (Mr. Butt). Legislation was not only desirable, but imperative, if the supply of fish was to be kept up in Ireland, and if, instead of continuing to be a monopoly, the public were to enjoy the benefits of that article of food. It must be remembered that there were public as well as private rights, and the latter were sometimes acquired at the expense of the general community. Such, in fact, had been the case in 1842, when the Act of Parliament which had been referred to unjustly created and endowed a new body of proprietors with privileges previously belonging to the public at large. He ventured to say, that if the hon. and learned Member for Youghal had been in the House at that time, he would not have been able to give his adhesion to a measure so diametrically opposed to the public interests.
  LORD FERMOYcriticized the constitution of the Select Committee to whom the Bill had been referred. With possibly one or two exceptions, the Members were all enthusiasts in favor of this scheme of spoliation; they hurried over the inquiry, taking just as much evidence as favored the views of the majority, and refusing to hear either arguments or testimony on the other side. He felt bound to oppose any measure which might have been sent down embodying such foregone conclusions.
  COLONEL FRENCHdefended the constitution of the Committee, asserting that

  1197
  it had been impartially chosen, that the various points of controversy were fully discussed in the course of the fourteen sittings which had taken place, and the earnestness with which the Committee devoted themselves to their labors was evident from the fact that they even adopted the unusual course of sitting upon Saturdays. No one could allege that they had been in any degree taken by surprise, as the measure was introduced at an early period of the Session.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, it was very obvious that the Bill could not pass this Session; he therefore concurred in the propriety of the course proposed to be adopted. He could not pledge himself as to the course which the Government might adopt next Session; but it was a very proper one for discussion, and one upon which hon. Gentlemen seemed to entertain widely different views.
  COLONEL FRENCHasked the noble Lord at least to promise that the subject would be considered during the recess. It was a measure to which great importance was justly attached in Ireland, and the statement that Government would have its attention directed to the subject would be attended with beneficial results.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONhad no hesitation in stating, that the matter should be considered by the Government.
  COLONEL FRENCHthen moved, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."
  Motion agreed to.
  [No Report.]

MR. FARNALL, POOR LAW INSPECTOR.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. C. P. VILLIERS, in moving for Copies of Reports made to the Poor Law Board on the education of Pauper Children, availed himself of that opportunity to call attention to a letter addressed to him by Mr. Farnall, one of the Poor Law Inspectors, which, in justice to that gentleman, he felt bound to read. Mr. Farnall considered that a speech recently made in another place by a noble Lord affected his character, and he was desirous that he should be set right in that House. In a letter addressed to him (Mr. C. P. Villiers) Mr. Farnall called attention to the report of the speech in The Times——
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, the hon. Member was out of order in reading a letter with reference to a debate in the other House.
  MR. C. P. VILLIERS: I did not say the other House; I said "another place." A noble Lord made a statement affecting the character of Mr. Farnall. ["Order, order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman is not in order.
  MR. C. P. VILLIERS: A statement has been made respecting the character of Mr. Farnall. ["Order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: I must again call the right hon. Member to order.
  MR. C. P. VILLIERS: I trust the House will not be unwilling to allow this gentleman to vindicate his character. He has done so in an extremely respectful communication, in which he replies to a statement which he considers erroneous, ["Hear!" and "Order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman cannot read a letter commenting on a debate in the other House.
  MR. C. P. VILLIERS: When a public servant whose reports have been referred to in this House has been assailed, I thought that the House would allow me to make some statement in his vindication. ["Order, order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: It would be equally out of order for the right hon. Gentleman to comment on any statements made in the other House, as to read the report of any Poor Law Inspector upon them.
  MR. C. P. VILLIERS: I hope I may be able to say that a statement has been made by a noble Lord somewhere——["Order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: What cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly. If the right hon. Gentleman proceeds with his observations, he will be out of order.
  MR. C. P. VILLIERSsaid, that he would take the opportunity of moving for the Returns, if he was not allowed any other, of referring to an Inspector whose name had been much mentioned in their recent discussions. Mr. Farnall had been appointed by the Government as a special Commissioner to proceed to and report upon the distressed districts in Lancashire, and he had been selected as a man of judgment, intelligence, and humanity. Members in that House, and many persons out of that House, had borne favorable testimony to his conduct and to the wisdom of the choice; the hon. and gallant Member for North Lancashire (Colonel W. Patten) had specially referred in that House to the excellent manner in which Mr. Farnall had discharged the difficult

  1199
  task imposed up on him; and he believed that he had given offence nowhere, unless it might be where that small-minded pedantry prevailed which seems to believe that the Poor Laws are never soundly administered unless when done in a spirit and in a language that makes them hateful to the people. He had cautioned Mr. Farnall against adopting this course himself, and counseled him to conciliate, and, if possible, to acquire the confidence of all those who were engaged either in administering the relief, or who were destined to receive it. This Mr. Farnall had faithfully accomplished, and those who employed him had been well satisfied with the manner in which he had performed his duty.
  Motion agreed to.
  Return ordered,
  "Containing Copies of Reports made to the Poor Law Board on the Education of Pauper Children by W. H. T. Hawley, esquire, Robert Weale, esquire, Sir John Walsham, baronet, and Andrew Doyle, esquire, Poor Law Inspectors."

ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE.
Moved, That the House, at its rising, adjourn to Thursday next.
THE LAW OF MARRIAGE—THE YELVERTON CASE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. HENNESSYsaid, he wished to ask a Question of the noble Lord upon a matter which he brought under the attention of the House at the same period last year. He believed that upon the last day of the last Session he asked whether the Government intended to take any steps to remedy the extraordinary contradictions in the marriage law of different parts of the kingdom. A recent case exhibited not only a different state of the law, but a different mode of judicature. He referred, of course, to the recent decision by the Lord Ordinary in the Yelverton Marriage Case. The Lord Ordinary of Scotland gave a decision at variance with the direct verdict of an Irish jury, composed one half of Protestants, and the other half of Catholics. The Lord Ordinary did not examine witnesses; but, having before him a mass of depositions, he ventured, upon that written evidence, to give an opinion upon a question of fact directly opposite to that at which twelve Irish gentlemen had previously arrived. He might also add, that the witnesses at the trial were examined and cross examined before the
  1200
  jury, and that such was the effect of the cross-examination of some of the witnesses, that the counsel who called them refrained from adverting to their evidence, so completely had it been destroyed; yet the same evidence was referred to by Lord Ardmillan, who did not see the witnesses. It was an extremely unfortunate state of the law, that in any part of the United Kingdom two adult persons—not children—should be able to come into a place of public worship, kneel down at the altar of God, make solemn vows upon such a solemn subject as matrimony (the man placing a ring upon her finger, and declaring that he would take the woman to be his lawful wife, and the woman declaring that she would take the man to be her lawful husband), and that such a ceremony should be called in question—not set aside—by the decision of a Scotch judge. He maintained that the law was eminently defective, and that the system of jurisprudence was likewise defective, and he asked the Government what steps they would take with regard to such a state of things. He saw present a right hon. and learned Gentleman who was well acquainted with Irish law, and also with this particular case, and he would like to know what was his opinion upon a case in which the majority of his country men took a most lively interest.
  MR. WHITESIDEsaid, he thought the subject to which the hon. and learned Gentleman had called attention one of great interest. It was said by lawyers, perhaps ironically, that a man might have a wife in each of the three kingdoms, although polygamy was not permitted. The difference between the law in England and Ireland might be remedied, and there was a measure before the House which, with certain limitations and provisions, might have got rid of the difficulties which an old statute in reference to Ireland occasioned. But the decision to which the hon. and learned Gentleman adverted placed the law of marriage in a peculiar position. It was said that severe cases and great practical abuses sometimes led to an amendment of the law. What had happened in this case might happen again. A gentleman might be bound by the decision of a jury to support a lady as his wife in Ireland. The question might be submitted to the Court for its decision, and the Court be so divided as to make the verdict stand, which was exactly this case; yet in Scotland, in that same case,

  1201
  it might be decided that there was no valid marriage. The decision of the jury in the case mentioned, involved two questions, one of which might be said to be unnecessary—Was there a marriage by the law of Scotland, and was there a marriage by the law of Ireland? The question of a marriage in a foreign country when tried here became a question of fact; and upon that question the jury, having heard the evidence of Scotch lawyers as to what was the law of Scotland, were asked, did the parties consent and agree to be husband and wife, and was that consent followed by cohabitation? Upon the evidence the jury came to the conclusion that consent was given and followed by cohabitation, and they found therefore that by the Scotch law as explained to them there was, in fact, a Scotch marriage. With reference to the Irish marriage a different question was raised—whether the gentleman had sufficiently long professed the Catholic religion to make a mixed marriage between a Protestant and Catholic by a Roman Catholic priest a valid marriage. One question of great consequence was determined by the Scotch Judge. He had always understood that consent especially followed by cohabitation constituted a marriage by the law of Scotland. He did not know whether it was attributable to the metaphysical genius of the Scotch nation, or to the law of the country, that any doubt should be raised; but he could not understand how consent was less consent because the parties knelt down at the altar, and, in the presence of a priest, declared that each took the other to be husband and wife. How was that consent to be got rid of? Was it by the singular interpretation that grown people did not intend to mean what they said?—because if it was held that they meant what they said, and it was followed by cohabitation in Scotland as married persons, one would suppose that there was a Scotch marriage. A very important point arose for the consideration of the Government in reference to the decision of the Scotch Court. In Ireland the witnesses in the Yelverton case were examined vivâ voce in open court. It was a very long trial, and it lasted six days. In England, owing to improvements introduced of late years, evidence was now taken vivâ voce in the Probate Court and in the Divorce Court, and all the abuses of written evidence were put an end to. But Scotch gentlemen proceeded in this way:—They
  1202
  issued commissions, and under those commissions in England, in Ireland, and in Scotland a vast number of witnesses were examined and a mass of paper evidence obtained. But those witnesses were never seen by the Judge, and yet he came to the opposite conclusion at which the jury arrived who did see the witnesses, namely, that cohabitation in Ireland preceded the ceremony of marriage instead of following. Would they for a moment tolerate that a man should be tried for murder upon paper evidence? He would like to know what chance any man would have in Ireland if tried on paper evidence. Men would in writing state things which, when face to face with counsel in court, turned out to be very different indeed. Letters were criticised by the learned Judge in the absence of all explanations by the writer. In Ireland the writer was produced, and had an opportunity of giving explanations. That person bore an examination of two days without varying her testimony: but it was a melancholy and painful fact, that this test of truth was omitted in Scotland, and letters were quoted by the Judge which, unexplained by the writer, might change the whole aspect of the case. It was a case of great hardship to the unfortunate subject of this anomalous jurisprudence. In Ireland she was entitled to support as the wife of this gentleman, and in Scotland she was not a wife at all. Irrespective of all sympathy for this unfortunate lady, it was a matter for the consideration of the Law Officers of the Crown whether they could apply a remedy which might prevent such anomalies in the future. He agreed in the observation that it was a strange thing to find in any country a system of adjudicating on paper testimony, which could explain away the force and effect of facts deliberately affirmed by the jury to whom they were submitted. The imputations cast on those who tried the case were most unfounded and unjust; for no jury in the empire would have come to a different decision.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he would not follow the right hon. and learned Gentleman either in discussing the merits of the Irish trial, or the judgment in the Scotch Courts, arising out of the same transaction, inasmuch as the Scotch proceedings might be brought under review of the highest tribunal in the land, and nothing could be more improper than to discuss in that House whether this or that

  1203
  judgment was right or wrong. Apart from the circumstances of this particular case, which were very peculiar, and such as they might hope would not happen again, no person of candid and dispassionate mind could fail to see two things—first, the extreme desirableness of such a change as should, if possible, assimilate the laws of the three parts of the United Kingdom; and, on the other hand, the absolute necessity of consulting and considering upon such a subject the feelings and habits of the people in every portion of the kingdom. For his own part, he thought that the law of England on this subject was very satisfactory, and he should be well content to see it adopted throughout the United Kingdom; but to attempt to force it on Scotland or Ireland without regard to the feelings and habits of the people would certainly be impracticable. It would not, therefore, he thought, be advisable on the part of the Government to say more than that they were alive to the importance of the subject and the desirableness of taking such steps as might lead to the attainment of a wise assimilation of the laws of the three countries. The House was aware that a Member well able to deal with such a question—his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Belfast (Sir H. Cairns)—had brought in a Bill having reference to Ireland, and the Government were most anxious to give him all the assistance in their power; but the character of the measure introduced, no doubt after communications with various parties in Ireland, did not excite in him very sanguine hopes that we were extremely near to a complete identity of law in all the three kingdoms. It was necessary to proceed with great caution and care on the subject. All he could say was that the Government were most anxious to undertake the matter; and if they could not see their way to propose a measure themselves, they would certainly be ready to give all the assistance in their power to any Member who should frame and introduce a Bill on the subject.
  MR. LEFROYalso hoped the Government would take this important subject into consideration before the House met again; and he begged to suggest, that if a Bill were brought forward at all, the heads of the Church should be consulted as to its provisions; for they had reason to know that the late most rev. Primate of all Ireland felt some objection to the Bill of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Belfast. He hoped Her
  1204
  Majesty's Government would bring in a Bill next Session, and that it would go as much as possible on the principle of regarding marriage in the light of a civil contract.

AFFAIRS OF SERVIA.—OBSERVATIONS.
MR. DARBY GRIFFITHexpressed a hope that the representative of this country at the Conference which was sitting at Constantinople would enter that Conference without any spirit of partisanship. Since the Turkish Government had obtained funds from this country, they had conducted themselves in a much more demonstrative manner, and they had made a new attack upon Montenegro. He could not help regarding it as a great anomaly that the Porte should have fortresses in a country where it did not otherwise possess a single acre of territory.

COMMERCIAL RELATIONS WITH AUSTRIA.—OBSERVATIONS.
MR. SOMERSET BEAUMONTsaid, it had come to his knowledge that a Circular had been addressed by the Board of Trade to the different Chambers of Commerce throughout the country, requesting their opinion with reference to a commercial treaty with Austria. The subject to which this circular referred was of more than ordinary interest at the present moment. It had been represented that Austria had notified her wish to join the Zollverein. Directly this was known in England apprehensions were excited, for it was supposed this was a further step in the direction of protection. As the circular stated that Austria was disposed to negotiate a treaty of commerce with the most liberal country in the world, these apprehensions had now been removed, and he hoped the noble Lord would be able to say that there were good grounds for this. The commercial relations between this country and Austria had hitherto been affected by the high protective tariff of Austria. This was manifest from the terms in which they were alluded to by the Secretary of Embassy at Vienna. The hon. Member then read the opinion expressed by Mr. Fane, to the effect that the spirit which animated the commercial legislation of Austria was thoroughly protectionist. Her Majesty's Government had been so successful in negotiating treaties of commerce with different

1205
countries during their tenure of office that they had stimulated the attention of the commercial communities in that direction; and he trusted that they would be as successful with Austria in this matter as they had been with Belgium. It was astonishing how limited the trade was between this country and Austria, compared with the trade between France and England; yet there was no reason why our trade might not increase with Austria as it had done with France, to the advantage of both countries, if the protective duties were lowered. There was this advantage attending sound commercial relations between this country and Austria—that whereas if war broke out between us and other European Powers, our commerce with those countries had been interrupted; but as England and Austria never went to war with each other, our commerce with her would always remain uninterrupted. The produce of Austria and Hungary was just such as we required, comprising cattle, grain, wine, tobacco, leather, wool, skins, &c.; while our cotton, cloth, hardware, machinery, and other manufactures might be readily exchanged for them. Of late years Austria had progressed in liberal institutions, and it was to be hoped that her people would adopt free trade and that the commercial intercourse between England and Austria might become more commensurate with the capabilities and resources of the two countries. Our commercial relations with America had been so seriously compromised that the Government could not grant a greater boon to our mercantile communities than by endeavoring to find new markets for their goods. His excuse for bringing that subject forward so late in the Session was, that the circular issued by the Board of Trade had come under his notice only the other day; and so much harm had been done through the delay in discussing the Commercial Treaty with Belgium in that House, that he thought he should have failed in his duty, as the representative of a large commercial constituency, if he had not on the earliest occasion drawn the attention of the Government to this important matter.

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. COXobserved that very early in the Session he had put a Question to the
  1206
  noble Viscount on the subject of Reform in Parliament. The noble Lord gave him an answer which many of his friends did not think quite so courteous, so kind, or so good-humored as the noble Lord's replies usually were. The Session had been a very quiet one; the House had almost been a "happy family;" and after the noble Lord's answer to his Question the subject of Reform had scarcely been mentioned amongst them. He did, however, wish to refer once more to a matter in which he could assure the noble Lord his constituency and millions of other persons in this country took the deepest interest. He wished to know if during the recess the Government would turn their attention to Parliamentary Reform. He would ask the noble Lord to be good enough to look into the Bill which was introduced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire, and that at the same time he would also read the Resolution which was proposed by Earl Russell, and which affirmed that that Bill would not be satisfactory to the House or to the country unless it went a great deal further. With those two documents in his hand the noble Lord would have no difficulty in coming to a right conclusion.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, I am sure it is unnecessary for me to remind the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Cox) that the subject to which he has adverted is not only one of great importance, but also one beset with great difficulties, as events have shown; and on the last day but one of the Session I do not think it would be advisable for me to express any opinion as to what the Government might or might not think fit to do next Session on such a matter.
  With regard to what has fallen from the hon. Member opposite (Mr. D. Griffith), he may be aware that the representatives at Constantinople of the Powers who were parties to the Treaty of 1856 have been authorized to meet in conference upon the question now pending with respect to that part of the Turkish territory to which he referred. I can assure him that the representative of the Queen will be, and has been, instructed to bear in mind, on the one hand the engagements which the six Powers—I may say the seven Powers, including Turkey herself—entered into under the Treaty of 1856—to bear in mind what are the just rights of the Sultan, and also what is due to the welfare of the Sultan's Christian subjects. More than that I can-

  1207
  not say. The Sultan has undoubtedly the right of holding garrisons in certain towns in Servia—Belgrade and others—and, of course, it is open to him, in concert with his allies, to determine whether there are any military posts which, consistently with his interests, he could abandon. I do not, however, think that is at all likely. Such are the instructions that have been given to Her Majesty's representative.
  In reply to my hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Beaumont), I do not think it is advisable to state at present what is the condition of any communication passing between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Austria as to commercial matters. I can assure him that we are exceedingly desirous, if possible, to conclude a better arrangement with Austria upon those subjects. The Austrian Government, as my hon. Friend has well observed, has entered upon a course of policy far more liberal in all respects than that which heretofore it has pursued. The Emperor has given a representative constitution, and I believe in commercial matters, as well as in political, there is a great desire on the part of the Austrian Government to liberalize their system. At the same time habits of protection in favor of native industry—however ill-founded the reasons may be—are very difficult to be eradicated. The other day, when there was a question of the entry of Austria into the Zollverein, there were conditions attached to such entry by Austria which were thought still to be too much based upon the protection principle, and they have prevented Austria from joining the Zollverein at the present moment. Therefore people must not be over sanguine as to any great change in Austrian commercial policy. It is undoubtedly true, as my hon. Friend has stated, that the Austrian empire abounds with natural resources; and if, by a wiser course of policy than has hitherto been adopted, an interchange of commodities with other countries was encouraged, the empire possesses wealth beyond description, with which its people could purchase those articles which other countries produce at a cheaper rate than they themselves can produce them, and a more enlarged commercial system between Austria and this country and other countries would be highly advantageous to all parties, and I by no means despair that the Austrian Government may be led to adopt a course in harmony with those principles.
  Motion agreed to.
  House at rising to adjourn till Thursday.
  House adjourned at Eight o'clock, till Thursday.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—3a Union Relief Aid; Corrupt Practices Prevention Act Continuance.
RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION IN TURKEY.

  QUESTION.
  VISCOUNT STRATFORD DE RED- CLIFFEsaid, he had a question to ask of the noble Earl at the head of the Foreign Department relating to a case of religious persecution in the East. He could not, he thought, better do justice to the importance of the subject than by reading an extract from the last report of the Turkish Missionary Aid Society, well known for its benevolent exertions in Turkey and elsewhere. The extract to which he alluded was as follows:—
  "In Angora there have been two cases. A Papal Armenian was beaten cruelly by his family friends, and, under false charges, thrown into prison. The second case is that of a Moslem who for eight months has been openly professing his faith in Christ, closing his shop on the Sabbath, attending to all the means of grace, and showing himself a sincere follower of Christ. At the commencement of the present month he was cruelly beaten, loaded with chains, and thrown into prison. The case has been brought to the attention of the British Ambassador. This being the first case of persecution of a Moslem on account of changing his religious profession in the reign of the new Sultan, the action of the Government respecting it will be watched with interest."
  His noble Friend would remark that the particular interest attached to the case thus reported arose from its being the first instance of persecution in the person of a Mahomedan convert since the accession of the present Sultan to the throne of Turkey; and it was natural for those who remembered what had been effected under the influence of the British Government and their allies, during the reign of the late Sultan Abdul Medjid, in favour of religious liberty, to watch with anxiety over the manner in which the present case would be treated by the authorities at Constantinople. No one, he was sure, could feel more deeply than the noble Earl any departure from the protection which had been so liberally granted by the Ottoman Porte to all its subjects in the conscientious profession of their religious faith. He only requested to know, Whether the case in question had been mentioned to Her Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople, and whether any suitable redress had been afforded or promised by the Porte?
  EARL RUSSELLreplied that the attention of the Turkish Government had been called to the subject by Her Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople, and that they at once admitted their readiness to adhere to the Declaration made by the late Sultan. He might add that they had given the most satisfactory assurances with respect to redress in such cases.

UNION RELIEF AID BILL— [BILL NO. 248.]

  COMMITTEE. THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee upon the Union Relief Aid Bill, and for Standing Orders Nos. 37 and 38 to be considered in order to their being dispensed with, read.
  EARL RUSSELL(who was very imperfectly heard) moved, that the House resolve into Committee on this Bill. The noble Earl, in the first place, referred to the statistics of the condition of the distressed districts in respect of the increase of pauperism, and to the reports of the Government officers who had been sent down with the view of inspecting the actual state of those districts, in order to show the immediate necessity of some measure to enable them to meet the emergency. The noble Earl then stated the provisions of the measure introduced by the Government for effecting that object. The Bill, he said, contained two powers—the one, on the principle of the statute of the 43rd Elizabeth, extended the area of contributions for the relief of the poor, by enabling the guardians of any union within the distressed districts, where the expenditure of any parish of the union for the relief of the poor for the quarter ending at Michaelmas or Christmas next shall be found to have exceeded the rate of 3s. in the pound per annum on the rateable value of the property within such parish, to charge the excess on the other parishes of the union proportionately; and if the whole of the parishes of the union should unhappily be reduced to the same condition, then to charge the excess to the common fund of the union. In like manner, the fourth clause provided that wherever the aggregate expenditure of any union should at Michaelmas or Christmas be found to have exceeded the rate of 5s. in the pound per annum on the rateable property within the union, the guardians of the distressed union may apply to the Poor Law Board, who may thereon make a general order upon the other unions within the county to pay out of the common fund of each a proportionate sum to meet the excess in the distressed union. At the request of Members who represented the distressed districts, an alternative power had been introduced into the Bill, by which any union was authorized, if its expenditure at Michaelmas or Christmas should be found to exceed the rate of 3s. in the pound per
  1160
  annum, with the sanction of the Poor Law Board, to borrow a sum of money to be applied to the relief of the poor, sufficient to meet such excess. The money so borrowed was to be charged upon the common fund of the union, and was to be repaid, with the interest, in seven annual instalments, at the longest. The measure was intended to meet a case of extraordinary and exceptional distress, and one which, it was to be trusted, would be only of temporary duration; and the Bill, therefore, was confined to the suffering districts—namely, to the parishes and unions within the counties of Lancaster, Chester, and Derby, and its duration in point of time was limited to the 1st of March next.
  Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into a Committee.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, this, he need scarcely remark, was no party question; it was entirely a national matter, and must be treated as such. It appeared, indeed, that the House of Commons had taken that view of the matter; for in the divisions which had taken place on this measure, and particularly in that in which Her Majesty's Ministers were defeated, there were to be found Gentlemen of very different political opinions voting together on various views. The noble Earl who had just sat down, had, he (the Earl of Malmesbury) thought, fallen very short in his efforts to show their Lordships that there was any great necessity for this measure. He was glad the noble Earl had failed in so doing, because, at all events, it conveyed a satisfactory feeling that the distress was by no means so awful in its character as was described in the public prints, and as it was apprehended to be by the public generally. But the noble Earl had omitted to explain one thing. Be the distress great or small, it was notorious that it had been anticipated as a certain evil for more than a year. Indeed, from the first moment of the breaking out of the American war, the cotton trade became more or less affected, and everybody knew that that distress amongst the manufacturing districts which had now taken place must necessarily occur. Nevertheless, Her Majesty's Government had allowed nearly the whole of this long, and he must say, idle Session to pass by without bringing forward a measure of this kind—they waited until the last week of the Session to make these propositions. He thought that the noble Earl should

  1161
  have told the House the reason of this delay—why a measure of this gravity and magnitude should have been delayed until the eleventh hour of the Session of Parliament. Had the Government expected to see the affairs of America settled before this? or did they hope to see such supplies of cotton from other portions of the globe as would have compensated the manufacturing interest for the loss of the American produce? And what was the result of this delay? It had been rendered impossible for the persons best acquainted with the distressed districts to give the Government their advice. He felt convinced, that if the measure had been introduced by the Government in the early part of the Session, it would have passed the other House without the diversity of opinion that had existed, and that the Government would have been able to carry through the Bill without that extraordinary provision which made it so objectionable. As the Bill now stood, he thought it would form one of the worst precedents he ever remembered seeing passed by Parliament. From the importance of the subject, and the anxiety which it occasioned, one might certainly expect that the noble Earl would have favoured them with some figures as to what the rates at present actually were, and what it might be reasonably anticipated they would reach in the distressed parishes. Persons unacquainted with the suffering districts might imagine that Government, by such a measure as the present, were providing for a case in which the rates approximated to something like 10 s. in the pound. Such a state of things might have been offered by them for having violated to such an extent the principle of the law of Elizabeth, and every principle of experience and political economy. But the noble Earl said nothing of the kind. The arguments used by the noble Earl in support of this Bill appeared to him (the Earl of Malmesbury) to go the other way. The noble Earl stated that the rates in these manufacturing districts had been only 7d. in the pound for many years. Now, although the existing distress in those districts was, no doubt, very great, he (the Earl of Malmesbury) held, that such a reduced rate was evidence of former prosperity, and therefore afforded a good reason why the Government should have said that the present distress might be relieved out of the former abundance, and without calling on the Legislature for ex-
  1162
  traordinary measures—especially for such as were of dangerous precedent. There was, as it seemed to him, no justification for such powers as this Bill would give. The noble Earl mentioned 2s. in the pound as the maximum probable amount of rate to be apprehended, and as representing the existing distress. On seeing the nature of the measure proposed by Her Majesty's Government, he wrote down to his own parish—a very large one in Hampshire and in Wiltshire—asking what had been the highest rate known within the last ten years; and he was told that the rate had been 4s., and that it was at present 2s. 6d. In that parish they had been living with a rate of at least 2s. 6d. in the pound ever since he was born; and yet he had flattered himself that he was living in one of the best cultivated and most prosperous parts of rural England. It was perfectly monstrous, then, that those districts which had been proverbially so prosperous as to be held up to the whole world as hives of wealth, should at the very first reverse of fortune come and ask Parliament to reverse the laws and principles which had been respected for 260 years—since the time of Elizabeth—for the sake of relieving them from the cruelty of having to pay 2s. in the pound only. This Bill came before them in a very peculiar form, and had been supported in a very peculiar way. He had read the arguments in another place, and he found that the class of politicians by whom this system of borrowing was recommended was the very class that had been opposed to all loans for the purpose of the defence of the country. Now, the question of borrowing money was one that affected posterity, and the borrowing of money by a parish for the erection of a new chapel or such a work was therefore justifiable, because the benefit was for posperity as well as for themselves. But this distress in Lancashire was only a temporary pressure—the misfortune of a day, affecting only the present generation—and to borrow money upon the rates of a parish and charge posterity with the relief of that distress was a principle so utterly at variance with anything they had heard before that he believed the proposition never would have been entertained if the House of Commons had had sufficient time for its consideration. It was now proposed that parishes within the cotton districts should have the power of borrowing when their rates amounted to 3s. in the pound. It would be seen from

  1163
  the returns of poundage in the different parishes that there were several parishes in England where the rates were now as high as 10 s. in the pound for the relief of the poor; and there were one or two parishes who paid as high as 13 s. in the pound. The average poor rate throughout England was 2s. in the pound; and this was taken as the maximum which the rich parishes of Lancashire and Cheshire could bear. If the principle of this Bill were a good one, nearly the whole of the parishes in England would be justified in asking for similar relief as that now proposed to be given to the distressed districts. The parishes of the manufacturing districts were to be permitted to borrow when their rates reached 3s. in the pound, and to cry out for the help of other parishes when they amounted to 5s. The 3s. rate was therefore a premium upon borrowing; and when the rate was near 3s. care would be taken that it should reach that figure, in order that the parish might become entitled to borrow. He regarded this as one of the unwisest measures that he had ever seen. In speaking upon this subject he could not but recollect the courage and dignity with which the poor operatives of the manufacturing districts had borne an infliction which had come upon them from no fault of their own. But while the operatives had shown so much courage and dignity under the pressure of severe misfortune, he considered that it was the duty of the ratepayers of those rich and great counties to exhibit something like the same spirit. Was it worthy of these ratepayers to come to Parliament to ask for assistance which ought to be extended to the whole population if justice were done to all Her Majesty's subjects? The noble Earl had stated that the principles of the law of Elizabeth justified and gave powers for rates in aid. That was no doubt quite true; and it was also true, as the noble Earl had said, that the machinery of that Act was not consistent with the habits and customs now ruling in England; but he (the Earl of Malmesbury) could not help calling attention to a point upon which he anticipated that many of their Lordships would differ with him. He thought it would have been better in this case if the law of Elizabeth had been strictly adhered to in the intention and in the letter. There was only one class of property which was at present assessable to the poor rates—namely, real pro-
  1164
  perty. But the wise councillors of Elizabeth had it in contemplation, when this Act passed, that all property should be assessable; and so convinced had Parliament been that that was the case, that they dared not repeal the liability. Session after Session a special Act was introduced exempting personal property from being taxed for the relief of the poor. He supposed that that Bill had already passed their Lordships' House this Session, and it was a curious circumstance that at the very moment that the richest districts in England, and those possessing the largest amount of personal property were coming to Parliament and asking for relief, Parliament should be passing an Act which exempted that very personal property from being assessed to the contribution for the relief of the poor to which it was liable under the Act of Elizabeth, and which would be sufficient to meet the distress. In the Committee which sat in 1850 he stated his views on the subject, and although those views were not adopted, the Committee did him the honour of reporting them to the House. Those views were that all property should be assessed in accordance with the Act of Elizabeth. If such a system were established, then the rates throughout England would not have amounted to more than 5½d. in the pound on an average in the year 1850. It was pointed out at that time that real property enjoyed exemptions from burdens to which personal property was subject. The succession duty on real estate had, however, since been imposed, and there was no longer the same force in this objection. He did not wish, however, to offer any opposition to the present measure. He need scarcely remind their Lordships that they could not attempt to alter the Bill without interfering with the privileges of the House of Commons. He felt, nevertheless, that it was their duty to protest against it as one of the unwisest measures that probably had ever been brought forward. Even according to the noble Earl's arguments the worst that could happen by following the principle of the law of Elizabeth would be that parishes in some of the richest counties of England would be obliged to pay until March the enormous sum of 3s. in the pound for the relief and maintenance of the poor.
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEsaid, he entirely concurred with the noble Earl who had just sat down, that this was a measure which ought not to be drawn into

  1165
  a precedent, and the Government brought the Bill forward expressly as an exceptional measure, to meet an exceptional and altogether extraordinary necessity. But he could not agree with the noble Earl that it was one of the most unwise measures that had ever been brought before Parliament. The noble Earl had brought two charges against the Government with reference to this Bill which, as it appeared to him, were so singularly inconsistent, that one or the other must fail. The noble Earl said, that after listening to the speech of his noble Friend who moved the Committee, he had been able to discover no case whatever in favour of the Bill; and at the same time he charged the Government with acting improperly in not bringing it forward at the earliest period of the Session, when it might have been fully discussed. With regard to the first of these objections it was true, as his noble Friend had pointed out, that the poor rates had not risen in most of these towns to a very exorbitant extent, and that they were not at the present moment so high as in many of the rural districts of the country. But his noble Friend had never based the necessity for this Bill upon the amount of the rates. Why were the rates not higher than they were at the present moment? It was not on account of the absence of distress. The noble Earl had complimented the working classes of Lancashire and Cheshire on their patience and courage, but had omitted to pay one compliment to them which they equally deserved, and which would have explained why the rates were not higher. There was a noble spirit of independence that prevented the operatives from coming upon the rates as long as they could possibly avoid it. Up to this moment those people had been living upon the savings of former years; they had been drawing out the last sixpence from the savings bank; they had been selling their furniture—they had been reducing themselves, in fact, to the lowest condition, that they might avoid receiving parochial relief; and, no doubt, in many instances they had been receiving support from the charity of neighbours. That was, and not the absence of distress, the reason why the poor rates were low. But this Bill was not intended to meet the condition of things on the present fourth day of August, but the distress which would become worse at a more and more rapid rate of progression if the same causes continued in operation. The worst state
  1166
  of things existed in the Union of Preston, where the poor rate expenditure was at present 700 per cent more than that of last year. Such a rate of increase was a sufficient answer to the charge that the Government had brought in a Bill that was not required. But then it was said the Government were culpable for having introduced the Bill at so late a period of the Session. On the contrary, he believed, that if the Government had brought in the Bill earlier, they would have acted in violation of their duty; and that if there had been a prospect of the Session continuing for a month or six weeks longer, they would have been justified in still further delaying the introduction of the measure. They had this alternative before them—either to provide for the emergency now, or to call Parliament together in the autumn, when great distress might exist. He trusted that under any circumstances there would be no breach of the law, but it would not be wise to wait and call Parliament together in an autumn Session, for the express purpose of passing a Bill of this kind, the want of which might lead to great discontent. If the Government had brought in such a measure at the beginning of the Session, they would have stopped the springs of private charity—they would have offered a premium on the closing of the mills—and they would, in other respects, have done infinite mischief, and would have caused the manufacturing districts a great deal of misery. It would have been most impolitic for these reasons to have brought in this Bill earlier in the Session. It was now, however, necessary to make provision for the state of things with which the manufacturing districts were threatened. The noble Earl said this Bill was at variance with the principle of the laws for the relief of the poor, and at variance with the Act of Elizabeth. With regard to this one clause—the loan clause—which was introduced in opposition to the views of the Government, that was true; but it was not true as to the rest of the measure, which carried out the provisions of the old law. With regard to this loan clause, he hoped it would not be drawn into a precedent; but it was not so bad as the noble Earl would have their Lordships believe. It had been introduced to meet the exigencies of the moment, and for that purpose only; he did not know who proposed or who voted for it, but the noble Earl's statement was not correct

  1167
  when he said that those on one side of the House who were connected with the districts were universally opposed to it in the House of Commons. One excellent and worthy friend of his, at least, a gentleman connected with Lanlashire, and who knew the country as well as any man living, was a warm advocate of the clause. Therefore, whether it was right or whether it was wrong, it could not be thrown upon any one party, or any one class. But then the noble Earl said this was throwing on future generations the payment of what was required to meet the immediate wants of the present. That could scarcely be the case, for the Bill provided that repayment should be made by seven annual instalments, which might surely be taken as repayment by the present generation. He (the Duke of Newcastle) did not say whether in principle this was right or wrong; but if wrong, it was in practice about the smallest amount of wrong that could be imagined. But he was not about to defend the principle of the clause. It was a clause which had been introduced not by the Government or at their suggestion, but at the suggestion of those who were more and directly interested to meet a great exigency, and as such had been assented to. The noble Earl said that the measure was the most unwise one ever introduced; but he contended, that looking at the circumstances of Lancashire at the present moment, the want and suffering which existed, and which were increasing week by week, the Government would have been most culpable if they had allowed Parliament to separate without making provision for meeting them. The measure had been introduced with the concurrence of the Inspector who had been sent down specially to investigate the state of affaire, and in concurrence also with the views of the guardians; and he hoped their Lordships would agree with him that under the circumstances it was one that ought to pass.
  LORD KINGSDOWNsaid, the objections to the Bill had been so powerfully stated by his noble Friend (the Earl of Malmesbury) that it was not his intention to enter into a general discussion on the measure; but having the honour to be connected with the county of Lancaster, and taking a deep interest in all which concerned that county, he could not forbear from stating the extreme pain with which he viewed the propositions now
  1168
  under consideration. He entirely concurred in what had fallen from his noble Friend with respect to the admirable conduct of the labouring classes in Lancashire. He also agreed with his noble Friend that for a series of years before 1861 there had been unexampled prosperity in the cotton districts. Mill after mill had been erected, and great populations had been brought together for the purpose of making those enormous fortunes which it was known had been made in those mills. Was it, then, he asked, worthy of those who had collected those populations—who had employed them and profited by their industry—that at the first moment when the least pressure came on them for the relief of their workpeople, they should stretch forth their hands for help, and endeavour to throw on their successors the burden which they themselves ought to bear? Was it reasonable that the millowners, who had made all the profit, should thus endeavour to throw the burden upon the owners and occupiers of other descriptions of property by resorting to a rate in aid? He repeated that he viewed this circumstance with very great pain. This was not a case in which very great pressure overrode all argument, because the consequence which appeared to be so much dreaded was that of the poor rate rising to 2s. or 3s. in the pound. He was ashamed when he heard such an appeal. What would be the outcry of the mill-owners of Lancashire if, because distress existed in the neighbouring agricultural districts, and the rates were high in consequence—say as high as twice 3s.—and a proposal was made to extend the burden by a rate in aid over the adjoining manufucturing districts? When the Corn Laws were about to be repealed, it was apprehended by many that there would be great distress in the agricultural districts. What answer was given to the representations on that subject? That agriculturists would find occupation in other ways; that they would gradually be absorbed in the manufacturing population, and that every man must bear his own burden. But in the case now under the consideration of their Lordships, because the rates were likely to rise in manufacturing districts Parliament was asked to make this extraordinary alteration in the law. As the measure was brought in originally, he was not prepared to say it might not have been wise to provide against danger; but he believed that at

  1169
  that time it contained no borrowing clause—no clause for enabling those who ought to bear the burden to throw it on those to whom it did not belong. Allusion had been made to Colonel Wilson Patten's supposed support of this clause; but he believed that though the hon. and gallant Gentleman was for a borrowing clause, he never intended that the power should commence until the rates reached 4s., which was higher than the amount fixed in the clause before their Lordships. It might be said that the principle was the same whatever the amount. That might be true; but, in a case like this, amount was everything. It was said that the Bill would not be made a precedent. That was frequently alleged in the case of a bad measure, but experience showed their Lordships that bad measures did become precedents, and he defied their Lordships to refuse hereafter to pass a similar Bill under similar circumstances. As to the provision for extending the operation of the Bill to adjoining parishes, seeing that the whole, or very nearly the whole, of South Lancashire, was involved in the difficulty arising from the scarcity of cotton, he was afraid that the extension to adjoining parishes would be of very little value. The effect of the Bill, he believed, would be in the first place to stop that private charity which was now flowing in for the relief of the distress; and in the next, to relax the vigilance of the Poor Law Guardians to keep down the rate. He could not imagine any sufficient ground for introducing the dangerous principle involved in the Bill, and could not but look upon its effect as a precedent as most fatal.
  LORD EGERTON OF TATTONsaid, that he also was connected with the cotton manufacturing districts of Cheshire and Lancashire; but he had come to a very different conclusion from that to which his noble and learned Friend had arrived. He cordially agreed with the Amendment which had been introduced in the other House of Parliament, and believed the Bill had thereby been greatly improved. He believed that those of their Lordships who took a view adverse to the measure could have little idea of the state of the unfortunate manufacturing districts, where a vast population, willing to work and to perform its social duties, was prevented from doing so by the want of that article on which it depended for support. It was not merely the artisans who were reduced
  1170
  to a condition of distress by the failure of the cotton supply; small tradesmen, merchants' clerks, and small manufacturers were all equally involved. Remarks had been made bearing harshly on those manufacturers who had acquired large fortunes in the cotton districts, and who now shrank, it was said, from supporting their share of the losses entailed on the district. That might be true in some instances; but during the present year they had been incurring—and it was only just to them to add, voluntarily incurring—very great sacrifices in order to mitigate the sufferings of those who were dependent on them. He knew of many instances in which manufacturers had kept their mills open for several days in each week, at great cost to themselves, to support all their hands. One great manufacturer informed him the other day that he should sustain a loss of £20,000 a year. The knowledge that they had come forward in a laudable spirit to assist their workmen, wherever they could, had a great deal to do with the good feeling exhibited by the latter, and the patience and forbearance with which they had borne their sufferings. Private benevolence could do much to alleviate the existing misery, and he hoped those connected, territorially or otherwise, with the county would come forward cheerfully with their contributions. Calculations, however, based upon the present limit of rates in the manufacturing districts were very likely to prove fallacious. In other cases, the proportion of the population affected by a particular cause of distress was small as compared with the general body; but at Stockport he knew that at the present moment two-thirds of the ratepayers were not able to pay one sou of their rates. These, therefore, instead of being 5s. in the pound, would in reality be nearer to 10 s. or 15 s., when they fell on those only who could pay. The noble Earl (the Earl of Malmesbury) had urged that such a measure as the present was ridiculous because in particular cases in the manufacturing districts the rates were only 2s. in the pound; but before another month these would have mounted up to 5s., and that 5s. would represent a 15 s. rate. The noble Earl had also said that this Bill was promoted by interested individuals. With, the exception of one very small class, he believed that all in Lancashire and the manufacturing districts of Cheshire were of one mind as to the necessity of a loan.

  1171
  He quite appreciated the objection that many felt to this measure, but it must be remembered that it was introduced to meet an exceptional case. There might be some truth in the complaint that the manufacturers had not sufficiently exerted themselves to procure a supply of cotton from other places than America; but that had nothing to do with the distress which was now weighing upon the working classes, who certainly were not responsible for any neglect that might be charged against their employers in this respect. What was now asked was, not that the State should come forward to relieve the distress, but that the people of these districts might be permitted to bear the burden themselves, by borrowing the money and extending the repayment over a series of years. He trusted this would be conceded, and he had no doubt that when the present cloud passed away, either by the cessation of the civil war in America or by obtaining a sufficient supply of cotton from India or elsewhere, the artisans of Lancashire would again exercise the same industry, enterprise, and self-denying economy and forethought which had enabled them so far to bear the severe pressure to which they were now subjected.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURYexplained that his statement with regard to the probable amount of rates in Lancashire was based on the official estimate of the Poor Law Department.
  LORD EGERTON OF TATTONsaid, the Poor Law Department was very much mistaken if it believed that the rates would be only 2s., or double 2s.
  LORD OVERSTONEsaid, that having been associated with the people of Lancashire in the days of their former properity, he could not be silent in the hour of their adversity. He felt satisfied their Lordships would exercise a sound discretion in giving their assent to this Bill, which was the only practical measure that bad yet been submitted for enabling Parliament to make adequate provision for the present extraordinary and anomalous condition of the cotton districts. But, while assenting to the measure, he felt bound to express the great concern with which he witnessed the necessity that compelled their Lordships to adopt a most questionable principle, and one fraught with the greatest danger as a precedent—that of introducing into the Poor Law system the principle of rates in aid, accompanied, he greatly feared, by a sus-
  1172
  pension of the labour test. Now, he held that the principle of a rate in aid was thoroughly antagonistic to the existing Poor Law system. No doubt latent traces of such a principle appeared in the Act of Elizabeth; and when the present system was established, full weight, perhaps, had not been given to that consideration; but an Act giving vitality and force to that principle must more or less endanger the safeguards surrounding the general right to relief, and could only be justified by the most urgent and overwhelming necessity. The Bill also introduced, for the first time, the principle of granting borrowing powers. While he admitted that such a principle was open to objections, yet, under present circumstances, there was a good deal to be said in its favour. All the provisions of this Bill were founded upon the calculation that this tremendous evil would be of only a transitory nature. If that was so, the districts which were now suffering would be the first to feel the full effects of a return of prosperity, and consequently this would be only a temporary expedient, enabling them, instead of seeking extraneous assistance by casting their burden upon other districts, to bear it themselves, and by casting it forward a few years to discharge the debt which they would have incurred in the hour of adversity in the years of returning prosperity. Upon that ground he assented to the borrowing powers. Lastly, they were by this Bill treating all the labourers of the cotton districts as the recipients of pauper relief, and by so doing they must in a serious degree interfere with and weaken the principles of self-reliance and independence which were so valuable to the moral character, and which these persons had up to this moment been most anxious not to surrender. These suffering persons in the cotton districts were not in any rational sense of the word paupers, and they ought not to be mixed up with the pauper system of the country. Paupers were a class of persons reduced to the lowest point of society by the uncertainties of the labour market, or by the caprices of taste, or by one of the many accidents necessarily connected with our social system. The persons who were now pressed down to a lower position, were not the victims of any ineradicable principle of our social system, but of a tenacious and extraneous adherence to a great principle of State policy; and it was therefore a grave question whether, under

  1173
  those circumstances, resort ought not to be had to the national resources for their relief or assistance. Upon that question, knowing the difficulties which beset it, he would not pronounce an opinion; but he besought their Lordships and the world calmly to consider the circumstances of the present crisis. There were in this and a neighbouring country immense numbers of persons who were reduced to destitution, not through idleness or any other fault on their own part, but because they could not obtain the material on which to exercise their industry; and there were across the Atlantic, according to the most reliable accounts, 4,000,000 bales of the raw cotton which these persons required. There was the raw cotton anxious to come to us and here were the millions, he might say, of persons who were reduced to misery and want because they were not permitted to touch that cotton. This was a serious and alarming state of things, and he was sure that it would be felt to be so by their Lordships. He trusted that it would not long continue, and he would humbly pray that it might terminate without causing still more serious injuries to our population. He hoped that for the present state of things a solution would be found, and that the unnatural contest which was now going on would not be much longer protracted. He trusted that those who not only shared the same blood and spoke the same language, but had lived and grown proud as citizens under the same institutions would return to amicable intercourse, whether it was under one or more independent Governments—a question with which it was not for us to interfere—and that an honourable and honest class of our population might be permitted again to apply their industry to the production of articles which would conduce to their own maintenance and comfort, and at the same time add to the material wealth of the world.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, he regretted that when the Government accepted the objectionable provision which conferred borrowing powers upon the guardians, they did not insist upon the surrender of the rate in aid; because it was obvious that if money was borrowed the same economy would not be applied to its expenditure as was exercised in the case of money raised by rates, and the guardians would soon call upon their neighbours for
  1174
  a rate in aid. He also complained that the Bill had not been so successfully drawn as it ought to have been. It was provided that no union in which the rate amounted to 3s. in the pound should be called upon to contribute to a rate in aid, but there was no similar provision as to parishes. The provision with regard to unions in different counties also seemed to be rather loose, and it was not clear whether "the greater part" of the union, as determining to which county it should contribute, meant the greater part in acreage or the greater part in population.
  EARL RUSSELLwished to say a word as to the anxiety which had been attributed by the noble and learned Lord to the mill-owners to throw off the burden of the distress under which their workpeople were labouring. He did not think that these persons were open to the charge. The borrowing powers might be unwise, but it was obvious, that whether the money were paid at once, or whether it were raised by loan, the burden must fall on the mill-owners. On the other hand, a rate in aid would in come cases procure contributions from other parts of the union which were in agricultural districts. It was clear therefore, that if the manufacturers looked merely to their own interests, they would be in favour of the rate in aid rather than of a loan. It was also right to observe that the exigency which the Bill was intended to meet had not yet arisen. The measure was intended to provide not for an existing evil, but for any aggravation of the present state of things which might occur during the recess. The artisans of Lancashire were now bearing their privations and endeavouring to maintain their independence in a way which elicited the commendation of all parties; but care should be taken to provide means of relief in case more severe distress fell upon them.
  Motion agreed to; House in Committee accordingly; Bill reported, without Amendment; then Standing Orders Nos. 37 and 38 considered, and dispensed with; and Bill read 3a, and passed.
  [Royal Assent, August 7; 25 & 26 Vict., c. 110.]

CORRUPT PRACTICES PREVENTION ACT CONTINUANCE BILL— [BILL NO. 226.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading, and for Standing Orders Nos. 37 and 38 to be considered in order to their being dispensed with, and the Lords Summoned,

1175
read: Bill read 2a accordingly; then Standing Orders Nos. 37 and 38 considered, and dispensed with; Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House: House in Committee accordingly; Bill reported, without Amendment; and read 3a, and passed.
[Royal Assent, August 7; 25 & 26 Vict., c. 109.]

NIGHT POACHING PREVENTION BILL.

  BILL NO. 246.
  On Order for Consideration of the Commons' Amendment to this Bill,
  THE EARL OF STRADBROKEthought that the alterations which had been made in the Bill in the Commons were objectionable, but considering the late period of the Session, he would advise their Lordships to agree to them.
  LORD LYVEDENsaid, he must confess that this Bill was one of the most confused and bungling pieces of legislation that had ever passed through Parliament. The Bill, as sent to the Commons, was founded upon a sound principle—namely, to put a stop to persons going about the country at night in pursuit of game. It was a Night Poaching Prevention Bill; but it had had three new titles and four new shapes. As it had come back to their Lordships it was highly objectionable, and would lead to more murders than had yet arisen under the old law relating to poaching and game preserving. The Amendment which empowered the police to seize any "gun or guns" was certain to lead to constant collisions, which would end in murder. He defied any one to understand the provisions of the Bill. If they were to make game property, they would be adopting at least an intelligible principle of legislation; although there must always be a great distinction between property in game and property in other things. He was inclined to deny that game could be regarded as property in the same manner as fowls, and the attempt to establish analogy between them totally failed. But he would infinitely prefer to have game made property than to pass such a Bill as this. They did not venture to call game property, but they called in the police to protect that which they disclaimed being property. The police, who in many country districts were regarded as unnecessary, and were therefore unpopular with the ratepayers, would be made still more unpopular by this Bill, which would be in-
  1176
  effective to accomplish the objects professedly aimed at by its promoters. He believed that the Bill would make the constabulary unpopular, and would not have the effect of preventing poaching.
  LORD DENMANsaid, he could not agree to the Amendments which had been made in the Bill. He was opposed to the police obtaining the additional powers proposed to be given to them.
  LORD WENSLEYDALEthought that the remedy for many of the evils connected with poaching would be to make game property.
  THE DUKE OF CLEVELANDremarked, that the Bill was originally a Night Poaching Bill, in which shape, he thought, it was unobjectionable. It was not intended to interfere with the Game Laws as now existing, but was intended simply to prevent night poaching. When it left their Lordships' House, he had deemed it incapable of improvement, and he did not imagine that any alteration was to be made in it. Now, however, it was a totally different Bill, and he was afraid that it would not answer the purpose for which it had been intended. Game stood in a very different position now to what it did under the old feudal laws. Formerly the land was almost all waste; now it was almost all enclosed, and game was preserved and fed as carefully as domestic fowls, and was as much an article of sale in our markets. In fact game, whatever was the case once, was now property; and it ought to be declared to be so by law.
  EARL RUSSELLsaid, he was disposed greatly to regret the existing state of the Game Laws, but was sorry to find that such a measure as that before the House was the fruit of the wish of Parliament to legislate on the subject. The Bill, as it originally stood, was intended to prevent night poaching—an object which he admitted it was, in consequence of the bloodshed and lawless habits which the pursuit occasioned, most desirable to effect. The House of Commons, however, had made it quite a different measure, and had turned it into a Bill to prevent poaching generally; but at the same time the Commons had introduced a considerable improvement in the principle. When the Bill left their Lordships' House, it proposed to enact that any person found in possession of game, or implements for taking it, between sunset and eight o'clock in the morning, should be fined £5, unless he proved that the possession

  1177
  was lawful. This was contrary to the principles of English law and jurisprudence; and the Commons modified the clause, throwing the onus probandi on the party prosecuting. But while they improved the principle of the Bill, he was afraid that they had destroyed its efficiency as a remedy for the evils against which it was directed; because it would, he thought, be found very difficult to prove that the man who was found on the high road with game in his possession, was the same person who unlawfully entered upon any land in search of it. For his own part, he should be glad to hear the question discussed, whether game ought not to be made private property; but, at the same time, it was difficult to say how far such a principle ought to be extended. Pheasants, which were regularly fed in particular places, and were sent to market as regularly as ordinary poultry; partridges which eat the grain of the farmer, and were generally to be found in the same localities—might very easily be brought within the category of private property; but as much could not, perhaps, be with equal justice said of grouse, which were in the habit of flying from one hill to another. There seemed to be no ground for taking them out of the category of feræ naturæ. The question was one which certainly admitted of discussion, but the present was not, he thought, the period of the Session to enter upon its consideration.
  Commons' Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  [Royal Assent, August 7; 25 & 26 Vict., c. 114.]

UNITED STATES—THE CIVIL WAR— CONFEDERATE STATES OF AMERICA.

  ADDRESS FOR PAPERS.
  LORD CAMPBELLrose to move for
  "Copies or Extracts of any Correspondence which Her Majesty's Government have received from Mason, the Southern Envoy, relating to the Acknowledgment of the Confederate States of America by Great Britain."
  He said, as the Government had already laid before Parliament, in the first number of the papers on America, the despatch of Colonel Mann and Mr. Yancey, demanding the acknowledgment of the Southern Confederacy in 1861, and had also laid before Parliament a despatch of Mr. Mason at the beginning of the present year on the blockade, there
  1178
  could be no technical objection to present any correspondence of a later period. It was well known that the Southern envoys, both in London and in Paris, had recently demanded the acknowledgment of the States they represented, and of which the power to defend their capital against an invading force was in the last days of June triumphantly asserted.
  In one sense, indeed, the papers would be useless; they could do little to enhance—so strong was it already—the conviction which appeared to pervade society and Parliament, that the war ought to end in separation of the Northern and the Southern Powers. It was not too much to say that no class or party in the country any longer desired to see the reconquest of the South and the reconstruction of the Union. The unanimity might be traced to many different causes. It was owing in some measure to the seasonable flood of light which Mr. Spence, in his well-known work, had thrown upon the subject. It was owing in a still greater measure to the speech of the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, on the 10th of March, in which he told the world that separation was the issue of the struggle which he contemplated, and that at a period not distant from the time when he was speaking. It was owing also to the labours of enlightened men in the House of Commons, of whom Mr. Gregory had been the most conspicuous. But still more should the unanimous desire for separation and aversion to reconquest in this country be traced to the conviction that the interest of the negro race would be promoted by the former and retarded by the latter; that the area of slavery must be limited when separation happened, and would most likely be extended if reconquest unhappily occurred. It was further strengthened by the fact that the limited advance of the invaders during part of the year, and the capture of New Orleans, had disproved the existence of any Southern party for the Union—had revealed in the South a self-sacrificing heroism and inexhaustible endurance which could not have been counted on before; had shown, in point of fact, that the South could only be restored to the Government which formerly possessed it, by an exterminating war, as well as an aggressive one. Besides the devastation and destruction it would bring upon the South, it was generally seen that reconquest of the Union threatened the North with military despotism, trade with

  1179
  insupportable restrictions, and Europe with prolonged uneasiness.
  These papers were not wanted to give new force to a conviction so prevailing, but they might throw light upon the course which Great Britain ought to follow amid the dangers which surrounded her in consequence of this civil war. The first danger of Great Britain—namely, the possibility of Southern subjugation, and all the evils it involved, might be, perhaps, dismissed as a remote one. The second danger, which arose from the continuance of the war—the manufacturing distress it must occasion—was far more serious and imminent. So long as the war continued, a scarcity of cotton must be apprehended. If, indeed, the American supply were utterly and finally extinguished, the means would not, perhaps, be wanting to replace it; but so long as the American supply was constantly impending on the market, they could not hope to gain a large amount from Africa or India. And who should say what degree of social or political disorder might not follow manufacturing distress if it extended over four years or upwards? Another danger for Great Britain, more likely to remain unnoticed, but not less easy to describe, was, that if the war should end in separation before this country had merited alliance from the Southern Power, Canada was exposed without an adequate defence to at least a possible invader. If Canada was unable to support a numerous militia, if Britain was unable to send large armies to her succour, what defence could they rely on except a firm ally upon that continent, prepared at any moment to cross the frontier of the Power by which an unjust attack was made upon our dependency? It should never be forgotten that we were not able to secure the duration of the contest—that after the exhaustion of the combatants we could not prevent other Powers by their influence from bringing the war to a conclusion, although we might refuse to share so great and meritorious an effort. Some persons had ingeniously contended, that looking to British objects, we ought not to bring about or to desire a termination of hostilities; that the evils arising from such a termination were greater than the evils which the war itself inflicted on us, and that our policy and business was to stand still and let it rage as long and burn out as gradually as possible. Such counsels might be just if we had any guarantee for its continuance. But we clearly
  1180
  had not. Suppose Great Britain held aloof completely in the present autumn, while the other Powers of Europe, swayed by the French Government, employed their moral force to terminate the war in Southern independence. In two months Canada might be assailed, and Great Britain be without the least support on that continent.
  If, however, Great Britain had united with the other Powers of Europe (after showing every observance to the Government of Washington) in acknowledging the independence of the South, she would not be unsupported in America when separation happened. Such a mode of acting, if it did not at once remove the chance of Southern subjugation, was calculated to remove it. If it did not at once arrest the civil war, it was calculated to arrest it. Of the three dangers, therefore, he had ventured to enumerate, it provided against one, and had a tendency, at least, to neutralize the others.
  But if no one could allude to the line of action which became us without the greatest caution and reserve, there was one point on which any man might speak with openness and firmness. Re-conquest being put out of the question, the civil war could never end until foreign Powers had recognised the Government of Richmond. Since modern Europe came into existence no civil war had ended in the sovereignty of the insurgent Power until that Power had been recognized by neutral States, giving an example to the State which aimed at its re-conquest. It was not till Portugal had been acknowledged by Great Britain twenty-five years, that Spain consented to acknowledge her existence as an independent Power. It was not till long after nearly all the Governments of Europe had acknowledged the United Provinces of Holland, that Spain gave up the hope of re-absorbing them. The same circumstance applied to the United States, the South American Republics, to Greece, to Belgium, and to Italy. The acknowledgment by neutral Powers had always preceded the acknowledgment by the Power which first endeavoured to control the insurrection. It was not too much to lay down as a principle, that war must go on against an insurgent State until neutral Powers had acknowledged it. The war for a re-conquest could not be abandoned while neutral Powers sanctioned its continuance. At least it never had been. And that prin-

  1181
  ciple would have the strongest application to the Government of Washington. However sickened of the war, it was only by the voice of Europe they could be delivered from the horrible necessity of waging it. Some new and powerful authority was requisite to pave the way for so great a change of system upon their part. Having undertaken to coerce the Southern States; having drawn 500,000 men from peaceful avocations; having sent the tax-gatherer to range among homes which he had never darkened; having ensnared the people of the North into unprecedented sacrifices by a vision which ninety days would always enable them to grasp, but which after two campaigns remained impalpable as ever; with what face could they recede from their engagements, renounce their aspirations, avow at once their error and their guilt, while Europe still declined to acknowledge Southern independence. Separation was impossible, until the effort to reconquer was discarded. The effort to reconquer must go on, until foreign Powers granted to the South the recognition which it asked for. So long as they withheld it, they compelled the Government of Washington to persevere in its unnatural and sanguinary labours.
  The whole question as regarded acknowledgment appeared to turn upon the moment. If other Powers of Europe were prepared, had England a right to count upon a better one? Operations of gunboats were retarded by the dryness of the navigable rivers; operations on land, by the fearful heat and the diseases it engendered. Richmond was no longer menaced. Securities at New York had undergone a great depreciation. The war, as far as they could judge, had lost its hold on popular opinion. The Abolitionists who followed Mr. Sumner had ceased to give it their support. Mr. Lincoln in vain endeavoured to raise 300,000 men. The invading army, under Halleck, near the Mississippi was not able to advance. And if many of the most reflecting men believed that in December and January last Europe lost an opportunity of taking that step without which the war could scarcely end, and which would then, perhaps, have closed it, with what decision and despatch ought not a new conjuncture which invited to such a mode of acting be made use of. There was this difference between the present and the former opportunity. In January the Federals had never been victorious in battle, and, however resigned to
  1182
  separation, however hopeless of re-conquest, might still prolong the war in order to recover their prestige, and to repair their military losses. Now, the greater balance of success was likely to extinguish such a difficulty.
  But if the present moment is abandoned, what are we to wait for? Not for Northern victories. Such victories would clearly limit our capacity to acknowledge Southern independence, as it was limited from the defeat and death of Zollicoffer in the winter down to the events which have lately driven General M'Clellan to the river. We are to wait, therefore, for new misfortunes to the Government of Washington before we grant to this unhappy strife the possibility of closing. If so, how hard a situation do we place them in. The language of the noble Lord in March, the tenor of events, and the impressions of the world, forbid them any longer to aspire to re-conquest. But yet, until their prospects are more dark and their embarrassments more fatal, we will not help them to conclude the war by separation. Is it not enough to see their armies driven back, their capital alarmed, their spirit gone, and their finance exhausted? Before we grant the extrication they must owe to neutral Powers, are we to wait until the Southern forces are again aggressive and triumphant; until the invaders are invaded; until the avengers are the victims; until the Northern States are overrun; until Washington is occupied; until, at least, its Government has encountered new humiliations, losses, and disasters at the hands of the people whom they had rashly undertaken to chastise and to subdue? At least, England is hardly justified in waiting for new reverses to the Federals, unless it is the only conduct in which the other Powers of Europe would support us. In that case, no doubt we are entitled to pursue it. Perhaps the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs will describe such a case as being the real one. If not, his silence will explode it. The noble Lord concluded by moving for the Correspondence.
  EARL RUSSELL: I am sorry to have to say that I do not think it expedient to give the papers which have been moved for. The Envoy of the Southern States has never been officially received here; and as the correspondence has been entirely of an un-official character, I do not think it would be advisable to produce it. There is, however, a despatch of Mr.

  1183
  Seward's communicated to me by Mr. Adams and another to Mr. Seward in reply, in which the views of Her Majesty's Government are stated. We remain as we were a few months ago—we have not altered our position, and there is little more than that fact contained in the dispatch. If in the course of the recess we should think it desirable to adopt any new line of policy, I should think it necessary to communicate with the maritime Powers of Europe before taking any steps. I make that statement because my noble Friend seems to understand that the maritime Powers wish to recognize the Southern States, and that some objection on our part has prevented the recognition. Now, I have had no communication from any foreign Power stating any wish or making any proposition with regard to the recognition of the Southern States of America. Under these circumstances I hope my noble Friend will not press his Motion, as it would not be convenient to give the papers now, though I may produce them hereafter.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, the noble Earl had, he thought, used a wise discretion—such as might be expected—in not producing communications from a person who was not officially recognized. He did not know whether the noble Lord would think it necessary to exercise the same reserve with respect to one or two points which he might be excused for mentioning, because of the period of the Session. They were now, at a most anxious moment, about to separate for five months. The country was very ignorant of the state of our foreign relations in regard to the American war, and felt a great anxiety to know a little more, if the noble Earl thought it within his duty to give the information. One point of great interest was this. He (the Earl of Malmesbury), from the first day of the Session, had always said that the whole question of the blockade, or of interference by way of recognition or mediation, was one of time, and must be left to Her Majesty's Government, who alone were responsible for choosing the proper time for acting. It would, however, be very interesting to know whether, when that time did arrive, the noble Earl had ascertained that he would be assisted in a policy of recognition or mediation by any or several of our allies. He did not think it possible that anything could be done by this country alone. We should be doing
  1184
  more harm than good if we were to attempt it, in consequence of the very unjust feeling which seemed to exist in the United States. But he could not but hope, when the moment arrived for something to be done, that we should be backed by our ally on the other side of the Channel, by Russia, and by other Powers of Europe. He should be glad to know if the noble Earl had hopes of bringing the opinion of those Powers to bear on the question. Such an immense force of public opinion could not but have great weight in America. There was another point of importance. He could not but think that this country had some expectation of this question being discussed. He thought the time, moreover, was approaching when it might be discussed with the United States if Lord Lyons were at his post; but he feared that Lord Lyons's absence, if it were much prolonged, would, besides being a disadvantage to the noble Earl's policy, make it appear to many persons that the time when Her Majesty's Government could interfere was not very near at hand. He did not believe that Lord Lyons had been recalled by anything but very pressing business of his own. He should be sorry to interfere with any pressing concerns on the part of Lord Lyons; but the noble Earl would agree with him that for the sake of appearances, as well as for practical considerations, it was not desirable that Lord Lyons should be very long absent from his post.
  EARL RUSSELL: I will answer as well as I can the questions put to me by the noble Earl. With regard to the first question, I agree with the noble Earl that if any steps are taken, it would be desirable that they should be taken by all the principal Powers of Europe. I do not doubt that the opinion of the maritime Powers of Europe would carry much weight with the Government of the United States; but it is very desirable that all the great Powers should join in any representations that may be made. With regard to France, all I can say is that hitherto there has been an intimate and unreserved communication between Her Majesty's Government and that of the Emperor of the French, and I do not recollect any instance in which a difference of opinion has arisen between them on this subject. With regard to the Government of Russia, I am not in the same constant communication with that Government; but if I were to state the in-

  1185
  clination of my mind, it would be that Russia would be ready to consider any step that might be thought necessary, and that both Russia and France would weigh in a most impartial spirit any proposition that might be made to those Governments. With regard to the other Powers of Europe, I should say that they are disposed to take the same view. If, however, I thought it my duty, and if Her Majesty's Government thought it their duty to make any such communications, they ought very deliberately to consider the matter before any such step is taken. I say so the more particularly because, unfortunately, an opinion prevails in the United States with regard to this country which is not justified by any conduct on our part, because it has been as friendly and as straightforward as possible. With regard to the second question, as to Lord Lyons, I would say that no man ever attended more assiduously to the duties of his mission than Lord Lyons, and those duties have been not only onerous, but have caused him great anxiety from time to time. Lord Lyons has acted with perfect discretion on every occasion on which he has had to transact business with the United States Government; but after two or three years' discharge of the duties to which he was recommended by the noble Earl, and after filling the position he occupied at Washington, his health gave way. We felt that we could not expect to obtain the full benefit of his advice and assistance if he were in a bad state of health; and when Lord Lyons asked for a short leave of absence, to spend the summer here, his request was granted. About the beginning of October—or earlier, if necessary—he will return to his post, and in the mean time the duties of the mission will be adequately and effectively performed by Mr. Stuart, who is in friendly communication with the United States Government.
  LORD KINGSDOWNsaid, that their Lordships had reposed a most unusual confidence in the Government in reference to American affairs; for during the whole of the Session, with, perhaps, only a single exception, matters of extreme nicety and importance had been left to the judgment and discretion of Her Majesty's Government. He did not complain of this; but one reason for this reticence had been that the noble Earl the Foreign Secretary had entertained and expressed a more sanguine view of the
  1186
  termination of this dispute than the event had justified. The noble Earl had expressed a confident belief that in the space of two or three months the dispute between the North and South would be so far settled that any interference on the part of the Legislature in the mean time would be prejudicial rather than advantageous. He did not blame the noble Earl for being mistaken, for it was impossible to anticipate the course of events in the United States. But one result of the noble Earl's deprecation of discussion had been, that a question of very great moment, and one which well deserved the most serious consideration of their Lordships, which was at that time at issue—namely, the principle of the efficiency or inefficiency of the blockade then established of the Southern ports—had not been discussed, as it might very advantageously have been discussed, three or four months ago. It was now perfectly useless to enter upon this question. If this country were to recognize the independence of the South, the right to blockade the ports of the South would remain, and any interference on our part with that blockade would probably be followed by a war with the Northern States. He trusted that the noble Lord would withdraw a Motion which could not be attended with any good results.
  EARL RUSSELLsaid, he felt very grateful to their Lordships for their abstinence from interference with the discretion of Her Majesty's Government, which he trusted had been wisely exercised in this matter.
  LORD CAMPBELLsaid, that as the noble Earl (Earl Russell) thought it inconsistent with the public interest to grant the papers, he would not press the Motion, but withdraws it. Even if the papers were withheld, it was notorious that since the battles before Richmond Mr. Mason had renewed his demand for the acknowledgment of the State he represented. As regards the observations of the noble and learned Lord (Lord Kingsdown) he appears to be so much engaged with the blockade as to have closed his mind to the remainder of the subject. He (Lord Campbell) never once alluded to the blockade, or raised a question with regard to it. Nor had he, as the noble and learned Lord ascribed to him, suggested any kind of mediation. He recommended the acknowledgment of Southern independence, in concert with the other Cabinets of Europe, because that course would guard against

  1187
  three intelligible dangers, and because, according to all apparent probabilities, the civil war would go on until that course had been adopted.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

CASE OF WILLIAM HERDMAN.

  QUESTION.
  VISCOUNT DUNGANNONrose to call attention to the Case of William Herdman, convicted at the County of Antrim Assizes at Belfast of the murder of his Cousin, John Herdman, and recommended to mercy by the jury on the alleged ground of insanity; and to inquire as to the course Her Majesty's Government will adopt. Petitions were being got up, asking the Government to spare the culprit's life on the ground that he was eccentric, subject to fits of passion, and apt to imagine that persons who had no evil intention towards him were disposed to injure him. He wished to know what steps the Government would take in the matter; for if they interfered with the course of the law on such a ground, there would be no security for life in Ireland.
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEsaid, the effect of the noble Viscount's question was to point out, that whatever might be the representations made to the Lord Lieutenant on behalf of the man in question on the ground of insanity, the convict ought nevertheless to be hanged. It was a most delicate matter for either House of Parliament to interfere in any matter connected with the administration of justice, and still more with regard to the exercise of the prerogative of mercy which belonged to the Crown. He thought it would be most improper of him to give any other answer to an inquiry, that ought not to have been made, than that in this case the usual course would be followed by the Government in respect of any representation which might be laid before them.

THE THAMES EMBANKMENT—BLACKFRIARS BRIDGE.—QUESTION.
LORD REDESDALErose, according to notice, to call the attention of the House to several of the Provisions connected with the Thames Embankment, and to suggest further Improvements; also to inquire the Amount of Money expended in the Repair of Blackfriars Bridge during the last Thirty Years, and the present condition of that structure. The noble Lord said he was unwilling, in the thin state of the
1188
attendance in the House, to detain their Lordships with any lengthened observations; but the subject had been so little debated in that House, and the measure itself was of so important a character, that he was unwilling to allow the Session to close without calling attention to some points connected with it. Very erroneous impressions prevailed with regard to the magnificence of the object to be attained—quays and fine works of that description were spoken of. But it must be remembered that the embankment was to be carried at the back of very shabby streets, and, instead of a fine façade of buildings rising from the quays, there would be one of the ugliest backgrounds imaginable. If any one wanted to see what the future Thames Embankment would be like, he need only go as far as Milbank. It would be an undoubted advantage to remove from the Strand some portion of the traffic with which it was now flooded, especially the influx coming from Pall Mall and the West End through Trafalgar Square But the scheme contained no provision whatever for bringing this traffic down to the embankment, except by one very awkward approach with a steep gradient, and at right angles to the river If, on the contrary, Duncannon Street were continued by a new thoroughfare crossing Villiers Street and Buckingham Street, there would then be a direct and easy method of approach from the West End. He earnestly hoped Her Majesty's Government would place themselves in communication with the Metropolitan Board of Works, in order that the necessary notices might be given, not only for the construction of this new street, but also for the widening of Parliament Street, in case Parliament in its wisdom should sanction both those measures. He further wished to obtain from the Government some information respecting the condition of Blackfriars Bridge. Having inquired into the subject, he found, that with the exception of a single pier, it was a perfectly sound structure, evincing no decay whatever; and if a moderate expenditure were made on that one weak place, it might stand for any number of years to come. On the repairs and strengthening of that bridge alone a sum of £100,000 had been spent within a comparatively recent period. £264,000 were now required to build a new one in its stead. He thought the Corporation would employ the money much better, and con-

1189
fer a far greater benefit on the public, by obtaining possession of South wark Bridge, and making it free of tolls, If they felt at liberty to apply the money in hand to other purposes, there was another improvement which would be of very great importance in connection with the Thames Embankment—namely, the opening of a street from Cannon Street to the Mansion House, which would relieve Cheapside of a large portion of its surplus traffic. To build new bridges with such a scheme as the Thames Embankment in progress was worse than objectionable—it was absurd; because the scour of the river might be increased to such an extent as to render wholly unprofitable the money expended upon those structures.
THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEsaid, it was not, of course, to be expected that London would ever have quays as fine as those of Paris, Vienna, or Dublin; but they ought to have something more slightly than the mud banks at present exposed at low water. His noble Friend had, however, greatly underrated the embankment scheme. It was true that the embankment at the Blackfriars end was left rather incomplete; and it was intended to revive the Royal Commission, in order that it might consider the most desirable mode of completing the works. With regard to Blackfriars Bridge, it had been impossible, since his noble Friend gave his notice, to communicate with the authorities of the City, who had the entire responsibility for that bridge. He could hardly imagine that the City authorities would desire to spend so large a sum as the new bridge would cost unless it was absolutely necessary; but the matter rested entirely with them, and all he could do was to take care that a communication was made to them.
House adjourned at half-past Eight o'clock, to Thursday next, Two o'clock.