Sitting of 15 July 1862

PAROCHIAL ASSESSMENTS BILL.

  [BILL NO. 144.] COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee:—
  (In the Committee.)
  Clauses 26 and 27 agreed to.
  Clause 28 (Contributories to the common Fund).
  MR. SERJEANT KINGLAKEsaid, he would move a proviso to the effect that the annual value of the Government property in any parish should be excluded in the valuation lists, so that it might be rated for the purposes of the common fund. The Government annually called upon the House to vote a sum of £35,000

  345
  for rates upon Government property, and that was equivalent to a rateable value of £300,000. It was therefore of importance that that property should contribute to the common fund.
  MR. C. P. VILLIERSsaid, he thought the Amendment was founded on an equitable principle, and he should be ready, on the part of the Government, to accept it.
  MR. HENLEYremarked, that the exception of Government property from contribution at present bore very hard upon many parishes where such property was situated.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 29 (Copy of Valuation Lists to be deposited in Board Room).
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he objected to the provision directing that a person requiring to view the rate-book in an adjoining parish should be charged a fee of 1s. for doing so. Such a person was as well entitled to look at the rate-book free of charge as to inspect without payment of a fee the rate-book in his own parish.
  MR. C. P. VILLIERSsaid, he proposed to remove the objection by the insertion of words empowering overseers of any parish in the union to inspect the rate-book in an adjoining parish free of charge.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause agreed to; as were the remaining Clauses.
  SIR EDWARD LACONsaid, he wished to move to insert a clause, enacting that the owner, instead of the occupier, should be rated at the option of the board of guardians in cases where the annual value of the premises did not exceed the sum of £6.
  MR. C. P. VILLIERSsaid, he thought the effect of the clause would be to disturb what was generally understood to be the law. Moreover, the object was effectively provided for by the general Act.
  Clause negatived.
  MR. SERJEANT KINGLAKEsaid, he would then move the insertion of a clause, empowering the overseers who should have reason to think that their parish was aggrieved by the valuation list, to appeal to the justices of the peace for the county in which the parish was situate at any quarter sessions holden a month after the allowance of and the deposit of the valuation list. The whole object of the Bill was to preserve uniformity of rating as regarded individual ratepayers in a parish, and also
  346
  in respect to the parishes themselves. The right of appeal was, however, given as between individuals, but was not given to one parish as against another.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, that many unions were in two counties. One union in his own county had parishes in four counties. The present clause was in the right direction; for it was absolutely necessary to have some provision to equalize the rating of parish as against parish. He only doubted whether the clause went far enough. Would it not be desirable that there should be some one definite quarter sessions fixed upon for appeals from the same union? Suppose, for example, there should be cross appeals by parishes situated in different counties but in the same union; a parish in Oxfordshire might appeal against a parish in Northampton-shire, and a parish in the latter county might appeal against a parish in Warwickshire, and each of these quarter sessions might come to a different conclusion.
  MR. SERJEANT KINGLAKEsaid, he agreed that it was very desirable there should be a fixed quarter sessions in each union to which the appeals should go. He would propose, with the consent of the Committee, to alter his clause by inserting words providing that appeals should go to the quarter session of the county "in which the workhouse of the union is situate."
  MR. C. P. VILLIERSremarked that in the case of appeals against orders of removal the tribunal was the quarter sessions of the county in which the appealing parish was situated; that had worked well, and he saw no reason why the same practice should not be followed in that instance.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, that the existing practice would not meet the case of cross appeals.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he thought it desirable that the quarter sessions to which appeals should go should be in that county in which the majority of the parishes in the union were situate.
  MR. DODSONsaid, he would move that an appeal should lie to the quarter sessions of that county or borough in which the greatest number of parishes belonging to the union were situate.
  MR. LEVESON GOWERsaid, he wished to ask what would be done in cases where there was an equal number of parishes in each county?
  MR. ALDERMAN SIDNEYsaid, he ob-

  347
  jected to the principle of the clause. He saw no necessity for an appeal against the decision of the assessment committee to the quarter sessions. If an appeal were necessary, it could be made to the central board in London.
  MR. PULLERsaid, he objected to the clause altogether, as he deemed that the machinery provided by the Bill for the valuation was far better for determining such questions than the previous machinery, and certainly much more so than the quarter sessions.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, it would be well to ascertain if there were an equal number of parishes situated in different counties in any one union. If so, it would be easy to determine the question in such cases by carrying the appeal to the quarter sessions of the county in which the poorhouse was situated.
  MR. C. P. VILLIERSsaid, he would make inquiry, and, if necessary, propose a clause to meet the case.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  MR. BEACHsaid, he would then move a clause disabling any justice of the peace who had acted as a member of the board from sitting on an appeal made against a rate based on a valuation list approved by the board.
  MR. C. P. VILLIERSsaid, he thought great practical inconvenience would ensue if the clause were adopted.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, that in the case of levying the county rate, which was most analogous to that under consideration, the justices who were parties to the levying of the rate were not precluded from taking part in hearing an appeal.
  Clause negatived.
  MR. HOWESsaid, he wished to move a clause regulating what should be the definition of "gross estimated rental."
  MR. C. P. VILLIERSsaid, he would not oppose the clause, though he did not think it would work much good.
  Clause agreed to.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, that as the committees under the Act were to discharge judicial functions, he thought that their proceedings ought to be open to the public. Ha would therefore move to add the following clause:—"That every meeting of any Committee under this Act shall be held, and the proceedings thereof conducted, in public."
  Clause brought up, and read 1°.
  On Motion, "That the clause be read a second time,"
  SIR BALDWIN LEIGHTONsaid, he could not see why the proceedings of the committee should be public, when the proceedings of the boards of guardians were not so.
  MR. C. P. VILLIERSsaid, it would be better to leave the committee a discretion. The boards of guardians admitted reporters at their discretion, and no complaint had reached him of the present practice. He saw no occasion for the clause.
  Question put, "That the clause be read a second time."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 28; Noes 63; Majority 35.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered on Thursday, and to be printed [Bill 210].

TREASURE TROVE.—QUESTION.
SIR JERVOISE JERVOISEsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the Notice giving the public full information as to the intentions of the Lords of the Treasury in regard to Treasure Trove, and which, as was stated in a Circular addressed to the Chief Constable of the County of Hants, dated Whitehall, January 9, 1861, would probably be shortly issued, will be issued; and if so, when?
MR. PEELsaid, the draft of the amended notice relating to treasure trove, what it was, and what the finders should do, was prepared in the beginning of last year, and was sent to the office of the Treasury. A question then arose as to the propriety of issuing such a notice at all, and the subject dropped. He would, however, communicate with the Solicitor to the Treasury, in order to ascertain whether it would be desirable to issue it or not.

THE TERRY CARBINE.—QUESTION.
MR. H. BERKELEYsaid, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether any Report has been received as to the Terry Carbine, as supplied to the 18th Hussars, and in use twelve months?
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, with regard to this breech-loading carbine, it had been served out to the 18th Hussars, but the ammunition was not received until February. The twelve months were not completed, and no Report had yet been received.

STANDARDS OF WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.—QUESTION.
MR. LOCKEsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether any Communication has been received from the Astronomer Royal and the Comptroller General of the Exchequer as to the inaccurate state of the standards of Weight and Measure; and whether those now in use at the Exchequer for testing the accuracy of the Standards used by Inspectors of Weights and Measures in all parts of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland have been so used since the year 1825; and, if so, whether the same have been adjusted and reverified, or whether any other means have been adopted for ascertaining their accuracy; and, if so, what means?
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, from the information which he had received, he understood that no representations on the subject had been made since 1859, when they were laid before Parliament. In regard to the dates upon which the standards of weights and measures were first used, it appeared that the balances and standard of avoirdupois weight had been used since 1825, but that the standard of measures had only been in use since 1834.

AFFAIRS OF CANADA.—QUESTION.
MR. ADDERLEYsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the Canadian Parliament is prorogued, and the raising 5,000 additional Militia is to be considered their final and ultimate measure of preparation for the defence of their country, in co-operation with the 12,000 troops we have sent for that purpose; and whether it appears that that force is to be actually embodied and put under training, or only enrolled; and whether any answer has been sent by the Canadian Government to the offer of a British guarantee of 4 per cent interest to their Railway Loan of £3,000,000 made by the Duke of Newcastle, in substitution for their original proposal, that they should aid this country in undertaking their railway?
MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEreplied, that the Canadian Parliament had been prorogued, and he was sorry to say that it separated without raising a force of active Militia, formed and clothed at the expense of the Canadian Government,
350
beyond 10,000 men; the number proposed by the Canadian Ministry being 50,000. At the same time, it must be borne in mind that every Canadian capable of bearing arms was enrolled as a militiaman, and was liable to be called out in case of danger; and all persona acquainted with Canada knew that in the event of the appearance of danger there would be no difficulty whatever in raising a very large force of most admirable materials—men accustomed to the use of fire-arms, who would come forward with readiness and spirit. With respect to the latter part of the question, he said that no answer had been received from the Canadian Government to the offer of the British guarantee.

THE HORSFALL GUN.—QUESTION.
MR. LAIRDsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, If he has decided when to try the Horsfall Gun, and whether he has any objection that the trials be made at Shoeburyness upon the same Target as the Armstrong 300-pounder Gun was tested on Monday, the 7th instant, and also upon any other Targets now making for experimental purposes?
SIR GEORGE LEWISstated, in reply, that arrangements had been made for the removal of the gun from Southsea to Shoeburyness, and for the trial of experiments with it against a target formed on the model of the sides of the Warrior.

THE TAEPINGS AND BRITISH TROOPS IN CHINA.—QUESTION.
SIR MINTO FARQUHARsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether there is any truth in the reports that 700 British troops had been surrounded at Kahding by the Taepings, and that reinforcements were expected in China of native troops from India?
MR. LAYARDsaid, that the Foreign Office had not as yet received any Despatches relating to the events referred to. He had seen Despatches from a naval officer on the subject, but those did not allude to the rumour of Kahding being surrounded by the Taepings. They, however, confirmed the account of the capture of Ningpo. Full particulars had not as yet been received; but an attack had been made in the first instance by the Taepings on English vessels, upon which those vessels attacked the place, and drove the Taepings out. The Despatches also confirmed the

351
account of the death of Admiral Protet. He could give no information as to the arrangements with regard to reinforcements from India.

ROMAN CATHOLIC PROCESSIONS IN DUBLIN.—QUESTION.
CAPTAIN ARCHDALLsaid, he wished to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland in reference to a matter which had created considerable excitement amongst the Protestants of the sister country. It appeared that placards had been posted up throughout the city of Dublin announcing that certain proceedings were to take place on Sunday next, on the occasion of laying the first stone of the Roman Catholic University of Ireland. The programme set forth the fact that a procession was to take place through the public streets, and that places were assigned in it to Members of both Houses of Parliament. It was further stated that the procession was to be preceded by banners and bands, the character of which might be readily imagined. It went on to announce that the Roman Catholic Archbishops and Bishops of Ireland would appear on the occasion in their full canonicals. Now, he apprehended that the appearance of Roman Catholic ecclesiastics, under such circumstances, in their full canonicals, would be a violation of the law of the land, and was calculated to give great offence to Protestants. He wished therefore to ask the right hon. Baronet, Whether the authorities have taken, or intend to take, any steps to prevent such proceedings as are announced in the programme; or, in the event of the procession taking place in the manner announced in the programme, it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to prosecute the Roman Catholic ecclesiastics for thus appearing in the public streets in their canonicals?
SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, his attention had been drawn to the matter, and he had been in communication with the Department in Dublin in reference to it. He was not aware that any breach of the peace was anticipated, but the Government would be of course prepared to see that the law was respected by all parties.

AFFAIRS OF MEXICO.

  PAPERS MOVED FOR.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUsaid, he was warned yesterday evening that both
  352
  front benches had agreed together to count out the House on this Motion. He did not suppose that the House could be so indifferent to a subject which affected it so nearly. The papers on the affairs of Mexico had an interest peculiar to themselves. The last of them was delivered on Saturday, and it would be unconstitutional not to submit that policy to discussion by the House. The usual objection could not be urged, that he was referring to events long past and gone; he had taken the earliest opportunity of bringing the papers before the House—namely, the first Motion night after the production of the papers. From those papers it appeared that Her Majesty's Government refused to conclude peace with Mexico, through undue subserviency to the French Emperor. The French, the House would remember, took up an independent line of action in Mexico, "frustrating the objects of the three Powers" (according to the language of our Minister) "breaking the Convention of London," and "violating the preliminaries of Soledad." We considered this "a slight" to England and Spain, and withdrew. Our Plenipotentiaries then concluded a peace which procured, as Lord Russell avowed, "the redress which had been so long sought;" and obtained the most ample guarantees in waste lands and church property. Before ratifying this Convention, Lord Russell wrote for the Emperor's sanction. The Emperor disapproved, and the treaty was therefore repudiated. This point he was prepared to prove, after rapidly sketching the previous occurrences, so as to show that the same influence had prevailed throughout. He thought that the two front benches could not venture to count out the House on a question of such vital importance to the country. The first paper on this subject contained the Dunlop and Aldham Conventions; not, however, the negotiations which led to them. From these Conventions it would appear that the grievances consisted merely in non-payment of creditors. Little enough was said about reparation for outrages. The satisfaction demanded and given was 51 per cent upon the imports. Captain Dunlop, in the despatch enclosing the Convention, dated February 2, 1859, said that Juarez "had at once acceded to all the demands for redress of the British."
  He trusted the House would permit him briefly to remind them of the origin

  353
  of Mexican bonds, and of our claims; so that hon. Members might perceive the true bearings of the subject. The loan was subscribed thirty-six or thirty-seven years ago in London, in order to enable Mexico to achieve her independence; payment was now exacted in such a way as to destroy that independence, and to crush that nation under the Power of France. The circumstances of the loan were these. In 1822 France was going to interfere in Spain in favour of King Ferdinand, to put down the spirit of liberty, and to gain an influence in the country. We opposed that proceeding. The Congress of Verona then met, and France, Russia, and Spain threatened to declare war if we resisted the action of France in Spain. Canning gave way, for he said it would be no good to send a fleet to Cadiz. He declared, however, that it should not be the Spain of former years; if France gained an influence in Spain, it should be Spain without the Indies. "Thus," said he, "I called the new world into existence to redress the balance of the old." Mr. Rush, the United States Minister, supported us; and President Monroe, in his message of December 2, 1823, said he would consider it a casus belli if those Powers interfered in South America. The independence of Mexico was declared in 1826. The loan was secured on the Mexican province of Texas. When the independence of Texas was declared in 1840, she took on herself, by the treaty with us, only £1,000,000 of the foreign debt, and the remainder was put on Mexico. This constituted our claim against Mexico. The bonds were now chiefly held by Mexicans. Sir Charles Wyke gave a history of the Conventions. The first was in 1842, when the recognised claims amounted to only £1,000,000. The Doyle Convention was in 1851; it was made "in consequence of the impossibility for Mexico to fulfil her engagements," and of "the penury of the treasury." By that convention 12 per cent of the imports were "mortgaged" to us. In 1852 there was the second Doyle Convention; it was "because of the apprehended deficit," and 15 per cent of the imports were "assigned" to us. In 1858 there was the Otway Convention; this was "because of the distressed condition of the national finances," and 16 per cent of the imports were assigned to us, while the rate of interest was doubled. In 1859 there was the Dunlop Convention, to
  354
  "put an end to the difficulties in Mexico." Then 51 per cent of the imports were assigned. By the table which was given it appeared that the interest had been regularly paid until June 4, 1861, and one-sixth of the original capital had been discharged. In December, 1860, 65 per cent of the imports were assigned. In May, 1861, 77 per cent; and in October, 1861, 87 per cent of the imports. A great deal had been said of the outrages committed in Mexico. Those to which most importance had been attached were the Legation robbery, and the Conducta robbery. The former occurred in the following manner. There were two factions in Mexico. The party of Miramon, Marquez, Miranda, Almonte, and Cobos, or the Church party, were in power. These were no better than brigands; they were utterly lawless. The other party was the Liberal, or Constitutional party, at whose head was Juarez. On the 24th of August, 1860, Lord Russell wrote to Mr. Matthew, our Minister at Mexico, to break off relations with Miramon. Mr. Matthew did so, and left Mexico. After his departure a room in the house of Mr. Barton was broken open, and 660,000 dols. were taken out of it. Mr. Matthew, in writing to Mr. Glennie, our Consul, who was left in Mexico, said, "the money should have been levied in the outports, and not have been paid in Mexico." Mr. M'Garel, the chairman of the bondholders, directly charged Lord Russell with the fault, saying that this Legation robbery occurred because Lord Russell refused to interfere for the safe transmission of the money to the shore; so that Mr. Whitehead, the agent for the bondholders, had to keep it in Mexico for two or three years, instead of sending it away; and that when the Legation left so precipitately, it was impossible to make the necessary arrangements. It was clearly not in the interest of the bondholders that Lord Russell took that step. Lord Russell tried, however, to make his peace with the bondholders, by writing, on January 12, 1861, that he would recognize Juarez as President, if Juarez would promise to pay back the money which Miramon had taken.
  The following was the account of the Conducta robbery—or rather the Conducta "occupation"; for the Mexicans said they merely occupied the money, but did not rob it. Juarez had not money enough to pay his troops, when he was fighting

  355
  again Miramon, and implored Lord Russell to allow the 51 per cent assignment on the imports to be suspended for two or three months. Lord Russell, however, demanded his "pound of flesh;" he would "have his bond." General Degollado then seized a "conducta" of silver to pay his troops. He did it in proper legal form, for he gave a receipt for repayment, and designated church property of the value of three millions, in the province of Guajanato, as security. The amount taken was said to be 400,000 dols. He expressly stated that he considered it "a matter of life and death to the Republic;" that he had to "hasten to repress anarchy, because of the rumoured Spanish invasion." When Juarez came to hear of the proceedings of his General, he was exceedingly angry, and gave "peremptory orders for restitution," and for reparation. He even ordered a sale of monasteries to repay the sum. Degollado at last returned the 400,000 dols. This belonged partly to us, and partly to other nations. Mr. Matthew, however, writes—"I could not concur in the legal right of others." And hence those sacks which had Spanish or other marks upon them, were emptied out, and the money stowed in British Backs. In short, we in our turn, "occupied" the silver of all the foreigners. A great noise was made about this.
  "But" writes Mr. Matthew, "thinking it of primary importance that a good feeling should exist among all foreigners, I agreed on the restitution, to all foreigners, of any sacks proved to have contained money bonâ fide their property."
  The French, however, ended the dispute by seizing all the money and putting it in limbo. Mr. Matthew then wrote to the Comte de la Londe, the French Chargé d'Affaires, calling this "an outrage against the British Legation;" and saying that "such proceedings of M. de St. Charles must be put a stop to," and "the Emperor must be held responsible." This was "tall talking." But he was not supported by Her Majesty's Government. Lord Russell subsequently, however, ordered Captain Aldham to demand redress from the Mexicans. Captain Aldham thereupon wrote an extremely sensible answer. He said, in the first place, that "the amount stated (400,000 dols.) is excessive;" our loss was not so great. The Mexican Government, besides, were "labouring under great difficulties," and "it would be injurious to British inter-
  356
  ests to overpress them." He then concluded with these words—
  "To take possession of the castle or town of Vera Cruz would be to annihilate British interests, and throw our commerce into the hands of the Americans, who would give it ingress over the frontier."
  Mr. Matthew acknowledged the truth of all this; but said, that "poverty could not be accepted as an excuse;" and even suggested that Juarez, if he be poor, should disband the army which had been fighting for the cause of order against Miramon—for the President whom Lord Russell had recognised, against the opponent with whom Mr. Matthew had broken off friendly relations. Juarez, however, issued a decree for the sale of national buildings, in order to meet his engagements; he assigned fifteen per cent on all the revenues of Mexico; fifty per cent on the imports of Tampico, and as much as could be spared from the customs revenues of Vera Cruz. He ordered, also, that repayment of the Conducta money should be made, as well as compensation for all damages. Mr. Matthew, however, refused to accept that satisfaction, and, according to instructions from Lord Russell, he addressed to Juarez "a peremptory demand." The very next day, however, he wrote his secret thoughts to Lord Russell. He assured him that "the Mexican Government is most desirous to do what is right, but is surrounded by difficulties;" and that he is "convinced of the sincerity of Juarez's Government, but their treasury is utterly impoverished." Sir Charles Wyke had to keep up a harsh and impracticable appearance before Juarez, yet he imploringly poured out his secret soul to Lord Russell. Thus we found that Sir Charles Wyke, on June 24, 1861, "threatened to break off relations" with Juarez. Yet on the same day, in a despatch to Lord Russell, he wrote—
  "Your Lordship will perceive that the difficulties of the situation, and the penury of the treasury, are urged as excuses. Such being the case, he (Juarez) offers compensation in the shape of convents, farms recently belonging to the Church, or even the National Palace itself."
  So again Mr. Matthew said, that the chief difficulties in the way of peace were from "the reclamations of foreigners." On the 12th of May, 1861, he laid down two distinct propositions in writing to Lord Russell—
  (1.) "The most imminent peril to Mexico is the deplorable state of its finances,"

  357
  Whereupon he showed that the Mexican Government paid to foreigners 77 per cent on all imports. He said further—
  "The resources now receivable by the Government are avowedly unequal to more than half the amount of the expenditure actually requisite."
  The second proposition was this—
  "The hope of Mexico rests upon the maintenance of peace … But unless the present Government be in some way avowedly upheld by England or the United States, further deplorable convulsions will afflict this unfortunate country, to the heavy injury of British interests and commerce."
  Now, what interpretation could be given to all this self-contradiction? What meaning could be attached to it? Did it not appear that they were pulled different ways—that they were none of them their own masters? They would naturally act according to their knowledge of the facts of the case, but were constrained to act in another way. This was explained on July 26, when Sir Charles Wyke wrote, that "M. de Saligny had acted in concert with him throughout," but had gone further than Sir Charles Wyke would have done. He incidentally mentioned in the same despatch that the French claim, was only £40,000, and was "being paid off." Elsewhere he called the French claim "a mere trifle." On August 21 Lord Russell sent out instructions to Sir Charles Wyke. They were repeated on August 31, and again on September 10. M. Thouvenel said that he sent out identical instructions to M. de Saligny. On October 28 Sir Charles Wyke wrote that "he had gained his point," and that "69 per cent of the customs were now mortgaged to us." In the mean while Lord Russell negotiated and signed a tripartite treaty for war and invasion. And yet, on November 28, Lord Russell wrote to Sir Charles Wyke to tell him that he (Sir Charles Wyke) had satisfactorily carried out the instructions of August 21. It was plain, therefore, that a mere desire for redress or satisfaction was not what had guided Lord Russell's policy; but that there was some other influence at work. Then, again, Sir Charles Wyke, although he had satisfactorily carried his point, yet insisted, immediately after, upon a reduction of 50 per cent in the customs tariff, saying he would "force them to do this." The free Congress which Juarez had established, objected, however, to foreign interference. Sir Charles Wyke thereupon proceeded to instruct General Doblado how such things were usually
  358
  effected, and conspired with the minister to cajole the Parliament. The English bondholders, however, objected to the reduction of the tariff, and it was given up. But Congress gave full powers to General Doblado to arrange everything to the best of his judgment. Sir Charles Wyke then received intelligence of the tripartite convention, and of the impending invasion. He therefore broke off the negotiations, and wrote to Doblado, to hope that he would take the invasion "in a friendly, not in a hostile spirit." In the midst of the despatches of the year 1861, he (Lord R. Montagu) suddenly stumbled upon a despatch from Lord Russell to Earl Cowley, dated July 17, 1860, in which there occurred the extraordinary expression:—"when there is a question of renewing our offer of mediation." Lord Russell spoke in 1860 of renewing our offer. When did we first offer to mediate between France and Mexico? Had these operations been carried on for so long? The country had never had the slightest intimation of the "Mexican question" until September 24, 1861. Some papers ought, therefore, to be laid before the House in explanation of this despatch. On the 23rd of September last, Lord Russell became "apprehensive" lest France was "going to organize a new government," and to promote "the political reorganization of Mexico." In January last his misapprehensions were considerably increased, when he heard that the French Emperor was about to augment his force by 3,000 men, and was going to march on Mexico, in order to place Maximilian on the throne. He then made the discovery that "a combined expedition is subject to the rashness of the several commanders and diplomatic agents." In February, even Sir Charles Wyke became "apprehensive." He found that we could not support the French claims. M. Thouvenel, on the other hand, held that "we were bound by the Convention of London to support each other's claims." The first claim was for twelve millions of dollars. That claim, he confessed, was "unexamined;" it was "an approximation to the value, within a million, more or less." Then there was the Jecker claim. Jecker, a notorious "fisher in troubled waters," lent Miramon, when his Government was "on its last legs," the sum of 750,000 dols., and received bonds, in return, for fifteen millions of dollars. In 1860 (when we re-

  359
  newed our offer of mediation) the whole scrip was made over to M. Gabriac (the French Minister in Mexico), to M. de Saligny, and to others. It was said that they were held by M. Morny, and perhaps by some above him. Juarez offered to pay the original 750,000 dols., but his offer was not accepted. Lord Russell designated this claim as "an unreasonable pretension," and "an extravagant demand." Spain and France took advantage of the refusal of Juarez, to announce their intention to push on, and establish another government in Mexico. General Zaragoza humbly suggested that "this would be an act of war." Sir Charles Wyke, who could not disentangle himself from France, wrote to General Zaragoza to say that he considered this "uncourteous and aggressive in tone." All that was bad enough; yet it appeared we got still deeper into the mire; we had got entangled, not only with France, but with Italy also. Sir Charles Wyke wrote thus to Lord Russell:—"Our ninth conference opened by my informing the Commissioners that the King of Italy was about to send here an expedition, with the view of sustaining his claims." This was twice solemnly denied in the Italian Parliament, by Signor Ratazzi, the Prime Minister. The Italians have made some progress in the practice of Parliamentary Government. Immediately after this Almonte arrived, by the Emperor's express orders, along with Miranda, and other followers of Miramon. They kept up a correspondence with Marquez and Cobos, and stirred up revolution throughout the country. Sir Charles Wyke considered that the French had "taken up a separate line of action," and looked upon this as "a slight on England and Spain." And then, in ignorance of the influence which had been exerted on Lord Russell, he turned round, and charged this "crippling of their action" on "the want of foresight" in Her Majesty's Government. He then did tardy justice to those whom he had so often traduced and maligned: he wrote—
  "The Mexican Government have acted, in the face of great difficulties, with perfect good faith to us in all the engagements we have entered into with them."
  Then, on April 11, were withdrawn the troops of Spain, and the moral support of Great Britain. Now, he came to the last papers on this subject, which were distributed on Saturday. There he found that the British and Spanish claims to-
  360
  gether amounted to only £700,000; and that after we had broken with the French, a convention had been concluded by our Plenipotentiaries on two bases—(1) on the basis of a loan from the United States; or (2), failing that, the guarantee which was to have been given to them should be handed over to us. Sr Charles Wyke wrote to Lord Russell—
  "Should the United States Convention not be ratified by the Cabinet of Washington, then the same lands and church property offered to them as a guarantee shall be sold and payment be made."
  He concluded—
  "Everything I have lately done has been based, of course, on the direct violation of the London Convention by France, which has restored us to a perfect freedom of action."
  So he thought in his innocence, yet here he was quite mistaken, for Lord Russell wrote to Earl Cowley, on June 14, to say that "he thought it right (before ratifying the treaty) to communicate with France, although it was found to grant the redress so long sought." M. Thouvenel answered, "No doubt it was our strict right, but it was not advisable." Lord Russell, on June 17, returned the following answer:—
  "Her Majesty's Government do not find that the Convention of Puebla contravenes either the principle of non-intervention or the general engagement not to seek any territorial dominions or separate advantage in Mexico. It only proposes to do that which England, France, and Spain desire to do jointly, and which, since the rupture of Orizaba, we must all do separately, namely, to giant redress for the just complaint of Great Britain."
  But, as M. Thouvenel had not approved of it, he found, on closer examination, that it was "not in conformity with those great rules of policy by which the British nation is guided." That which had guided us seemed to have been the will of the French Emperor. For the sake of appearances, however, he had to pick some hole in it; so he said—
  "It recognises, for instance, a treaty between Mexico and the United States, by which Mexico is to obtain a loan… Her Majesty's Government are not fully informed of all the articles of this treaty, but it may contain provisions injurious to the independence of Mexico."
  And again—
  "It may have some bearing, not now apparent, on the independence of Mexico."
  He concluded by promising that he would not answer our Plenipotentiaries till July 1, so that M. Thouvenel might have further time for consideration. Lord Russell

  361
  finally promised M. Thouvenel that he would not ratify the treaty. Then M. Thouvenel answered, in the height of arrogance, that the Emperor was satisfied with the sentiments of friendship expressed by Her Majesty's Government, yet he would have been more satisfied if these had been made the sole ground and the turning point of Lord Russell's refusal to ratify the convention. On the 27th of June, Lord Russell sent his answer to Sir Charles Wyke. He, in the first place, approved of Sir Charles Wyke's "separating himself from the French" after their "violation of the Convention of London." He then gave as his reason for not ratifying, that the guarantee to the United States might give them some influence over Mexico. Lord Russell had, however, already heard from New York, on June 20, that the Untied States Congress had refused to accede to the loan; and therefore the other alternative was in reality the only basis of our Convention—namely, that the waste lands and church property should be sold in order to pay our demands. He must ask now, whether our Plenipotentiaries acted in accordance with, or against their instructions. If the former, then their convention should be ratified; if the latter, then they should have been censured by Her Majesty's Government. The only escape from this dilemma was to suppose that the instructions which were sent out were defective. A few other points were pressed upon our consideration by the correspondence under consideration. While Mexico was a prey to brigands, then we acquiesced in that state of things. The moment there was a Government which was producing order, then we joined in sending armies to foment rebellion. It was Miramon that committed the outrages on foreigners. Then our agent, Mr. Otway, connived with him. Now, we enforced our demands on a Government which abstained from outrage; and at a time, moreover, when we knew our demands could not possibly be met. The Mexican Minister for Foreign Affairs went further, and asserted that "all the disturbances which had occurred since the declaration of independence had been stirred up by foreign diplomatic agents." In the next place, these operations in Mexico were not divulged until after Parliament was prorogued and when no question could be asked about them. The country had never heard anything about
  362
  the matter till they saw it in the Morning Post of September 24, on in The Times of September 27. The first extra Parliamentary war was in 1857. The noble Viscount defended that on the ground that the principle of the previous sanction of Parliament did not apply to Asiatic wars; now it was made not to apply to wars in America. It would next be supposed not to apply to wars in Europe. Yet, if this were permitted, Parliament would become a mere farce. For how could that House control the expenditure if negotiations were to be carried on in secret, and wars were to be begun without sanction? In former days many difficulties were thrown in the way of commencing a war. The Constitution demanded that three steps should be taken—(1) There must be a message from the Crown asking for supplies. Thus King George II. asked for supplies "to concert measures against Sweden." That House did not think such a step would be wise, and they refused the supplies. (2) If the supplies were granted, a statement of grievances was presented to the foreign Power, and reparation demanded. (3) If the redress were refused, then the Sovereign formally declared war in council. None of these steps had been taken in the present instance. The right hon. Member for Bucks had declared that expenditure depended upon policy. It seemed to him that expenditure depended upon unconstitutional and illegal action. We had entered into a coalition to enforce pecuniary claims. He had thought the country did not love coalitions. We had a coalition with France in the Crimea. Was that sore yet healed? We had a coalition with France in China. Did we get any good from, that? Yet here we had another coalition. But if we were doomed to make a coalition, why should it be a coalition to enforce pecuniary claims? He had heard of a coalition to prevent the Crowns of France and Spain from devolving on the same head. He had heard of coalitions to determine the frontiers of aggressive States. But he never before heard of a coalition to enforce pecuniary claims. He never heard of three armies encamped, as creditors, upon the soil of a bankrupt friend. We had no means of knowing whether the claims of France were just or unjust. The result was that we found ourselves enforcing claims which were extravagant and fraudulent. Nay, it was not even a coalition to enforce pecuniary claims, for the United

  363
  States had offered the money, and we had refused it. Mexico had offered material guarantees, and we had refused them. We went, in fact, to further the views of the French Emperor. But what interest had the French in going there? What advantage did they seek? We knew the scheme of aggrandisement which Richelieu had devised for France. Napoleon hoped to carry this out in 1810. The State papers of 1819 revealed a project to dispossess Spain of her colonies, and to erect French dependencies. In the Congress of Verona, Canning thwarted such an intention. In 1844 M. Guizot prevailed upon Lord Aberdeen to join him in an interference in Mexico. What did France care for putting Maximilian on the throne? What would she gain by giving Venice to Sardinia? No, we had been outwitted or overruled by France. Then, when we had made a lucky breach with them, and when our Plenipotentiaries had concluded the Convention of Puebla, our Government, out of deference to the French Emperor, repudiated that settlement, although it fully "gave the redress so long sought." If this subservience to France was a mistake, it was at least a costly error. But it was worse than a mistake; for we had combined with the murderer of his country's liberties, and joined him in planting a despotism on a free soil. Even now we could not entirely shako off our accomplice, although we saw him doomed to the abhorrence of man and the vengeance of Heaven.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to give directions for supplying those deficiencies in the former instructions furnished to Sir C. Wyke and Captain Dunlop, which resulted in the signing, by Her Majesty's Plenipotentiaries at Puebla, of a Convention now repudiated by Her Majesty's Government at home."
  MR. LAYARDsaid, he must decline to follow the noble Lord in a large portion of his speech, which appeared to him not to be conceived in very good taste, nor would he follow the noble Lord into his review of history, or what had fallen from him with regard to the Government entering into wars without the sanction of Parliament. But he was desirous of putting upon its true footing the important question which the noble Lord had raised. In the first place, he wished to say a few words upon the general policy of the Mexican intervention, and then he would en-
  364
  deavour to answer the somewhat unintelligible Questions which the noble Lord had put on the paper. As to the general policy of the affair, he thought the mission of the British Government was perfectly clear. The noble Lord, following the example of others, had tried to lead the House to believe that the occurrences in Mexico had arisen from a desire on the part of the British Government to assert the claims of British subjects upon the Government of Mexico; in other words, to use an expression constantly applied to their interference in Mexico, that they had gone there to collect bad debts. The noble Lord was totally mistaken upon that point. There were many outrages to be redressed, many claims to be enforced, besides those of the Mexican bondholders. But even with regard to the Mexican bondholders, the Government, like many which had preceded it, had carefully avoided mixing up those which had been ratified by a national convention with those which had not been so ratified. Even the hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. S. Fitzgerald), to whom the bondholders were so much indebted and who had received a vote of thanks from them for the energy he had manifested, would be the first to get up and say that it was not the part of the British Government to go to war or even to interfere to enforce claims like those of the greater part of the Mexican bondholders. The Mexican bondholders had various claims on the Mexican Government. A certain portion of them had been recognised under a convention, known as the Dunlop Convention. That convention had not been actually carried out, but it had been confirmed by another convention. Thus two solemn international obligations had been entered into, which it was the bounden duty of Her Majesty's Government to enforce. Besides these, there were many other claims. The papers laid on the table referred to various claims which British subjects and firms had on the Mexican Government. These were perfectly legitimate claims; but, besides these claims, there were outrages of a very serious kind—to say nothing of murders—which had been committed on Her Majesty's subjects, for which no redress had been obtained—outrages on the British Government of the most serious nature; for instance, the outrage on the British Embassy, when Miramon ordered a room to be broken open, and property placed under the seal

  365
  of the British Legation was carried off, in violation of the most sacred rights, from the residence of the British Minister. More than that, a sum of money belonging to British subjects which had been sent down to the sea-coast had been pillaged by an officer of the Mexican Government, acting on their responsibility. No doubt the British Government had a right to demand redress for those outrages, and to enforce those claims. Throughout the whole negotiation they had, however, carefully avoided mixing up with those claims, which ought to be enforced, the claims of the bondholders which had not been ratified. When people chose to lend money to a foreign country, they did so at their own risk. It would be monstrous for the Government to interfere in such cases, or that the bondholders should have all the advantages of profits without the risks. The noble Lord moved for the circular which had been written by the noble Lord on the subject of foreign loans; that circular laid down distinctly the principle on which the Government had interfered in behalf of the British claimants. The principle was undeniable. It was one of the most difficult things for a Government to deal with a weak State. They did not know exactly what to do. The moment they made any attempt to interfere, the parties made any terms, and a convention was signed; but scarcely had that taken place, when the same course had to be renewed. A strong Government did not like to interfere with a weak Government; but if they altogether refused, British subjects, whose property had been destroyed and whose lives had been threatened, would have a right to complain. He ventured to say nothing could be more forbearing than the instructions of his noble Friend with which Sir Charles Wyke went to Mexico. It was stated distinctly, that if the Mexican Government would now give the redress to which we were entitled, we would forget all that had gone by, and renew with them the most friendly relations. The noble Lord had spoken that night as if Juarez, on coming to the Presidency, was ready to do everything that was required; but, on the contrary, outrages had been committed as frequently as before, Englishmen were murdered, and the very sum taken by force from the British Residency, which the Government was pledged to pay, had been withheld. Juarez stated that the British Government must prosecute those
  366
  concerned in the outrage on the British Legation. They were prosecuted, and acquitted on the ground that it was not a theft, but an incident of military occupation. No doubt Sir Charles Wyke succeeded in obtaining redress from Juarez, but the convention was not ratified; it was rejected by the Mexican Legislature. Over and over again in his despatches Sir Charles Wyke called on the British Government to interfere; no one could be more urgent than Sir Charles Wyke upon, that point. He must be allowed to put the noble Lord right as to the facts of the case. England was not the only Power that had claims on Mexico; she was not the only Power which had suffered outrages that called for redress. The French Government had claims, though not so large or so important as we had. The Spanish Government had also claims, and the claims of Spain had been recognised by a treaty known as the Almonte Treaty. That treaty was set at nought. The first Power to take any step towards interference in Mexico was Spain. Spain proposed to take possession of Vera Cruz and Tampico. Spain fully made up her mind to that. That was plain from the papers which had been laid on the table. The French Government was equally ready with Spain to enforce its claims; and what were we to do? Were we to co-operate with them, or to take independent action? Had we not interfered at all, it would have been said that we neglected to enforce British claims, and that we had abandoned British rights. If we had taken independent action, we should probably have come into collision with France or Spain, and our only course appeared to be that which we did take. In order that our action should be clearly understood, the Convention of London was signed. We had no desire to interfere in the internal affairs of Mexico; our object was solely to enforce our claims, and the occupying of any territory or place on the coast would be only temporary. The noble Lord had spoken of troops being sent to Mexico, but that was not the case. Her Majesty's Government from the very beginning said, that there was no intention of making any advance into the interior—all that was intended was to occupy Vera Cruz, to which they had a right and title by treaty. For that purpose, only a force of 700 Marines was sent to occupy San Juan d'Ulloa. The noble Lord also talked of the great expense

  367
  which had been incurred in moving the Marines. Now, he must say, no doubt Sir Charles Wyke had acted for the best; but he had committed two grave mistakes at the commencement, which were not justified by any instructions he received from his Government; indeed, they were diametrically opposed to his instructions. The first mistake consisted in his issuing a proclamation, stating that the object of the intervention was the regeneration of the country; and the second was the attempt to place the Marines on the same footing with the French and Spanish force, and send them into the interior to co-operate with them. Those mistakes were made in direct opposition to the instructions of Her Majesty's Government, although, no doubt, Sir Charles Wyke acted with the very best intentions. They led, however, to very serious consequences. Soon after the landing the Mexican Government signified their wish to bring matters to an amicable termination, and the Convention of Soledad was agreed upon, by which the allies were allowed to advance, on the condition, that if war broke out, they would return to their original positions. This showed that the Mexican Government did not consider the position of the allies, so far, was a hostile one. Then appeared upon the scene a man who, according to all accounts, was the most promising Mexican statesman, and the man most likely to restore order and establish a strong Government under Juarez. He referred to General Doblado, who made very liberal proposals to the allies, which had every prospect of being accepted. Unfortunately, however, General Almonte, a refugee, intervened—a man who had entertained the idea that there was a strong monarchical party in Mexico, which had only to be appealed to to rise at once and set up a monarchy in the place of the Government of Juarez. All the information which Her Majesty's Government had received was directly opposed to that opinion, and it had been confirmed by the result. General Almonte, however, appeared to have persuaded the representative of France that a monarchical party really existed, and that it would be useless to treat any longer with the Mexican Government; and he induced the French to withdraw their adhesion from the Convention of Soledad, renounce all communication with the Government of Juarez, and to return to the landing-place in order to make a hostile advance. Her Majesty's
  368
  Government looked upon that as a violation of the treaty, as we had gone to Mexico with the intention of not interfering in the internal affairs of that country; and they felt that they could not decline to hold communication with Juarez, who represented the Mexican people and Government. The Spanish authorities took exactly the same view as we did, and General Prim acted like a man of honour in refusing to be a party to any attempt to raise to the throne of Mexico a King contrary, as he believed, to the wishes of the people. He consequently retired with his troops, and the British Marines were also re-embarked. Her Majesty's Government had been reproached with deserting the French; but it had been admitted in the French Chamber that England had behaved with perfect loyalty and good faith. Those who knew Vera Cruz were aware that it was impossible for Europeans to remain there from early in the spring to an advanced period of the autumn; and in withdrawing the Marines from that place we had only done as we should have done in either case, whether there had been war or peace. The French Government had publicly admitted that we had acted with perfect frankness. The Church party in Mexico—a party who, if he must use a strong term, were the greatest ruffians, and who had been guilty of the most horrible outrages upon civilization—gathered round General Almonte in his attempt to establish monarchy; but when the French advanced into the country, they found that the warnings which had been given them were perfectly true, and that no monarchical party really existed there. The French General himself, with great frankness, admitted that, avowing that if he had dreamt that there was no party in favour of monarchy, he would not have advanced into the midst of a hostile country. That being so, what were Her Majesty's Government to do? His noble Friend had rather accused the Government of deserting Sir Charles Wyke.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGU: Of not giving him precise instructions.
  MR. LAYARDsaid, that it should be remembered that the Government never foresaw the state of things described by his noble Friend. On the contrary, when the Marines were withdrawn, when the Convention of Soledad had been broken, and the French troops took action by themselves, Sir Charles Wyke wrote to his Government to say that he was

  369
  going to leave Mexico, and they accordingly believed that he would have retired to New York. Instead of that, he remained in the country, went to Puebla, and entered into the convention with General Doblado that had been mentioned to the House. The Government were perfectly astonished when they heard that he had signed that instrument. The convention was sent home to Her Majesty's Government, and was not ratified by them. His noble Friend had misstated the reasons why it was not ratified. There was no question of subserviency to the Emperor of the French, but the question was one of principle. The principle on which we had insisted in all our relations with the Central States of America was this—not to allow them to involve themselves towards the United States in a manner that might lead to inconvenient results. The convention declared that a certain sum should be paid to the British claimants out of money to be supplied by the United States, who, in return, were to have a kind of mortgage upon all the waste lands in Mexico. That arrangement might have produced a state of things which Her Majesty's Government were desirous to see avoided. That convention, although not ratified, was not altogether rejected by the United States, and it had been again submitted to the Senate. Again, the convention provided that, in default of the United States advancing the money, those waste lands should be mortgaged to the British Government. Her Majesty's Government were as much opposed to that as to their being mortgaged to the United States, thinking it might lead to disagreeable consequences in regard to our relations with the United States or other Powers. We were also to have been bound to occupy certain ports in Mexico by our naval force for the collection of the dues from which the claims on the Mexican Government were to have been met. Her Majesty's Government did not think that would at all have been a convenient arrangement. These, then, were some of the important grounds upon which they did not deem it right to ratify the convention, and he believed they were perfectly valid grounds. In saying that, he cast no reflection upon Sir Charles Wyke, who appeared to have done his best; and if the convention had been unaccompanied by the objectionable features which he had described, it might have been quite satisfactory. That was the
  370
  short history of British policy towards Mexico. The noble Lord had put two questions to him. The first referred to a despatch from Earl Russell to Earl Cowley on the 17th of July, 1860. There was, however, no mystery about it, as it referred to an enclosure. We had long been in communication with the Mexican Government upon the subject of the claims of British subjects, and the Governments of France and of Spain had frequently called upon us to join with them to enforce those claims. But Earl Russell had always laid it down as a rule, that if we did interfere it must be upon the distinct understanding that other religions than the Roman Catholic should be tolerated in Mexico. That was at the time the Church party was in power, and when every person who professed any other religion than the Roman Catholic was subject to persecution. All that Earl Russell had done in the instructions was, to refer to a despatch upon the subject that had been written a year or two before, reciting the principle upon which alone the British Government could interfere or mediate in Mexico. The second question of the noble Lord referred to what he called the Italian expedition to Mexico. The facts were, that there were Italians in Mexico who had claims upon the Government, and when England joined with France and Spain in interfering in Mexico, the Italian Government inquired, unofficially, whether we would assist the Italians in Mexico. The British Government felt there would be inconvenience in taking up the claims of others than its own countrymen; and it was suggested to the Italian Government, that they might send a vessel with the joint expedition, and that some official person should be on board to whom the Italians might apply. No ship, however, was sent, and Sir Charles Wyke merely alluded to the possibility of an Italian vessel being sent out; but there was no intention that the Italian Government should enter into any convention. Having gone through the principal points connected with the subject, he could only say that he did not think Her Majesty's Government could have adopted any other policy than that which they had acted upon. They could not abstain from all interference, or British subjects might fairly have complained that their interests were neglected by their Government, while the subjects of other Powers were protected. They had, however, studiously avoided all

  371
  interference in the affairs of the country, and he thought the policy they had pursued would increase British influence in Mexico, and lead to a better observance in future of engagements towards this country. He hoped, also, after the clear proofs that had been given of the non-existence in Mexico of a monarchical party, that France would open negotiations with any Government that did really represent the feelings of the people of Mexico, and thus bring to a pacific termination the differences that had heretofore existed.
  MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALDsaid, the words of the Poet were once wittily applied to a certain person whose career reflected little honour on him, that nothing became him so well in in life as his going out of it, and he thought the same observation might be applied to the conduct of Her Majesty's Government in relation to Mexico; for the only satisfactory point about it was, that in spite of themselves they had been forced to withdraw from further interference. He was not disposed to say that the Government could have avoided all interference. On the contrary, not only with reference to repeated outrages upon British subjects, but also with reference to the removal of a large sum of money from the British Legation, it was impossible that the Government could have avoided taking some decided steps to vindicate the honour of the English name. But he did find fault with the manner in which they had fulfilled that duty. The hon. Gentleman had told the House that the Government had from the first declared they would not be parties to any interference in the internal affairs of Mexico; but his complaint was, that they had entered into a convention with France and Spain when, if they did not know that the object of both France and Spain was to interfere actively in the internal affairs of Mexico, the British Government were almost the only persons who were ignorant of the fact. For years refugees from Mexico had constantly represented to the British Government and to the French Government that the only means of restoring order in that country was by the active intervention of European Powers and the establishment of a monarchical form of Government. Had Her Majesty's Government no warning of those views being held by the French Government? M. Thouvenel, in one of his despatches, said—
  "We do not wish to interfere; but we think
  372
  that the presence of our forces there will give that moral support to the monarchical feeling which we believe to exist, and that there will be a chance and opportunity for the establishment of a new and regenerated Government."
  It was idle to say, when Almonte was constantly coming to this country and communicating with the Government and with public bodies, and after the language of M. Thouvenel—it was idle to say that the Government had not a distinct warning that it was the intention of the French Government to interfere in the internal affairs of Mexico, and possibly to establish a new form of government. It was stated in the convention that they were not to interfere with the wishes of the Mexicans in the establishment of any form of government; but that was not language that could have been used if it had been expected that the form of government then existing would continue to exist, but it showed that it was contemplated that the appearance of foreign troops might cause a revolution, and possibly a change of government. Every one must have been aware of the object of France and of Spain, and it was made plain by the speech of Señor Collantes in the Spanish Chambers that the object of interference was to establish a monarchical form of government. His hon. Friend had truly said that the last thing for an English Government to do was to attempt by force of arms to collect bad debts, or debts contracted with British subjects who had entered upon speculations with their eyes open, knowing the attendant risks, and guarding themselves against those risks by larger profits. That had been the principle upon which successive Governments had noted; and although the Government with which he had been connected had used its good offices to endeavour to obtain justice for the Mexican bondholders, yet, in the very last despatch written by them upon that subject, they emphatically laid it down that the claims of the bondholders were in the nature of private claims, and could not be enforced by arms. His hon. Friend had said that the claims of the bondholders were not the object of our interference; but it was a curious fact that the first convention made by Sir Charles Wyke, the ratification of which was refused by the Mexican Parliament, had reference solely to the claims of the bondholders, and to no other claims; and yet it was said that our interference was to obtain redress for grievances, and to stipulate for the due performance of the conventions. He thought the noble Lord

  373
  at the head of the Foreign Department had been saved from the commission of a grievous error only by the refusal of the Mexican Legislature to ratify that convention. The terms of the convention were objectionable, for by it British consuls were not only to collect money and to apply it in payment of the claims of British subjects, but they were also to be made agents for the subjects of every foreign country having claims upon the Mexican Government. Another stipulation was that the endorsement of British officers should be requisite to give validity to securities to be issued by the Mexican Government. There was another matter of grave complaint against Her Majesty's Government, and that was that they should have entered into a convention to enforce the pecuniary claims of the Powers who were parties to it without knowing in the slightest degree the nature, character, justification, or amount of the claims which they had undertaken to assist in enforcing. They were told that the claims of the French Government were for a comparatively small amount—he thought £40,000 was the sum named; and yet they afterwards found that, without knowing what they were about, they had committed themselves to the enforcement of claims which Earl Russell had spoken of as the most extravagant, the most extortionate, and the most unjust. The French Government had since claimed 15,000,000 of dollars; and if Her Majesty's Government were not committed to the enforcement of that claim, it was owing to circumstances which they had not foreseen, and not to their wisdom in making the convention. The present position of affairs was as unsatisfactory as possible, and only one thing could be said for it—that it was better than they could have expected some time ago. But that the Government should have given British arms to enforce certain claims; that they should have thought it necessary to enter into a solemn convention, and that they should be represented in the expedition by a force of 700 Marines, seemed to him to be placing this country in a relation to foreign Powers utterly beneath her dignity and honour. He thought his noble Friend was under a misapprehension when he said that the ratification of the treaty with the United States Government had been refused. He believed it was still under consideration, and he was of opinion that it would be a dangerous thing for this country to lend
  374
  its sanction, even indirectly, to such a treaty. He hoped that his noble Friend's suggestion, that we might form another treaty with Mexico of a more satisfactory character than that which had lately been, attempted, would be realized, and he hoped also that we should not be found by the side of France in enforcing a change of government on a friendly people, or on the side of Spain in any schemes for the recovery of her ancient supremacy in Mexico; and, still less, that we should be placed by the conduct of Her Majesty's Government in opposition to the liberal party in an independent nation, thus giving a chance to the enemies of freedom and of liberal institutions in that country of again raising their heads and of re-establishing one of the vilest Governments that ever disgraced a country.
  MR. KINGLAKEsaid, if he rightly understood the papers upon the subject, Her Majesty's Government had not acted without something like a principle in the matter. They appeared to admit that an English subject who had gone to Mexico for purposes of gain, and had become a creditor of the Government there, could not expect the support of the Government at home in enforcing his claims, unless something more arose to give him a right. But in the present case Her Majesty's Government were supporting claims which had been sanctioned by engagements having the force of diplomatic promise, and therefore they were perfectly entitled to demand that the claims should be made good. The hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had hit upon the real weak point of the case when he said that Her Majesty's Government had made a convention with France without knowing something of the claims which she was likely to put forward—claims as they now knew, of so monstrous a kind that no Government that had a regard for its own honour could venture to enforce them. His hon. Friend the Under Secretary had charged the noble Lord with a violation of good taste in commenting upon the conduct of the French Government; but his hon. Friend in what he stated a few moments afterwards went on to justify something like strong language on the part of the noble Lord, for he described the state of things in Mexico as most unsatisfactory. But his hon. Friend told them that when Almonte arrived, everything got into a state of confusion. But who brought Almonte there? His hon. Friend knew

  375
  it was the French Government, and his hon. Friend was obliged, by the stress of truth, to acknowledge that France had acted in violation of the convention. Well, then, if the Government of France deliberately violated in the spring a convention made in the autumn, hon. Gentlemen were not to be taunted with a violation of good taste in commenting upon such conduct. He entirely agreed in what his hon. Friend said in regard to Spain and General Prim. So far as he knew, there had not been a single default in anything required by honour and justice on the part of Spain, and he rejoiced in seeing that Spain, by her honourable conduct and the recovery of her former strength, was returning to her ancient position in Europe. His hon. Friend spoke with great justice of the difficulty of enforcing claims against such Governments as the Mexican. It was easy to establish the claim and apply force, but the difficulty was to find some alternative. We had money claims against the Mexican Government, but, unfortunately, money was exactly what they had not got. What should we have instead? We would not become conquerors; we were resolutely determined not to become conquerors of any territory in that part of the world. But the securities which that unfortunate Government was able to offer were of such a kind that we could not receive them. One security which they offered was a loan which they had concluded with a foreign State. We objected to that with great justice, for we said we did not choose to enter into a convention which should recognise those insidious loans by which one State was acquiring a sort of lien on the territory of another. Then they offered what in this country would be called Crown lands; but the duty of administering them would be so exceedingly troublesome that it would be impossible for the Government that should enter into such a Convention to have any peace. And then there seemed to be an equally strong objection to a lien on the customs duties of Mexico. He did not see what Her Majesty's Government were contemplating. He knew that they desired to be paid. His hon. Friend said that the Government did not foresee the state of circumstances which had occurred; but he thought they might have foreseen that the Mexican Government would be without money. He should have thought that it would chiefly enter into the minds
  376
  of Her Majesty's Ministers to instruct their representatives in Mexico as to what they might take as a substitute for money, and he could not find in the papers any trace of such instructions. It seemed to him that the series of negotiations disclosed by the papers was a good illustration of the way in which the French Government used its relations with this country as a means to prop the Imperial throne. It was of great moment to the French Government to divert attention from affairs at home by causing it to be seen that the French Government was engaged in some great transactions abroad in concert with one of the great settled States of Europe.
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present: House counted; and 40 Members not being present,
  House adjourned at a quarter after Eight o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Parochial Buildings (Scotland); Savings Banks (Ireland).
2a Poor Relief (Ireland); Industrial and Provident Societies.
3a Leases and Sales of Settled Estates Act Amendment; Jurisdiction in Homicides; Chancery Regulation (Ireland).

POOR RELIEF (IRELAND) BILL.

  [BILL NO. 166.] SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLE, in moving the second reading of this Bill, said, that the laws at present in force in Ireland with respect to the relief of the poor was comprehended in a series of enactments, commencing in 1838, and ending in 1851 with the Medical Charities Act. Since 1851 several successive Chief Secretaries had introduced various measures for altering or amending the law—in fact, since 1854 scarce a Session had passed without some effort being made having that object; but nothing had been done. He believed that, upon the whole, the existing law had been well administered, and had given satisfaction both to the poor and to the landed proprietors. But it was naturally to be expected, that as time passed considerable defects would be discovered in regard to the working of such a law, and these defects it was the object of the present measure to remedy. Last year the
  334
  whole subject was referred to a Select Committee of the House of Commons. That Committee had conducted a lengthened inquiry, and had made a Report containing numerous recommendations, most of which had been embodied in the Bill he now submitted to their Lordships' consideration. The alterations proposed might be classed under three principle heads. Their Lordships would, no doubt, recollect that in the measure of 1847 a clause, proposed by the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Gregory), and called "the Quarter Acre Clause," was adopted, by which it was enacted that the guardians of unions should not give relief to any person who held land to the extent of a quarter of an acre. This proposition was adopted in the belief that some such restriction was required, in order to prevent landowners and occupiers from being unduly pressed. He was not prepared to say that that clause was not a perfectly wise and prudent one at the time it was passed; but its operation at the present day was harsh, and he apprehended their Lordships would agree with him that the clause ought to be repealed, and the law in that respect placed on the same footing as it now stood in England and Scotland. The present restriction was harsh in its operation, and did not provide that amount of security against an improper administration of the poor laws in Ireland which was contemplated. The second point to which he would refer, showing that the present administration of relief in Ireland was faulty, related to the hospital system. The law was, that no person should be admitted into the workhouse hospitals who was not destitute. In the Act of 1843 there were clauses which had worked admirably; and the object of the hospital clauses in this Bill was to enable a class of persons, not the very poorest, to obtain admission into these hospitals, but they would have to pay some portion of the expenses. The Bill further provided, that if persons able to bear the whole cost of their maintenance entered these hospitals they should not therefore, if voters, lose their franchise. There was no provision in the Bill which interfered with county infirmaries, nor was there any desire to do so. It had been clearly shown by the Report of the Medical Charities Commissioners, that these county infirmaries, however useful in themselves, were inadequate to the wants of the people; and, SO far from any interference with them

  335
  being contemplated, power was taken in the Bill to send persons from the union hospitals to the county hospitals. The third point which he would notice was the relaxation made by this Bill in favour of orphan and destitute children. It had been found that indigent children were, under the present law, obliged to remain in workhouses too long a period, and that that caused a great amount of mortality among them; in some places as high as 50 per cent. There were clauses in the Bill which would enable guardians to put these children out to nurse up to a certain age. A great discussion had taken place in the other House in regard to the limit, but ultimately it was agreed that it should be fixed at five years, with power to the guardians in certain cases to increase it to eight years. If the limit should be placed at twelve years, it would be departing from the object of this clause, which was purely one of a sanitary character, and it would be making it a clause of an educational character. The remaining clauses of the Bill related to minor regulations, which could be considered at a future stage. He hoped that their Lordships would not object to the second reading of the Bill.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.
  THE EARL OF CLANCARTY:* My Lords, I fully concur in what has fallen from the noble Duke regarding the operation of the Poor Law in Ireland. It was, undoubtedly, the most important measure ever enacted for the social amelioration of the Irish people; and to the noble Earl opposite, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, the utmost credit is due for having originated it. I am happy also to express my concurrence in those provisions of the Bill now before the House to which the noble Duke has particularly referred; but the noble Duke has omitted to notice some most important, and, at least, one most objectionable provision, which I am therefore sure he has not examined. The Bill, in fact, contains new and important principles, which require to be the more carefully and impartially examined into, as, although introduced under the auspices of Government, it is the production rather of a Select Committee of the House of Commons than a measure prepared and brought forward by the responsible advisers of the Crown. I will, therefore, briefly draw your Lordships' attention to some of its principal provisions. It opens with a clause modifying the existing law
  336
  with respect to the chargeability of paupers. The tendency is towards the principle of union rating, which many object to. I confess that any objection I entertain to the clause is, that it stops short of union rating for the cost of all cases of destitute poor persons relieved in the workhouse. The law as it now stands is very unjust to the ratepayers in towns, and affords an undue advantage to the proprietors of rural districts; who are enabled, by limiting the occupation of their lands to solvent farmers, and to so many only of the labouring class as are necessary for the cultivation of the soil, to cast the chief burden of the poor rate upon town districts. No blame can attach to landlords, but rather credit that they endeavour to have their lands profitably occupied; but as this has not been effected, and could not be without the removal of redundant population, wherever, on the falling-in of old leases, that evil had to be dealt with—and as the practice has commonly been to make pecuniary compensation to the families so removed, these have usually resorted to the towns, where alone they could find accommodation. The consequence has been, that after a time, on their becoming destitute, the burden of their support has been charged upon the locality to which they have resorted, instead of upon the division from whence they came. The chief cause of destitution is the excess of population beyond the means of employment. It has been an evil common to town and rural districts, and the burden should be shared by both alike. A different rule should, however, apply to the cost of medical relief. Each division, having a direct interest in the health and helpfulness of every one of its inhabitants, should be separately charged for it; and as such relief is most economically administered where it is most efficient, every inducement should be held out to the local guardians to look to it, as well as to prevent the abuses to which otherwise it would be liable. Any kind of outdoor relief also should be strictly chargeable upon the divisions within which it is administered. With regard to the proposed repeal of what is called the Quarter-Acre Clause, I regret to say that it is a step fully justified by the experience of the severe sufferings and privations of many small landholders in the last three years of excessive wet, causing the loss of the greater part of the food on which they counted for the support of their families. A Poor Law

  337
  cannot be regarded as complete while any class of destitute persons—such as many of these have been of late—is unprovided for. Some provision ought, however, to be made on behalf of the ratepayers, that the land in the occupation of persons receiving relief as destitute poor should not be exempted from the poor rate. The Bill contains no such provision. I trust, therefore, the subject will receive the consideration of the Government. If the principle of limitation might still be preserved, it might solve the difficulty to confine the relief of persons in the occupation of land to those whose holdings, being valued under £4 a year, have their poor rates paid by their landlords. The next five clauses, which relate to the administration of medical relief, are, in my judgment, a great improvement upon the existing law; and I trust that, as the advantages of hospital treatment for the sick poor become more apparent, the present dispensary system, which is good in theory, but in practice of very little value, will be in a great measure superseded. The 10th clause, which regards the maintenance of bastard children, is the introduction of a new and important principle into Ireland. It cannot be denied that the present law, by which the unfortunate mothers are alone responsible for their illegitimate offspring, is very unjust to the weaker sex, and holds out to the seducer of innocence all the encouragement of perfect immunity. It operates also as a hardship upon the ratepayers, upon whom is commonly cast not only the cost of maintaining and educating illegitimate children, but also that of supporting their wretched mothers, who, owing to loss of character, often remain permanent inmates of the workhouse. The objections to the mea sure are twofold—on the one hand, by exonerating the women from their present responsibility for their offspring, it is to be feared that they may the more easily become the victims of seduction; and on the other hand, the temptation will be presented to the mothers of bastard children falsely to affiliate them, thus giving occasion for demoralizing investigations not unfrequently of a nature to disturb the peace and happiness of domestic circles. Great, however, as are these objections, I do not think they outweigh those that exist against the present law. I therefore hope this clause may be enacted. I regret to say that to the next—the 11th clause—which, as well as the preceding one, the
  338
  noble Duke has not noticed, I must offer my decided opposition. It is designed to settle the question—In what religion a deserted child of unknown parentage should be educated? The common law has been by the most eminent lawyers declared to be that such poor children, being under the guardianship of the State, should be brought up as members of the Established Church; and such has been uniformly the practice in Ireland as well as in England until of late, when, it appears by the evidence of Mr. Power, Chief Commissioner of the Poor Law, taken before a Select Committee of the House of Commons, that the practice was objected to, and had been departed from in some of the Irish Poor Law unions. By this clause it is proposed, in favour of such objections, to set the common law aside by an enactment to the effect that every deserted child shall henceforth be brought up in the religion of the person, whosoever he may be, by whom it is brought to the Workhouse, which person is described in these terms:—"the person lawfully having care and possession of the child last before its admission to the workhouse." It is difficult to conceive how any person could unlawfully take possession of a deserted infant to convey it to the nearest workhouse; but this laboured description of the person performing the simplest act of humanity was introduced probably with the view of investing him with peculiar attributes and seeming qualifications for the position of the child's guardian—namely, the having had lawful possession and care of it, although such possession and care extended no further than to take the most ready means of getting rid of it without committing a crime. The proposition of making a child's religion to depend upon what might be the religious creed, if any, of the person presenting the child at the workhouse, originated, it appears, with Mr. Poor Law Commissioner Power, who alone was examined upon the subject before the Select Committee of the House of Commons. It may naturally be asked, what was the justification, what the public grounds for making such a recommendation? I will, with the permission of your Lordships, read the portion of his evidence in which he gives his reasons for the proposed alteration of the law. He is asked, in Question 911—
  "What is the law of the land upon the subject?—As explained by Mr. Blackburn when he was Attorney General, his opinion being agreed in by

  339
  Mr. Brewster, when he was Attorney General, the law of the land is, that a child, of whose parents the religion is not known, shall be brought up in the religion of the State."
  915. "The law of the land being as you have described it, what is your reason for proposing to alter it?—A great deal of difficulty has been found in enforcing that state of the law. The guardians of a great many of the unions, not of all the unions, but of a large majority of them, are very much dissatisfied with that arrangement, because they think that instances occur where the parents of the child are probably Roman Catholic, and they object to permit it to be registered a Protestant. Upon that fact they stand, and enter the religion accordingly in the register. The way to vindicate the law is to proceed by mandamus against the board of guardians in those cases. We have attempted to do it; but, as it is stated in one of our reports, 'difficulty has been experienced in carrying out the law in some of the Unions in Ireland, the guardians objecting to permit a child to be registered as a Protestant in the face of a strong probability that the parents deserting the child were Roman Catholics. In such cases the mode of compelling the adoption of the legal course is an application for a mandamus to the Court of Queen's Bench; but it frequently happens in such cases that the child's death prevents the process being commenced, or carried through; and such is the strength of popular feeling upon the subject, that if at any time it seemed probable that process was about to issue compelling the guardians to alter the religious denomination of the register, arrangements would be made to remove the child from the workhouse, and maintain it elsewhere.' That has occurred in individual cases. They have been taken away. 'Under these circumstances, it appears desirable that some further legislation should take place on the subject, and we trust that whatever course Parliament may in its wisdom adopt, will have the effect of removing an irritating topic of discussion from the boardrooms of the guardians, and placing the law on a clear and definite basis, and one which will ensure a willing acquiescence in its provisions by those who are called on locally to administer it.'"
  917. "Do you consider that the law on that subject is not clear and definite at present?—I doubt whether we could succeed: we never have. We have never succeeded in enforcing the law, and I doubt whether we could succeed in obtaining a mandamus. I know there is a difference of opinion among eminent lawyers on the subject."
  919. "Then, if the law of the land be under stood to be as you have described it, and if, as your report says, there is something indefinite or not clear in the state of the law, do you not think that the proper remedy would be to place the law on a clear and definite footing, and pass an enactment on the Bubject?—Yes, we wish for some enactment."
  920. "Would it not be an alternative method, and more in accordance with the law of the land, by this section to enact that all deserted children should, up to the proper period, be brought up in the religion of the State?—That is an alternative, no doubt."
  921. "Which is the simplest in your judgment?—We have finally determined on recommending this course.
  340
  Now, I do not hesitate to say, that such evidence, and we have none other, affords no warrant whatever for an alteration of the law by which the religion of the National Church would be set aside. Although more serious objections might be urged against such a step, it should not be forgotten that by the Act for the Union of Great Britain and Ireland it is expressly set forth, as an essential and fundamental condition, that the United Church of England and Ireland should be upheld and preserved in all respects as one Church in government and discipline, as well as in doctrine and worship, as then by law established, and that, therefore, to introduce into Ireland a different state of the law affecting it from that which exists in England might be a violation of a solemn compact. But I also question the accuracy of Mr. Power's evidence as to the objections that he says hove been raised by a majority of the boards of guardians against the existing law. Until I read his statement I never heard of any serious difficulty being made about complying with it. Ever since the Poor Law has been in existence, I have presided over an extensive union in the West of Ireland, where the great majority of the population is Roman Catholic, and I can assure the House that no such difficulty ever arose there. The question, I believe, was once raised as to the religion in which foundling infants should be baptized; but when the law was declared, it was readily acquiesced in; and it is further remarkable, that in the three different Parliamentary inquiries that have taken place into the working of the Poor Law, no complaint was made, nor evidence given, of any resistance to the baptizing of foundlings in the religion of the Established Church. But supposing such objections now to have arisen, even to the extent represented by Mr. Commissioner Power, and the existing law to have been resisted by a majority of the boards of guardians, for the reason stated—that the parents of any deserted children were most probably Roman Catholics—the proposition in the Bill does not meet the difficulty; for the person conveying a deserted infant to the workhouse may be a Protestant, and still the parents who left their offspring to perish, but whose religious principles are so highly prized, were, as suggested, probably Roman Catholics. It seems also to have been overlooked, that by possibility the bringer of the child might be a Jew or a Mohammedan, or a person of no religion at all.

  341
  What, in any such case, is to be the religion of the poor ward of the State? What, in the case of more frequent occurrence, of the deserted child being found at the workhouse door, when the person last in what is called lawful possession and care of it cannot be discovered? The proposition contained in this clause as a settlement of the question is, I must say, alike as utterly absurd as it is upon every ground unwarrantable; and I am not surprised that the noble Duke should have abstained from saying one word in support or explanation of it. From Mr. Power's evidence all that I can gather is, that the Poor Law Commissioners dread to incur unpopularity with a portion (and, although it makes much noise, I believe it to be but a small portion) of the Roman Catholic body inveterately opposed to the Protestant Establishment, and have therefore never seriously attempted to do their duty by availing themselves of the resources at their command for enforcing, in the cases referred to, a compliance with the law. I trust the House will not countenance them in giving encouragement to those boards of guardians which, according to their report, have set the law of the land at defiance, but will either reject the clause altogether, or, if the common law should be deemed insufficiently clear, so amend it as to make it simply declaratory. I cannot, for a moment, believe that your Lordships, on consideration of the nature of the proposed enactment, will concur with the Poor Law Commissioners in regarding the question of the religion in which a deserted child, cast upon the guardianship of the State, should be brought up, as a matter of such absolute indifference as to be made to depend upon the mere chance of what might be the religion, if any, of the person by whom it is conveyed to the workhouse. I am aware that, in discussing the subject in another place, these poor children were spoken of as "miserable outcasts of society." Your Lordships will, I trust, acknowledge them as your fellow-creatures—the equals with yourselves in the eyes of God, and as having peculiar claims upon your protection from their very destitution and helplessness. It is under this aspect that their interests should be considered. No one will deny that a guardian acting in loco parentis should act in the best manner he can for the religious and moral training of his ward. If that be so, surely, then, the State should not be wanting in its duty
  342
  towards such poor children as are cast on its guardianship—to provide that they should be educated in the tenets of that faith which it upholds as being based upon the Word of God, and which your Lordships and the right rev. Prelates will not deny to be the best-calculated to exercise a beneficial influence for time and for eternity upon the character and life of every one by whom it is heartily embraced. Would any parent professing what he so believed to be the truth act otherwise? Would any Christian parent be justified in leaving the religion of his child to be determined by the first person he might happen to meet? Yet by such a chance it is proposed that the fate of the poor Irish orphan or deserted child should be governed. Your Lordships will, I feel assured, not allow the existing law to be set aside, in favour of an enactment framed in such entire disregard both of the established religion of the country and the best interests of the most dependent class of the community. I will only trouble your Lordships by noticing one more clause—namely, that by which the Poor Law Commission is re-appointed. It is made to include the Chief and Under Secretaries to the Lord Lieutenant. Now, my Lords, as it is impossible that these gentlemen can apply themselves to the business of the Commission, it would be much better that their names were left out. The Lord Lieutenant is the authority to which the Irish people naturally turn for protection when they conceive themselves to be aggrieved by malpractices in any public department; and whatever is clone, or whatever answer is returned, it is usually through the Chief or Under Secretary. But how can the Lord Lieutenant be referred to with confidence, in any difficulty arising between the public and the Poor Law Board, if his Secretaries are themselves members of the Commission? The inconvenience has been very seriously felt; and I trust, as I suggest that their names should be omitted with no other object than that of beneficially amending the existing law, the subject will receive the consideration of the Government. I now leave the whole subject with your Lordships, only thanking you for your indulgent attention to the remarks I have taken the liberty of bringing under your notice.
  THE EARL OF LEITRIMrose to move an Amendment that the Bill be read a second time that day six months. The measure came before their Lordships in a

  343
  manner that deserved to be marked by the signal dissatisfaction of the House. He entreated their Lordships not to pursue a vacillating and one-sided policy towards Ireland. By this Bill rich convents and monasteries were exempted from the poor rate. Why should this be? He wished to know whether the people of Ireland were the subjects of Queen Victoria or of the Pope. The clause with regard to deserted children was absurd and unjust; because, while care was taken of such children, nobody would be bound to look after them under this Bill. The poorhouses of Ireland would become so many monasteries and convents. The policy of the noble Earl (the Earl of Clarendon), whilst Lord Lieutenant, was the cause of the present unfortunate state of things in Ireland, for before his time the Roman Catholic bishops of that country were elected by the priests, but now they were nominated in reality by the Pope. He should like to know how the noble Earl reconciled his correspondence with the Pope to his oath of allegiance. The Bill was destructive of the rights and liberties of the people of Ireland, and calculated to introduce discord into the country, and therefore he should move that it be rejected.
  Amendment moved, to leave out "now," and insert "this day six months."
  THE EARL OF BANDONwas understood to oppose the Bill, on the ground that it went on a wrong basis altogether.
  VISCOUNT DUNGANNONthought it possible that there might be some portions of this Bill which would be advantageous, though he must protest against some of the clauses. The clause which was to regulate the religion of foundlings was not only iniquitous, but absurd. It was ridiculous to enact that such children should be brought up in the religion of the persons who happened to find them. The clauses, also, which referred to the conversion of poorhouses into hospitals, in his opinion, required serious consideration.
  LORD MONTEAGLEagreed that the medical portion of the Bill required further consideration, for their Lordships should be very careful not to do anything which would injure the admirable medical system which at present existed in Ireland. The medical and surgical schools of Ireland were most excellent, and he feared that the provisions of this Bill would do more
  344
  to injure them than could be repaired in a century.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREthought that the measure ought to be read a second time, in so far as it carried out the recommendations of the Commons' Committee of last year; but the hospital clauses were not in accordance with the recommendations of that Committee; and, indeed, the Committee reported that further evidence was desirable upon that matter. The practical effect of the hospital clauses would be to destroy the county infirmaries which already existed, and which were found so advantageous, because the infirmaries would not be kept up if there was an hospital in each union. The Government, if necessary, should extend the infirmary system; but surely they should not, by establishing a new system, destroy that which already existed. He gave the Government credit for attempting to deal with the question of deserted children, though he thought it absurd that the religion in which the children were to be brought up should be a matter of hap-hazard.
  THE EARL OF DESARTwas understood to support the second reading of the Bill.
  Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn: Then the original Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.
  House adjourned at half-past Seven o'clock, to Thursday next, half-past Ten o'clock.