Sitting of 28 July 1862

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° African Slave Trade Treaty (No. 2).
2° Tralee Savings Bank (No. 2).
3° Consolidated Fund (Appropriation).

THE ARMY IN INDIA.—QUESTION.
COLONEL GILPINsaid, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for India, Whether he still adheres to his determination of not enlarging his Retirement List of Officers of long service, but still of less than twenty years' service, who are now receiving Indian pay, but for whom no employment can be found; whether it is intended to post any Officers to the newly-raised regiments; and whether there is any chance of the Dhar prize money being shortly distributed?
MR. T. G. BARINGsaid, in the absence of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for India, he had to inform the hon. Gentleman that no representations had been received from the Government of India to the effect that it would be desirable to increase the number of retirements, and at present it was not intended to increase them. With respect to the second question, he presumed the hon. Gentleman meant the new infantry and cavalry of the line. The India Office was in expectation of receiving by every mail a list of the officers, and the matter rested with the Commander-in-Chief in India. With respect to the last Question, the principle for the distribution of the Dhar prize money had been decided by the Treasury, and steps had been taken for the preparation of the Queen's warrant, which had been delayed in consequence of the illness of the Queen's Advocate. At present the matter was in the hands of the Admiralty Advocate, and he believed there would be no further delay.

SLAVE TRADE ON THE AFRICAN COAST.

  QUESTION.
  MR. H. SEYMOURsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether Her Majesty's Government are aware that a system exists of conveying so-called Free Negroes from the port of St. Paul's de Loando, on the west coast of Africa, to the island of St. Thomas, under the passport of the Portuguese Governor General; whether this is not a breach of the Treaty of July, 1842; and, if so, what steps Her Majesty's Government have taken in this matter?
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I am sorry to say, Sir, that Her Majesty's Government have received information to the effect that practices, such as my hon. Friend adverts to, have been carried on between the Portuguese Settlements on the western coast of Africa and the island of St. Thomas—that is to say, under the pretence of transporting free labourers, a real slave trade has been carried on. Her Majesty's Government have remonstrated against it, and they are still in negotiation—communication I should rather say—with the Portuguese Government on the subject. While communications are pending, it would not be advisable to lay the Correspondence before Parliament; but when they are finished, that Correspondence will be submitted to Parliament with
  908
  the Slave Trade Papers of next year. I am sorry to add to that statement that the love and habit of slavery is so ingrained in the Spanish and Portuguese nations, that in spite of all the efforts of their respective Governments both the Portuguese and Colonial authorities of the east and western coast of Africa, and the Spanish authorities in Cuba, do persevere in violating the orders of their Governments and the treaties by which they are bound. But I hope that in the course of time the representations of Her Majesty's. Government may have the effect of stimulating the Governments of Madrid and Lisbon to adopt more stringent, measures to enforce their orders, and to take care that their treaty obligations are not violated.

  KENSINGTON GARDENS.—QUESTION.
  MR. HARVEY LEWISsaid, he would beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works, Whether his attention has been called to the state of the paths and woodland in Kensington Gardens; and, if so, whether it is his intention to take any steps to have the same put into a proper state by drainage; and whether there is any prospect of completing the works at the ornamental water in the Gardens?
  MR. COWPERsaid, in reply, that in one of the central parts of Kensington Gardens under the trees there had been during the late wet weather an accumulation of water. That water could easily be got rid of by drains, but he apprehended that drains in that situation would do more than remove the water, they might also remove the trees. Many trees had been killed in former times by draining the Gardens, and he considered it as one of the duties of his office to take care of the old trees. He was, therefore, not willing to expose them to any risk. In reply to the second Question, he had to state that the contractor who was sinking the well at the upper end of the Serpentine had brought up a considerable supply of water, but he was now occupied in boring into the chalk for the purpose of procuring a still larger suppply.

  IRON-CASED SHIPS.—QUESTION.
  MR. LAIRDsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, If the Admiralty have decided to build or alter any more timber vessels to be cased partially with iron-armour plating on Mr. Reed's plan until the Enterprise, now being altered, is completed and tried?
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETreplied that one vessel was now being built upon the plan proposed by Mr. Reed, but he could not make any statement with respect to the future intentions of the Admiralty.

ELECTRIC LIGHT AT DUNGENESS.

  QUESTION.
  LORD LOVAINEsaid, he rose to ask the President of the Board of Trade, Whether the Electric Light now in use at Dungeness Lighthouse has not been successful; and, if so, whether its adoption is to form part in the alterations contemplated by the Trinity Board in the Portland Lights; and to move for copy of Mr. Faraday's Reports on the Light to the Royal Commissioners, and of those made by order of the Trinity Board?
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, the Electric Light had been exhibited only for a short time at Dungeness, but so far as experience went, the result was encouraging. A proposal had been made to the Board of Trade by the Trinity Board for the reconstruction of the Lights at Portland, and they had replied by asking whether the time might not come for placing the Electric Light there as well as at Dungeness, but they had received no answer to that letter. At present the matter might be said to be under consideration. The Electric Light was entirely in an experimental position, and time must elapse before an opinion could be formed as to whether it would be safe to adopt it elsewhere. There would be no objection to producing the papers.
  LORD LOVAINEsaid, he would give notice that next Session he would call attention to the experiments which had been made with the Electric Light on the coasts of the United Kingdom.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION BILL.—THIRD READING.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  LORD HENRY LENNOXsaid, he regretted the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War was absent, as he wished to make a few observations, which would take the form of a question. The matter to which he was about to refer was of such pressing importance that he should consider that he was nut doing his duty if he omitted to call attention to it. He alluded to the 13th section of the Bill,
  910
  which had reference to stores for land and sea services, but principally to the item of the Armstrong guns. It would be in the recollection of the House that on Friday night last his hon. Friend the Member for Liskeard (Mr. Bernal Osborne) asked the Secretary for War, whether the second large Armstrong gun, which was loaded with 25 lbs. of powder, had burst, and been rendered unserviceable; and, if so, whether a Committee composed of skilled and scientific men should not be appointed at once to test the principle upon which the gun was made? The Secretary for War replied that it was perfectly true that the gun had burst, but he declined to grant any further inquiry into the subject. Since that time circumstances had come to his (Lord Henry Lennox's) notice which justified him in calling the attention of the House to them. It was well known that the French had an admirable system of testing the power of their artillery. They tested not only the power of resistance from within, but also the power of resistance from without; in other words, they shot both with and at the gun. Many of the most experienced artillerists both here and in France had expressed the opinion that the same causes which made the Armstrong guns so powerful in throwing shot, at the same time rendered them peculiarly liable to injury from a comparatively trifling blow from without. What he wished to ask was, whether it was true that a trial had been made of throwing grape shot from 32-pounders and 68-pounders at a range of 300 yards; whether it was true that in that way sixty rounds were fired, but from the enormous range—it being the extreme range of grape—that only three of the guns had been hit in the sixty rounds? He wished also to ask, whether the firing had not proved totally destructive or materially injurious to those guns that were hit? He should add that the Armstrong guns were of various calibre. The next question he wished to ask was, whether, considering that the test which was applied was most favourable to the Armstrong gun, inasmuch as grape shot was fired at the extreme range of 300 yards, instead of the ordinary action range of 150 yards—considering that the test was most favourable to the Armstrong gun—considering, notwithstanding that, that it had signally failed, he wished to ask the Government, whether they did not think that a Committee should be appointed, or Royal Com-

  911
  mission should issue of skilled and scientific men, to inquire how far they ought to go with these trials, and what was the reason for that very costly failure? At that moment 6,000 artificers were employed in the manufacture of the Armstrong guns, and the wages were £10,000 per week. The House was about to close, and in all human probability six months would elapse before they met again, by which time £250,000 in wages alone would have been spent on the Armstrong gun exclusive of the cost of materials, &c., and at the end of that time they would probably have the Government coming down to the House with some blundering excuse find regrets for the past; but a quarter of a million of money would have been swept away from the taxpayers. He trusted that the noble Lord at the head of the Government would answer his Questions, as the Secretary for War was not present.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I am sorry that in the absence of my right hon. Friend (Sir George Lewis) I am unable to give the noble Lord an answer to his Questions, not being acquainted with the circumstances to which he has adverted. My right hon. Friend intended to be here; and if the noble Lord will be kind enough to put his Questions again to-morrow or the next day, no doubt my right hon. Friend will give him the best information which the reports received enable him to offer. I have not heard anything of the statements to which the noble Lord alludes. Generally speaking, the Armstrong guns bear a very high reputation.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he wished to make one or two general remarks upon the Bill, which, although it had passed sub silentio in the House, had occasioned some remark out of doors. Some critics asserted that the printing of the Bill was of no importance, because there never was any Amendment made in it. Now, he thought the printing of the Bill was of the greatest importance, and it was perfectly untrue that the Bill was never amended. In that specific instance the Bill had been amended, and the Government were justly entitled to praise for having so speedily adopted the recommendation of the Committee on Public Accounts in relation to it. No change could now be made in the appropriation of supplies without the particular question being brought distinctly before the House. The effect would be to impose on the different departments a
  912
  deeper sense of responsibility, to make them produce more correct Estimates, and in this way to conduce to public economy. Frequent complaints had been made of money being appropriated to other purposes than those for which it had been voted, and that was especially the case with regard to the wages of soldiers and sailors. In some instances, as much as £2,000,000 had been applied to other purposes. This had been now prevented. He wished to direct special attention to the appropriation of the Votes of Credit for the China war. For the two years 1859–60 and 1860–1 the Appropriation Act declared that the Vote of Credit on account of the China war was to be used within a specified time; but in the last year, for some reason or other, the time was not specified, and any time was given. Here the House had a proof of the necessity of having the Bill printed, because a change of a very important character took place without the knowledge of the House. He regretted the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not in his place, as he desired to know from him how that matter stood—whether the Government had any account of the expenses of the war which was brought to a conclusion by the Treaty of Pekin, and whether there was any objection to lay that account on the table, in order that the House might know exactly what was the expenditure on account of that war. All they at present knew was, that the war had already cost a large sum. He thought it of great importance that the Vote of Credit should be closed as soon as possible, because it was very apt to be applied to other purposes than the purpose for which it was voted.
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, it might be in the recollection of the House, that on the recommendation of the Dockyard Committee, the Metropolitan Police were substituted for the police of the dockyards. In consequence, the three superintendents were relieved from their duties and placed upon a superannuation, which was based upon the amounts they had received for their services, although their half-pay as naval officers had been suspended whilst they discharged the duties of civil police-inspectors. So rapidly were the superintendents removed from their offices that they were warned out of their houses by telegraph—successive telegrams being sent until they were fairly out of the dockyards. One of them—Lieutenant Hall—had been promoted to the rank of

  913
  commander, which entitled him to a pay of £127 a year, and the balance required to make up £183 a year was made up by a civil pension. After enjoying that allowance for nine months, and having made arrangements to live on that income, he was informed that his pension would be reduced by a sum of £67 a year. The matter was brought before the House early in the Session, and he would have mooted it on the Estimates, but he entertained the hope that the Treasury would have seen the injustice that had been committed, especially as the half-pay of these officers had been saved to the country for long periods. The Admiralty was perfectly convinced of the justice of their claims; but the Treasury declined to admit them, and fell back upon an old Act of Parliament. In the conflict between the two Departments the interests of that poor man were sacrificed. He hoped the noble Lord at the head of the Government would see to the case during the recess. He also hoped some member of the Government would state their expectations as to the outlay that would take place during the remainder of the year for the Chinese war. Several years ago he had urged in that House the absolute necessity of our laying down some distinct policy in regard to China. In 1859, he returned to the same subject, and suggested that we ought to establish ourselves in a commanding strategical position on the Yang-tze-Kiang and clear out the district of the rebels, who had since then committed so much devastation. He had also then stated his conviction that the Taepings had no policy except rapine, no object except murder, and that under no circumstances could they be formed into a body with which the Government of this country could deal. It would, he thought, be admitted that his prognostications had not been far wrong. If we intended to maintain our trade with China at all, it was necessary that we should organize a flotilla to clear out the rivers of the miscreants who infested them. We had not done that, and the consequence was, that some of the fairest portions of God's creation had been laid waste. If we paused in our course, we must see our Chinese trade destroyed and every mulberry tree and tea plant cut up by these vagabonds. He understood that a very able and gallant officer of the British navy was about to take service under the Chinese Government, and he now implored the noble Viscount to reconsider his decision on that
  914
  subject. That gallant officer should be placed under the constituted authorities of our own navy in those seas, and should act under the British flag, instead of under that wretched and miserable Chinese flag which had covered every villany which could be imagined. The Chinese Government were able to pay for the clearing out of the rivers from these hordes, or, if they could not, the traders in those waters would gladly do so. He earnestly hoped that Her Majesty's Government would look these matters in the face.
  LORD ROBERT CECILsaid, he had not anticipated that in a debate on the Appropriation Bill they would have anything so exciting recommended to them as a new war with China. Yet that was the policy urged upon them by the hon. and gallant Gentleman who spoke last, and he must therefore express his hope that the Government would pause long before embarking in it. What the hon. Member suggested was that they should save every mulberry tree and tea plantation of China from devastation by the Taepings. Had the hon. Gentleman contemplated the amount of force which that operation would require, or the fearful burden it would throw upon the British taxpayer? That proposal, if it had any chance of being received with favour in official quarters, was one of the most alarming things that he had ever heard in that House, and he must enter his decided protest against it. He wished to ask the Secretary of the Treasury whether, in the Vote of Credit taken last year, there was any power to apply the money which that Vote placed at the disposal of the Government in the organization of a force for an attack upon the Taepings this year—whether in fact that money still remained at the disposal of the Government for operations in China. If so, he trusted they would receive an assurance from the Government that no expedition against the Taepings involving the English taxpayer would be undertaken without an opportunity being afforded the House of definitely expressing its opinion on the subject.
  MR. THOMSON HANKEYsaid, the first item in the Appropriation Bill—namely, that of £6,569,355—was the surplus of the money voted for the public services of the year 1862. These surpluses were carried on from year to year. They had not only been voted by the House, but Ways and Means had been provided for them. Although these surpluses had not

  915
  been used, yet they were just so far contemplated to be used that the Treasury did not think they were justified in paying them back again into the Exchequer. The existing surplus was a very large sum, and he thought it would be desirable if in future years before the Appropriation Bill was laid on the table some explanation were given as to the unappropriated sums which had been voted in Committee of Supply, and for which Ways and Means had been provided.
  MR. PEELsaid, he was sure, that if his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been aware that any question would be addressed to him upon the occasion of the third reading of this Bill, he would have been present upon the occasion. He quite concurred with his hon. Friend the Member for Evesham (Sir Henry Willoughby) as to the importance of having the Bill printed, as it was a security against alterations being made without the express sanction of that House. The hon. Member was, however, mistaken in charging upon the Appropriation Bill the alteration to which he had referred in respect of the Vote of Credit. That Vote was taken in Supply, and any alteration which had taken place must have occurred in Committee of Supply, for the terms in which the Vote was passed were inserted in the Appropriation Bill. The hon. Gentleman appeared to think that the last Vote of Credit with respect to China should have been voted for payment within the year. That might have been convenient, but the money was not voted for payment within the year, nor for the service of the year, but for the specific purposes of the operations in China. He thought the course taken was preferable, as it was understood to be a final Vote of Credit, and therefore there was no necessity to confine it to payments within the year. In reply to the noble Lord he had to say, that he understood the Vote of Credit was distinctly applicable to the late operations in China, and was not available for any new operations such as had been alluded to. He agreed with his hon. Friend in thinking that the change which had taken place in the appropriation clause of the Bill was a beneficial one, and much credit for it was due to the hon. Gentleman who had so ably presided over the Committee upon Public Accounts. The change, however, was rather one of details than of principle, the Committee being desirous of requiring expenditure
  916
  unauthorized by Parliament to receive the sanction of some other Department of the Government besides the Department making the expenditure. He agreed with the hon. Member in thinking that the alteration would tend to economy, and cause the Departments to exercise the responsibilities vested in them with caution and due regard to the necessities of each case. In reply to the hon. Member for Peterborough he would observe, that his question referred to the surplus of Ways and Means at the end of the preceding year, which was larger than usual, because, although provision was made for paying off seven millions of Exchequer Bills, only one million was paid off, and the balance, according to the ordinary practice, had been added to the Ways and Means of the year.
  SIR HUGH CAIRNS: As some of the items of this Bill refer to the administration of justice in Ireland, I am anxious to take this opportunity of asking some questions, in order to elicit further explanation upon a subject connected with the administration of justice in Ireland. I refer to a public procession of very considerable magnitude and importance which recently took place in Dublin. I do not profess to have any information but what is common to all here through the ordinary channels; but, judging from the statements I have seen in the newspapers, it appears that a large number of persons, after ample notice given in fact weeks before, assembled; that they marched in procession on Sunday week last, accompanied with banners of a kind called in Ireland "party colours," and with music known in Ireland as "party music." The subject of party processions in Ireland has, unfortunately, been frequently before this House, and legislation has taken place upon it. I have always deeply deplored the necessity for such legislation; but although in the abstract it seems absurd to legislate about party colours and party music, yet, as we all know that processions have led in Ireland to breaches of the peace, I think the House of Commons wisely came to the conclusion that some legislation was necessary. But, I believe on the other hand, legislation of that kind cannot be maintained or justified unless the law is administered with the strictest impartiality. In 1850 there was an Act passed by which persons assembling and marching in procession with flags or emblems, or singing songs or playing music calculated to provoke animosity, were ren-

  917
  dered liable to certain penalties. It is true that upon the occasion to which I am referring no collision or breach of the peace occurred, but the legality of what took place is not to be judged of by the result. I do not know what the intentions of the Government are, but I do know that a strong feeling has been created in various parts of Ireland by a belief that the Government are not going to take any steps to bring to justice those who were engaged in this unlawful procession. I find the judges now on circuit in Ireland are trying prisoners charged with being present at such assemblages, and in pronouncing sentence upon such persons the judges continually state that it is the intention of the authorities to bring to justice all persons who should be engaged in such assemblages, of whatever party they may be. Now, I put it to the Government, can such language be received with respect or otherwise than derision when the public find that proceedings of the kind which I have stated have taken place in the metropolis, and under the very eyes of the executive authorities of Ireland, without any notice being taken? I also would remind the Government that the justices of the peace in certain parts of Ireland have taken great pains to impress upon their neighbours upon certain anniversaries the propriety of abstaining from all processions, and in consequence of these appeals I believe there has been hardly a single procession in the month in which these anniversaries mostly fall. But how can you expect those exhortations to be received by the humbler classes with deference and respect, when they see in the metropolis persons on the other side doing with impunity what they are warned not to do? The other night my hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh (Captain Archdall) put a Question upon the subject, and the Chief Secretary then said that he was not aware that there had been any banners that were party colours, or music that was party music. I do not know what the exact phase of the matter is; but if the right hon. Gentleman means that banners of the kind mentioned in the newspapers, and music of the kind stated, are not party banners and party music according to the understanding of those words in Ireland, then I think that is a most dangerous declaration, as it will be impossible to tell one party that particular colours and music are party colours and party music, while you declare in respect of the other party the correlative colours and music are not illegal.
  918
  I hope the Government will be able to give a full and satisfactory explanation, and I think the right hon. Baronet should be obliged to me for giving him the opportunity of doing so.
  MR. HENNESSYsaid, he would remind the House that the first procession which took place after the passing of the Act of 1850 was that of February, 1852, in which a green cockade was worn by no less a person than the late Earl of Eglinton, who was of opinion that green was not a party colour in Ireland. In the procession to which the hon. and learned Gentleman had referred there were between 3,000 and 4,000 men, called the Brotherhood of St. Patrick, who, he admitted, did display a party emblem, and were cockades of orange and green; but not the smallest breach of the peace took place. He wished to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman a question on a less exciting subject—namely, whether the Government had as yet come to any resolution with reference to the reduction of some of the professorial chairs in Queen's College. It was understood that in consequence of the small number of students the number of the professors was to be reduced by three, and he wished to know how the money so saved would be appropriated. He was opposed to the reduction of the professors, and, indeed, would gladly give more money for the purpose of keeping up the professorial chairs. He heartily desired that some compromise should be come to, the consequence of which might be to increase the number of students attending the college, and thus provide ample funds to keep up the number of chairs.
  SIR ROBERT PEEL: The subject which the hon. and learned Gentleman, in the exercise of his discretion, has thought proper to bring before the House, has caused considerable feeling in some parts of Ireland; but I think the House will be of opinion that, as far as the Government are concerned, it is a matter which requires to be dealt with with extreme delicacy and caution. No doubt, the procession to which he has referred took place on the 20th of July; but the banners displayed, strictly speaking, belonged to the various trades which joined in the procession; and although green was a predominating colour, yet, as I stated the other night, I do not believe that green is a party colour—in fact, it is the national colour of Ireland. Well, the Government in Ireland have considered very

  919
  carefully the question with reference to this procession. As the hon. and learned Gentleman has truly said, Parliament legislated in 1850 and 1860 upon what are called party processions and displays in Ireland; but the Government had to consider first of all, whether this procession was an infringement of the Emancipation Act. 10 Geo. IV. Now, both the English and the Irish Law Officers agreed that in that Act what was called "the habits of the order" applied to the regulars—that is to friars, and people of that kind; but they maintain that it does not refer to the ordinary clergy, and that such a procession is not a rite or a religious ceremony coming within that Act. The next question is, does the procession come within the Acts of 1850 or 1860? Of course, the Government would desire to act with perfect fairness on these matters, whether as between inhabitants of the North or of the South and West; and all they had to do in this instance was to take the law as their standard, holding the balance equally between both parties. Now, I regret that such a procession has taken place, but it was distinctly a political procession, and was announced as a political manifestation in answer to the noble Lord at the head of the Government, as well as to the noble Earl who was at the head of the late Government, for their refusal to grant a charter to the Catholic University. I admit that the procession took place at an unfortunate moment, when the Protestants were leaving their places of worship, but, at the same time, I esteem it a happy circumstance that the Government were able to take such precautions as prevented the occurrence of any accident or any breach of the peace, and I think that the Government are entitled to take credit to themselves for such a result. The Act referred to by the hon. and learned Gentleman makes it a misdemeanour for any persons in Ireland wilfully and knowingly to do such acts as may tend to promote animosity between different classes of Her Majesty's subjects.
  SIR HUGH CAIRNS: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon; the Act of 1850 has no such words.
  SIR ROBERT PEEL: These words are from the Act of 1860. The Act of 1850 renders unlawful—
  "All assemblies of persons in Ireland who shall meet and parade together or join in procession, and who shall bear, wear, or have among them or any of them any firearms or other offensive
  920
  weapons—[there were none such in this instance]—or any banners, emblem, flag, or symbol, the display whereof may be calculated or tend to provoke animosity between different classes of Her Majesty's subjects, or who shall be accompanied by any person or persons playing music or singing any song which may be calculated or tend to provoke animosity."
  Now, I beg to say that in the opinion of the Law Officers the technicalities of the Act have not been infringed. The banners carried in this procession were the banners of the Dublin trades. There were green and white cockades; but no firearms were carried. As to music, I believe that "Brian Borhoime's March" was played; and although I regret that such a tune should have been played on the Sabbath, I do not think that it is regarded as a party tune. With regard to the procession itself, one would have supposed that the inauguration of a University would have been attended by the learned profession, by the gentry of the country, by the chief men of Ireland. It is almost amusing, however, to refer to the official statement of the persons present, who can hardly be supposed to have added very great character or dignity to the movement. Among the rest of the trades were the House-painters, with a banner borne in a carriage; the Tailors and Plasterers, with their trade banners; the Horse-shoers, with banner in carriage and wearing green riband in their button-holes; the Chimney-cleaners, whose trade emblem was a white silk and green belt, and the Brogue-makers, that is, the makers of wooden shoes. [Mr. BERNAL OSBORNE: They are not wooden shoemakers]. Then there were the grocers' and the pawnbrokers' assistants, the latter numbering 200, and they certainly were some colours; while the ground was kept, I am sorry to say, by what are called the Pope's Brigade—people who clearly, according to the ruling of this House, went out to Italy and formed an illegal band—and I believe that they appeared in the colours of the Pope. But the Acts of 1850 and 1860 refer to party processions which take place annually, such as the anniversary of the battle of the Boyne. A procession like that of 20th of July has an exceptional character. I do not think it is likely to be repeated; but if it should be, it will be for the Government of the day to consider whether they will take some steps with reference to it. Seeing how quietly and tamely the procession passed off, I think the House will be of opinion that Her Majesty's Government acted wisely in not rousing

  921
  unnecessary animosity by taking any proceedings in the matter. But if I wanted any precedent for our justification, I have only to refer to the course pursued by the Government of which the hon. and learned Gentleman formed so distinguished a member. He asks me why we did not at once take steps against these persons for infringing the law. My answer is, that I think it was the part of discretion to forbear, and I find a parallel case in the course taken by the Earl of Derby's Government. The Archbishop of Tuam took part in a procession which, when the Earl of Derby's Government were in office, went to Headford, in the county of Galway. I think there was a confirmation, and the archbishop went in his robes and confirmed a number of people in an open space. The Protestant Dean of Headford wrote to the Government asking them to take steps in the matter, and prosecute Archbishop M'Hale; but the reply was, that the Government thought it more discreet not to interfere. I entirely approve the conduct of the Government in that case; and I think in this instance we also have done wisely. While regretting that such a procession should have taken place, I rejoice that it passed off without any breach of the peace, and with such comparative tameness and quietness. The President of the Catholic University, or rector as he is called, before the procession disclaimed anything like an intention of provoking animosity between the different classes of Her Majesty's subjects in Ireland. His language is very remakable. In his address he says—
  "The man who violates the law of God, or of those whom God has placed over us, is an enemy of the cause—an enemy of Ireland. The man who is disorderly, who drinks to excess, who offends another man, deserves to be handed over to those who have authority to punish him. He is an enemy of the cause, an enemy of Ireland. The man who exhibits ribands, banners, emblems—anything which, justly or unjustly, may by possibility offend another Irishman, is an enemy of the cause, an enemy of Ireland."
  I hope the House will consider this explanation satisfactory. It is a difficult and troublesome matter to deal with, and the greater forbearance and discretion the Government exercises in the matter the better it is, I think, for the peace and welfare of Ireland. With regard to the Question of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, I thought I had stated on the Estimates that the number of the professors were to be diminished by three in the Colleges of
  922
  Cork, Belfast, and Galway. The Government of Ireland have no authority in the matter further than submitting the proposition which the Senate may make to the Treasury, and the Department, no doubt, will approve whatever proposition the Senate may make.
  LORD LOVAINEsaid, the case referred to by the right hon. Baronet had no similarity with that before the House. Dr. M'Hale was confessedly engaged in a purely religious function at Headford, whereas it was admitted that this one under consideration was a political demonstration.
  MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALDsaid, that the state of affairs in China was so serious, and had for some time past exhibited so dangerous an aspect that even at that late period of the Session it was of the greatest importance that the House should have some explanation from the Government as to the actual position and their intentions with regard to our future position in that country. In the Bill before the House, provision was made for the military service of the country; but in view of the events which were likely to happen in China, no hon. Member of Her Majesty's Government would venture to say that that provision was likely to be sufficient. For some time past expeditions had been organized by our authorities in that part of the world, having for their object, to take possession of certain detached villages and forts, at a distance from Shanghai varying from twenty-five to thirty miles. At the first blush any one would say that a more dangerous interference with the population of China could hardly be conceived. That we, who were there simply for the purpose of trade, should mix ourselves up with the internal affairs of the people of China, that we should lend assistance to one party against the other, and should carry on operations at a distance from the ports where alone we were authorized to trade, that we should organize expeditions and attack the rebels as they were called, and inflict on them serious loss was a most extraordinary anomaly. The only explanation which the noble Viscount opposite had been able to give of these proceedings was that the possession of these outlying places was absolutely necessary for the security of British life and property at Shanghai. A few days ago he had asked the Government whether they had received any information as to the accounts which had been received of the repulse of a British force

  923
  in one of these attacks, and the answer was, that they had received no information. Since then additional news had been received, and we were now told that though the British troops had not been repulsed, yet they had necessarily been withdrawn from those detached positions for the protection of Shanghai. Of course, if these places, as the noble Lord had said, were necessary for the protection of British life and property, the loss of them must have placed Shanghai in a very insecure position. He should be glad to hear from the Government what information they had received as to the present position of affairs, and particularly whether reinforcements had been urgently demanded from India in order to support the forces which were in China at the present moment. The policy of the Government on the question had always seemed to him of a most dangerous character. He believed that we were now on the eve of a third Chinese war, and the House well knew the expense of such undertakings. From the evidence given by a member of the Government before a Select Committee, hon. Members were aware that at the present moment the Army Estimates which had been voted were not sufficient, and that they were day by day exceeded in consequence of the necessity of maintaining a military force in China which had not been calculated for at the time the Estimates were prepared. It was then considered that we should be able to withdraw a regiment from China, instead of which that regiment was retained there for the defence of Shanghai, and by the late accounts reinforcements were urgently demanded. In the course which the Government had adopted towards the rebels, as they were called, in China, they had seriously compromised the honour and dignity of this country, as that of a Christian and civilized people. In the county to which he belonged a gentleman had recently published certain facts of which he had himself been an eyewitness. A large number of prisoners taken in one of those expeditions by our troops had been handed over by the British authorities to what we termed the Chinese Government to be dealt with by them, and this gentleman stated that he was a witness of the slaughter in cold blood of upwards of 300 prisoners—prisoners to the British arms whom we had handed over to be thus inhumanly dealt with. In another point of view, too, our
  924
  position had been compromised. Hitherto the Chinese Government had not been in possession of a fleet, and it was necessary for them to obtain one. As had happened frequently before, there was a certain notorious pirate whom the Government had never been able to put down. He was notorious throughout those seas for the commission of acts of inhumanity and barbarity which could scarcely be paralleled, but, not being able to beat him, the Chinese Government made him admiral in chief of their fleet, and it was with this man that our gallant soldiers and sailors were called on to act upon terms of equality. This was a most disgraceful fact, and compromised in the strongest manner the honour and dignity of the country. It was impossible to say what might be the effect of such proceedings on such a population. It was all very well for the noble Lord to say that the Taepings were nothing but barbarians, that they were scourges, and ought to be exterminated, but the noble Lord had used language quite as strong in regard to the Chinese Government itself. He spoke quite as severely, and justly too, of the proceedings of Commissioner Yeh. It was perfectly clear that the party of the rebels, though their character might be as bad as was represented, was a very strong party. They might be bloodthirsty and sanguinary marauders, but they mustered a force of from 30,000 to 50,000 against us, and it was with a population such as that that we gratuitously and unnecessarily brought ourselves into collision. He hoped the Government would give some explanation of its intentions—for it seemed that we were entering on a course of which it was impossible to see the end. We seemed to be entering into another of our Chinese wars, and hon. Members knew how long they generally lasted and what they cost—and how long it would be before they got to the end of the bill. In the Persian war we never got the bill until it was all over. He wished to ascertain from the noble Lord, whether any information had been received by the Government as to the present state of affairs in China; whether any reinforcements had been asked for that country of the Indian Government; and whether it was the intention of the Government to hold in China the same language to which it was their pride to proclaim their adherence in every other part of the world—namely, one of non-interference in the internal affairs of other States.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, that instead of a force of 40,000 or 50,000, as the hon. Gentleman seemed to think, it appeared the Taepings had 400,000 men under arms, occupying the provinces of Kiangsu and Cheh-Kiang and part of Ngan-hwei, with a population exceeding 98,000,000 of souls—Shanghai being in the province of Cheh-Kiang. He would observe that from the notorious character of Mr. Ward, as an American filibuster, to whom the hon. Gentleman had referred, it seemed strange that Admiral Hope and his officers could associate with him, without feeling themselves disgraced. The Taepings must have been exasperated by our repeated onslaughts, nevertheless it was a most singular circumstance that they had never yet committed an act of retaliation on any Europeans, while thousands of them had been slaughtered by our far-reaching artillery. As a proof of the forbearance with which they treated Europeans, he mentioned that on a recent occasion, when Sepoys who fell into their hands were all killed, a number of sailors, Europeans, were either released or allowed to escape and reach Shanghai in safety. If we had pursued a policy of neutrality in China, we should not be in the hazardous position in which we were placed in that country. There was, it was true, an arrangement made between us and the Taepings that they should not approach within thirty miles of Shanghai, but then it was on the condition that Shanghai should not be made a basis of operations against them. We, however, had broken faith with them, and were collecting the customs duties in the city amounting to a million sterling per annum, which we handed over to the Tartar Government, and which was employed against those very Taepings. The accounts which had been received that morning were most unsatisfactory. We had been driven from all our captures, in consequence of the reappearance of the Taepings in overwhelming numbers, and were obliged to defend ourselves in Shanghai, and he had no doubt we should be able to do so. But the country around was the scene of bloodshed and murder, whilst but for our uncalled-for interference it would have been in a state of peace, and Shanghai an undisturbed free port.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he did not wish to interpose in the discussion on Chinese affairs, but he felt it necessary to make a remark on what had fallen from the Chief Secretary for Ireland.
  926
  The right hon. Gentleman had stated that the Act of 1829, which applied to the wearing of certain robes, was restricted to the regular or monastic orders connected with the Roman Catholic Church. Now, he considered the interpretation of the right hon. Gentleman far too narrow. If that interpretation was to be allowed, it was clear that if any magistrate interposed to prevent processions which were objectionable to the people of this country, he would be reduced to the necessity of proving what were the regular orders of the Church, and that the habits or robes worn in the procession belonged to some regular order. That was a most difficult matter to ascertain. He was glad that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Belfast (Sir Hugh Cairns) had called the attention of the House to the subject. The course he had taken was consistent with that pursued by the Earl of Derby's Government, of which he was a member, since that Government in 1852 found it necessary, for the preservation of peace, to issue a proclamation forbidding processions headed by ecclesiastics in the robes of their order taking place in England. There had then been two infringements of that Act in this country. One took place in Hammersmith and another in Warwickshire. He himself was the acting magistrate in the latter case, and was compelled to apply to the Government to prevent the recurrence of such processions in the district in which he lived, on Sundays, because the people, finding the services at their churches and chapels interrupted, had threatened to take the law into their own hands unless some intention was shown of protecting them against interference and insult. The feeling in that district was still very strong. He (Mr. Newdegate) did not think it right, either in law or in policy, to put an interpretation on the clause of the Act of 1829 which might lead to a repetition of the scenes to which he had alluded, which would not occur if the law hereafter was understood and administered as it was administered by the Law Officers of the Earl of Derby's Government in 1852.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: All I can say in reply to the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. S. Fitzgerald) is, that Her Majesty's Government have not, to my knowledge, received any information to-day with respect to the points involved in this question. It is, however, possible that

  927
  this afternoon or to-morrow we may be in the receipt of intelligence which would enable me to give him a more satisfactory answer. I may add that I cannot help thinking it somewhat remarkable, that when discussions take place in this House with respect to insurrection against a Government which is not supported by the feeling of the people—as was the case in Italy, for instance—hon. Gentlemen on that side declaim against the insurgents and maintain the cause of the Sovereigns deposed. But when an insurrection takes place in China, the object of which is the utter destruction of everything created by the art and industry of man, then the insurgents are taken under the special protection of some hon. Gentleman in this House. We are making no war in China except that which is necessary for defending the positions in which our trade is carried on. Nobody who knows anything about our commercial relations with China can doubt the great importance of these trading ports, or that our commerce would be annihilated if they were to fall into the hands of the Taepings; because notwithstanding all that has been said, the real truth is that the Taepings are nothing but destroyers. They destroy everything. Wherever they go they live upon the produce of the industry of others. When they have exhausted one district, they pass on to another where they may find fresh stores of accumulated wealth to plunder and enjoy. Therefore to allow them to come to the seats of our trade would simply be to give up our commerce to entire destruction. We are only doing that which is necessary for the maintenance of our commercial relations with China. As to the pirate who was taken and made an admiral, it is not an uncommon thing in semi-civilized countries for a man who has been in revolt against the Government to receive pardon, and to be employed in the service of the Government. The person in question is not in our service; he is in the service of the Chinese Emperor; and if the Chinese think, that by pardoning an enterprising rebel and enlisting him in their service they can do more than by shooting him or cutting off his head, that is a matter for them to judge of, and we have certainly no reason to interfere. With regard to Mr. Ward, I think he is a very respectable man; he has organized and disciplined a good body of troops, and his conduct in command in the field has been such as entitles him to
  928
  respect, instead of making his company a disgrace to those British officers who may associate with him. Nor are we collecting the revenue in China. There are certain Europeans employed by the Chinese Government to collect honestly those duties which were before dishonestly and surreptitiously taken away, and of which the Government were defrauded. We are glad the Chinese Government are now deriving that income. No doubt there is a certain number of persons who derived benefit from defrauding the Government of their legitimate customs duties, and who are naturally anxious that the old system should be restored; but the truth is, that all that is done by those Europeans who are employed not by us, but by the Chinese Government, is to see fair play between the importers and the Chinese authorities. I am not in the least afraid of any Chinese war. We are not at war with China. We are simply co-operating so far with the Chinese Government that we are defending ourselves in those places where we have commercial establishments. As to the 400,000 Taepings, there may be that number spread over the vast extent of territory which we were told on a former occasion contained 400,000 square miles, giving one Taeping to every square mile. If each Taeping would keep within his square mile, no harm could be done; but, unfortunately, that is not the case. Wherever there is a cultivated country or a rich city there the Taepings come to plunder and destroy, murdering everybody that stands in their way. I have only to say, in conclusion, that we have no information touching the particular points to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. When we receive any, it will be submitted to the House.
  MR. BERNAL OSBORNE: I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War, who is now in his place, will give the answer which is due to the important question put to him by the noble Lord the Member for Chichester (Lord Henry Lennox). Considering the enormous sums which have been expended upon a weapon which has not yet been proved to be efficient, and considering, also, that we have still to lament the want of a naval gun, I really think that some statement should be made by the Secretary of State. On a recent occasion the right hon. Gentleman admitted that one of the new Armstrong shunt guns had burst after ninety-two rounds had been fired from it. The

  929
  House is probably aware that the twelve-ton Armstrong gun, which cost nearly £2,000, has failed in the same manner. I believe the shunt gun, which also cost a large sum of money, burst when charged with twenty-five pounds of powder, or ten pounds more than the ordinary charge. Look at the position of Sir W. Armstrong; it is a very curious one. He is the sole director of rifled artillery connected with the War Department; he is also an inventor, and his inventions are before the country. What I want to point out is, that owing to the position he holds, the market is shut against other inventors, and the consequence is that to this day we have not a naval gun. Recently I asked the Secretary of State, whether, in the interest of the public, he would appoint a Committee of skilled officers and mechanicals to inquire into the principle upon which the Armstrong guns are constructed, with the view of ascertaining what are the causes of the failures which have occurred The right hon. Gentleman said we had two Committees already, and could not want another. One of the Committees to which he referred is the Select Committee on Ordnance. That Committee has nothing whatever to do with the construction of guns, and I am informed that in several instances guns have been issued contrary to its expressed opinion the other Committee is one sitting upstairs. But what good, I ask, can come of referring the question of the construction of guns to a House of Commons Committee? If we mean to be not only economical but efficient in our ordnance departments, we must have a Committee composed of skilled officers and mechanicals to investigate the principle upon which the Armstrong guns are constructed.
  SIR GEORGE LEWIS: In reply to the question of the noble Lord the Member for Chichester, which I have carefully considered, I can only repeat the answer which I gave the other day that the Select Ordnance Committee seems to me quite sufficient for the purpose both of inquiry and approval. It is easy to speak of the Armstrong gun as having been proved a failure; but I, on the other hand, assert that it has been proved to be a success. [Mr. BERNAL OSBORNE: Where?] In the experiments that have been made. [Mr. BERNAL OSBORNE: As a naval gun?] Both for naval and field purposes it has been proved to be the best gun yet produced. Further improvements
  930
  may be introduced into it; it is even possible that some improved construction may be invented by some other person. I have no prejudice in favor of the Armstrong gun; but to describe it as a failure seems to me to be an entire distortion of facts. The appointment of another Committee would lead only to confusion and conflict of opinion, and I maintain that the scientific advice which the Government now has at its disposal is quite sufficient for ascertaining the truth with respect both to the Armstrong gun and other kinds of ordnance. Besides the Select Ordnance Committee, we have the Iron-plate Committee, and the Select Committee on Ordnance, which is to be reappointed next Session, and really, with such an amount of inquiry and authority, I do not think it can be said that this important subject has been neglected by the Government.
  MR. MONSELLsaid, he did not think the answer given by the right hon. Baronet was quite satisfactory, for this reason:—It was admitted that iron-plated ships would in future form our navy, and it was further admitted that no gun had been constructed which at long range could do any serious injury to iron-plated ships. That was what his hon. Friend the Member for Liskeard meant by the failure of the Armstrong gun. The real state of the case was that they had no effective gun. The hon. Member for Liskeard said there was such a partial constitution of the Departments which had charge of these matters as prevented the scientific intelligence of the country from bearing on the question so as to produce the proper gun. He could not sit down without saying a single word as to the speech of the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for Ireland. He certainly heard with great regret that part of his speech in which he attempted to turn into ridicule the demonstration that took place the other day in Dublin, in laying the foundation stone of the Catholic University. To attempt to turn into ridicule that demonstration, containing as it did the municipal representatives of three-fourths of Ireland, and the representatives of the middle class, who were, after all, the political strength of the country, was a course quite unworthy of the right hon. Baronet to pursue. Let not the right hon. Gentleman deceive himself on this point; the demonstration was a proof that the mind of the people of Ireland was set on having freedom of education for their children; and, speaking on the most trustworthy

  931
  authority, he said it was the most important demonstration which had taken place in Ireland for a great number of years.
  MR. VANCEsaid, he had hoped the discussion on the demonstration had terminated. That demonstration was only important as an embodiment of physical force; it was deficient in all the elements of respectability. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Monsell) that the laity of any station in Dublin did not take any part or interest in it. At the same time, he did not think the procession ought to be passed over in silence by the House, because the assembling and parading of such large numbers in the streets of a metropolis, especially for a political demonstration, was likely to lead to collision with those who did not agree with the objects of that demonstration. There was one a few months ago in connection with the obsequies of Mr. M'Manus, and that was a political demonstration. The Protestants in the North were not content with the way in which the Government had treated the subject, and considered that the Government had not held an equal balance. Although the processions had passed without collision that was not a reason why the House should neglect to notice them, as they might be tolerated once too often he was satisfied that there was great alarm, and no small indignation in the city of Dublin, especially as the recent procession took place on the Sunday, when the Protestants were attending their places of worship, and as it was but a repetition of a demonstration which had not been noticed by the Government.
  Bill read 3°, and passed.

UNION RELIEF AID BILL— [BILL NO. 224.]

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  MR. BERNAL OSBORNEsaid, he rose to call the attention of the Secretary of State for the Home Department to the effect of the 36th section of the Reform Act on the franchise of working men in the manufacturing districts of Lancashire and Cheshire who might be in the receipt of parochial relief; and in so doing he wished to make a few observations. The Bill, though coming before them under very disadvantageous circumstances, and being discussed in a very thin House at that late period of the Session, was, in reality, a most momentous one in its bearing and consequences. Although it pro-
  932
  fessed merely to apply to Lancashire and Cheshire, it was no mere local measure, and should be viewed with reference to its action on the entire country. Giving every credit to the good intentions of the Government, and particularly to his right hon. Friend the President of the Poor Law Board, he regretted that a Bill of such importance had been brought forward somewhat in haste, as the drawing of the Bill showed, and at the termination of the Session, when the whole House and country were exhausted. It was the most important Bill of the Session, which had been so signally barren of measures of any mark or note. This most momentous measure made its appearance in the humble shape of a Union Rate in Aid Bill. The House was about to separate under the most gloomy anticipations. What was the prospect in the cotton districts? The operatives in those districts, they were told, had drawn nearly all their money from the savings banks, and the ratepayers who were small shopkeepers were also on the verge of pauperism. The House should not be led away by the statement which had been made, that if peace were made, trade would immediately revive; for although a certain quantity of cotton would be released from the Southern ports, the breadth of cotton sown at that moment was materially diminished, and there must therefore be a continuance of distress in the cotton districts, and to a large extent in other parts of the country. In the cotton districts the line of demarcation between the ratepayer and rate-receiver was so narrow that one additional turn of the screw would be enough to reduce the former to the position of the latter; there was no analogy therefore between the ratepayers in those districts and in Berkshire, for instance. Under such circumstances what ought Government to do? In such a matter no party feeling was involved, and every one was bound to offer what suggestions he could to render the measure as little objectionable as possible. It appeared that in Stockport 50 per cent of the rates remained uncollected, and as time were on that portion of the country would be plunged into hopeless pauperism, and the ratepayer must follow the operative into the workhouse. The mischief had not been occasioned either by the millowners or the operatives. The calamity was purely exceptional, and the legislation should also be exceptional. It was through no fault of those operatives that

  933
  Her Majesty's Government had thought proper to recognize the blockade of the Southern ports, by which from 3,000,000 to 4,000,000 bales of cotton had been locked up. He expressed no opinion now on that step, which involved a question of high policy, with which however, neither the millowners nor their workpeople had anything to do. But if Lancashire and Cheshire were invaded by a foreign enemy, all the resources and energies of the country would be bound to assist them; and, although he knew the delicate ground on which he was treading, he did think that after a certain time it would be true wisdom for the Government and the House to consider whether the country ought not to look upon this as no merely local question, but as a case in which there should be something like a tax on income and available property to assist our brethren in distress. The cotton industry was the flywheel of nearly all the other industries. He differed from his hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale in the matter, because he did not think it would be a prudent thing to swamp these districts with debt incurred by raising loans. However questionable it might be to levy a rate in aid on the whole country, it would be still more questionable to advance loans on the security of the local rates. He ventured to offer a suggestion to the Home Secretary which he trusted would be received in the spirit in which it was made. Charity was an excellent thing, but if administered without system it might become very mischievous. The winter before last there was great local distress in the metropolis, and large sums were raised by voluntary efforts for the relief of the poor. But no organization existed for its distribution; the police courts were inundated with applicants; and the magistrates, who were obliged to dispense the funds, had no other test at last to guide them than that of looking to see whether a man's hands were hard or soft. His suggestion, therefore, was that the right hon. Baronet should select some competent persons, thoroughly understanding these districts, but unconnected with the Poor Law administration, and send them down to advice and assist the local committees in organizing the distribution of the money voluntarily subscribed for the benefit of the operatives. At present, those relief committees were floundering in a sea of suggestions, and would with gratitude accept advice and assistance of a competent
  934
  gentleman representing the Home Office. He would next come to the more immediate question which he had put upon the notice paper. Many deserved compliments had been paid to the starving operatives for the exemplary manner in which they had borne their sufferings; and he thought they had proved by their conduct that they were eminently fit for the trust reposed in them, regarding the franchise as a trust. It would be most hard if their misfortune should have the effect of depriving them of their civil rights. There was no doubt, however, that the 36th section of the Reform Act would have that result, for it made the receipt of parochial relief by any elector a disqualification from voting. Previously to the Reform Act, as in the case of Cricklade and Cirencester, the right was not taken away when the cholera broke out and people were in receipt of parochial aid; but after the Reform Act the votes of those who had received parochial relief were invalid. It would, therefore, in his opinion, only be a gracious thing, after all the compliments which had been bestowed upon these men, if the House were to devise some mode of allowing their names to be retained on the electoral register. With regard to the number of poor voters who would be disfranchised under the present state of things, he might mention that in the borough of Oldham there were 2,275 voters, two-thirds of whom were operatives; and if the receipt of parochial relief was to disqualify any elector, the constituency would be reduced to ridiculous limits. At Ashton-under-Lyne the population was 29,791, the constituency 1,062, and the persons receiving relief 9,600, with the prospect of being rapidly increased to 15,000. At Blackburn there were 1,017 voters, and 11,500 already on the rates. That number was on the increase, and the constituency was likely to be largely disfranchised. Manchester, with a population of 316,213, and 19,410 voters, from peculiar circumstances did not fare so badly as other towns in its neighborhood. Preston had a population of 69,542, and 2,731 voters. Of the latter 608 were scot and lot voters; while the number of persons already on the rates was 12,100. Stockport had a population of 53,835, a constituency of 1,473, with at that moment 6,000 persons on the rates. The private benevolence there was something remarkable, but it could not last for ever; and he was informed that at least 600 voters

  935
  out of the whole 1,473 were likely to be disqualified by the receipt of parish relief. He hoped some means would be adopted to respect the independence and political rights of men who were suffering from evils which they had in no way contributed to bring about.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that he did not complain of the course pursued by the hon. Member (Mr. B. Osborne) in bringing the subject before the House on the Motion that the Speaker do leave the chair; but as he believed there was a very general acquiescence in the principle of the Bill and the amendments of which his right hon. Friend had given notice, and as the object of the hon. Member was simply to extend the provisions of the Bill to the whole kingdom and not to prevent its passing into law, he would not detain the House by entering at any length into the subject. He would simply say that such a course as that suggested by the hon. Member was, he thought, open to strong objection, at any rate for the present. The Bill was only to continue in operation until the following March, and it would be quite open for Parliament at the commencement of the Session, if the distress should continue, to come to a determination upon the subject with a full knowledge of the circumstances and the advantages of experience. His hon. Friend (Mr. B. Osborne) appeared to take some exception to the course pursued by the Government in recognizing the blockade of the Southern ports; but it must be borne in mind, that if the Government had not taken the course they did, they might have involved this country in a war with the United States, which might have been more disastrous and expensive even than the present calamity. With respect to the suggestion that the Government should appoint some officers to distribute the funds contributed by private benevolence, he thought there was no necessity for such appointments, as efficient organizations already extensively existed, and he thought that the interference of the Government would not be productive of any good result, especially as he believed those who were engaged in the work of distributing private contributions were acting in cordial co-operation with the Poor Law Officers. With regard to the franchise, it was impossible to deny that it would be an additional cause of regret that in some instances, owing to causes over which they could have
  936
  no control, the operative classes in Cheshire and Lancashire should not only lose their ordinary means of subsistence, but should suffer also the loss of the elective franchise. He thought, however, that his hon. Friend had rather overrated the number of ratepayers having the franchise, as it must be remembered that by the present law persons must not only pay rates but occupy houses of the value of £10, in order to be on the register. The difficulty suggested by the hon. Member was not created by the Reform Act, but existed long previously. It was held by the Common Law from the earliest times that the receipt of parochial relief or alms of a certain character disqualified a person from voting. All that the Reform Act did was to provide that where by the law as then established a person was disqualified from voting by reason of being in receipt of parochial relief he should not be entitled to be placed on the register. The law was therefore relaxed in some cases, as the person who had received parochial relief would not be struck off the register unless he was objected to after full notice given previous to the annual registration, whereas before the Reform Act his vote might be refused at the poll. He (Sir G. Grey) thought that under these circumstances it was very unlikely that objection would be taken to persons who had been in receipt of parochial relief. Persons objecting to voters under such circumstances would obviously be acting in a most unworthy manner. Without such objection those who were then on the register would remain so, notwithstanding that they might have received relief. He thought, therefore, that it would be unwise to alter a long-established law in order to meet what would, he trusted, be only a temporary difficulty. It must not be forgotten, moreover, that in 1842 and in 1847—periods of general and widespread distress—as well as more recently in the case of Coventry—the Legislature had had recourse to no such plan as that proposed by the hon. Member. He thought, however, that the hon. Member's having called attention to the subject might have the effect of preventing objections being taken to voters on the ground specified during the continuance of the present exceptional period.
  MR. COBDENsaid, that he had not the least doubt of the bona fides of the right hon. Gentleman in the answer which he had just given to the hon. Member for Liskeard, but he must say that he hardly

  937
  agreed with the right hon. Gentleman in thinking that the operatives could entirely depend upon the exercise by Parliamentary agents and political partisans of the benevolent forbearance which had been referred to. Without pursuing the subject farther, especially as they were all in the dark as to the extent of the calamity overhanging the country, he wished it to be distinctly understood that the subject stood over, and that it would be quite competent to deal with it next Session on its own merits.
  MR. WARNERsaid, he wished to ask the President of the Poor Law Board whether, in his opinion, it would not be just and expedient to insert in the Bill a clause authorizing an occupying tenant who might have paid the additional rate levied under the intended Act to deduct from his rent in the next settlement with his landlord, the whole or some fixed proportion of such additional rate so paid? In the adjustment of rent between the owner and the occupier, the former was the person who virtually paid the rates; but in the present exceptional period the burden would fall wholly upon the occupier, as there would be no time to adjust the matter in accordance with the ordinary incidence of the poor rate. His own view was that a deduction to the full amount as in the Income Tax Act should be allowed in this Act, but that might be considered going too far; and he should therefore suggest that as in the Irish Poor Law a provision would be introduced into the Bill by which the occupier would be at liberty to deduct from the rent. He hoped the President of the Poor Law Board would take the subject into consideration.
  GENERAL LINDSAYsaid, he had presented a petition from the Wigan board of guardians against the Bill, and praying for its rejection. He could not go that extent, although he regretted that it had not been earlier introduced, so that hon. Members might have had longer opportunities of ascertaining the views of their constituents. The state of things in Wigan was remarkable and exceptional. In that borough upwards of £70,000 had been raised by private subscription for the purpose of keeping the people off the rates. In consequence of this the rates of Wigan were apparently low as compared with other places. In Blackburn the rates last year were 1s. 4½d. in the pound; the estimated rate for the current year was 4s. 1d. In Preston last year it was 1s. 1¾d.;
  938
  this year it was estimated at 4s. 10⅙d. In Wigan last year it was 1s. 4¾d.; this year it would be 1s. 10 d. That showed that the amount of the rates where there was extensive private benevolence was no guide to the actual extent of the distress. The effect of the Bill would be that other places, where private charity had not been so active, would be able to come upon Wigan for a rate in aid, though in point of fact the distress might be no worse in the one place than in the other. It was of this that his constituents complained. The whole county of Lancashire had been enriched by the cotton manufacture, and he suggested that the better plan would be to enlarge the area of relief, and make it include either the whole county or one-half Liverpool had been enriched enormously by the trade, for all the cotton came in through that port before it was manufactured, while afterwards all the cotton went out through Liverpool. Then the price of land had greatly increased throughout the county, and all these were reasons why the area should be enlarged. He could not take upon himself the responsibility of opposing the Bill, but some provision ought to be made by which a town where the rates had been kept low by local contributions, and where great efforts had been made to keep the people from the degradation which they felt in coming upon the rates, should not be liable to help another place where the same amount of private charity had not been shown.
  MR. C. P. VILLIERSsaid, he could understand the hardship pointed out by the hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. Warner) in cases where, owing to the operation of the Bill, a tenant might be made liable to pay a larger rate than he had expected under an arrangement with his landlord, an average of rates having been taken. He was afraid, however, that that was not a subject which could be legislated for in the present Bill. In reply to the hon. Member for Liskeard who had spoken with reference to the franchise, he might mention that he had a Return which showed that out of 390,000 occupiers of tenements in Lancashire, 294,000 were rated under £10. He hoped, therefore, that the consequences apprehended by the hon. Member would not ensue,
  Bill considered in Committee:—
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1 (Guardians may charge Cost of

  939
  Relief in Parishes in excess of their ordinary Expenditure upon the Common Fund).
  MR. C. P. VILLIERSsaid, it was only right that he should inform the Committee of the Amendments he intended to introduce into the Bill. In Clause 1 reference was made to the test of the excess upon which it was proposed to give the parish a claim for relief out of the common fund, the present proposal being that such a claim should arise upon an excess of two-thirds on an average of the expenditure of the three previous years. That proposal seemed to excite some little difference of opinion, and therefore he would substitute a fixed rate in the pound. Upon a consideration of all the information which it was possible to collect bearing upon this case, as to what would be a fair limit, he proposed to fix the sum at 5s. in the pound. In Clause 3, which dealt with unions instead of parishes, the same Amendment would be proposed, and the amount of rate then would also be fixed at 5s. in the pound. Then, in order to prevent any accident or delay which might occur in issuing an Order in Council, he proposed to substitute a special order of the Poor Law Board, which, as the Committee might be aware, was signed, not only by the two principal Secretaries of State, but by three other Members of the Cabinet. Such an order would have the same effect and would be received with the same consideration as the Order in Council. The objection had been taken that it was possible, as the Bill was framed, that a parish might come for aid upon another parish where the poor-rate was greater in amount. That anomaly, however, would cease to exist if the limit were fixed at 5s. in the pound.
  MR. E. C. EGERTONsaid, he was glad to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that he had consented to make these changes. He was sorry to say that there were districts in Lancashire and Cheshire in which there was great distress, not arising from the cotton manufacture, but from depression in the silk manufacture. There was great distress from that source in parts of Manchester and in Macclesfield and Leeds. In Macclesfield the rates for the last five years had been nearly 5s. in the pound; and in the neighborhood of the town there was a place called Bollington, which was principally engaged in the cotton trade. By the Bill as it originally stood the town of Macclesfield would have had to contribute to Wellington, which
  940
  would have been injustice. There were many difficulties in the question, looking at it in every way, but he must say that his opinion was against attempting to relieve the distress by loans.
  COLONEL WILSON PATTENsaid, that though he had first been in favor of the principle of a multiple rate of excess, subsequent reflection had induced him to support the Amendment proposed by the right hon. Gentleman in that respect.
  MR. POTTERsaid, he should move, that after the word "Chester," in the third line of the clause, there should be added the words, "Yorkshire, Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire, and Cumberland," There were districts in each of those counties which were most injuriously affected by the present depressed state of the manufacturing industry, and he wished to extend to them the benefit of that measure. For instance, in Derbyshire there were no less than 12,965 persons employed in cotton mills, with two or three times that number dependent upon them. In one particular district the average number of paupers on the books was 202, but it had now risen to 1,895. In Cumberland there were 3,281 persons employed in factories, and a good many handloom weavers, and the destitution in Carlisle was very great.
  MR. C. P. VILLIERSsaid, that the cotton manufacture had been carried on to a considerable extent in some districts in Derbyshire, and in one place—Glossop—there was every prospect that a rate of 10 s. in the pound would be soon required. He had therefore no objection to extend the operation of the Bill to that county. But there was no such reason for including Yorkshire and Cumberland within its provisions; and as for Nottinghamshire, no application had come from that county for any such measure.
  LORD GEORGE CAVENDISHsaid, he was glad to hear that Derbyshire was to be comprised within the operation of the Bill, at the same time he trusted that some means would be proposed by which unions might be allowed to raise loans on the security of the rates.
  SIR HARRY VERNEYsaid, there were districts in Leicestershire which would be affected by the dearth of cotton, and they ought to have the benefits of this Bill.
  MR. COBBETTobserved that there were a great many persons employed in the cotton trade in Yorkshire, and he trusted that when the right hon. Gentleman was

  941
  informed that they were all comprised in the West Riding, he would review his determination with regard to that Riding of Yorkshire at least.
  MR. POTTERsaid, he stood alone he believed he was the only Member from Cumberland present otherwise he should divide the House against that county being excluded.
  MR. C. P. VILLIERSsaid, he would consider that point, and if he should find, on inquiry, that there were good reasons for extending the operation of the Bill to the West Riding of Yorkshire, he would introduce a provision to that effect on the bringing up of the Report.
  MR. HADFIELDsaid, that the great mass of the population of the West Riding of Yorkshire had no connection whatever with the cotton manufacture; and he did not see why they should be brought within the operation of the measure.
  MR. ALDERMAN SIDNEYsaid, the district between Halifax and Rochdale in Yorkshire was largely employed in the cotton trade, and he thought it would be unjust to exclude them from the operation of the Bill.
  MR. PULLERsaid, he was of opinion that the best way to prevent total ruin overwhelming the ratepayers in the distressed parishes was to enable the boards of guardians, with the assent of the Poor Law Board, to borrow—wherever, owing to the amount of the distress prevailing, or the inability of persons to pay the rates levied, they deem it necessary to take that course—money on the security of the rates, which could be repaid with comparatively little difficulty when a period of prosperity returned. The measure ought to be made applicable to every county in which there were any distressed unions.
  MR. GARNETTsaid, about ten per cent of the population of the Lancaster Union were engaged in the cotton trade, but that union embraced a large area, and included agricultural parishes, which, in ordinary times, were much poorer than the manufacturing districts. The principle of taxation and representation going together would be set at naught by a rate in aid. He thought, too, that it would be only fair to throw upon the owners of property some of the burden; and by adopting the system of loans that would be done. He must confess, however, that his own board of guardians was strongly opposed to the plan of loans; but, after the best consideration he could give the subject, he
  942
  had come to the conclusion, that if they had a rate in aid, they must also have loans.
  GENERAL LINDSAYsaid, he doubted whether a loan could be worked in the borough which he had the honor to represent. Wigan for borough purposes had already borrowed to the utmost extent to which Parliament permitted money to be borrowed upon the security of rates; and therefore if it were to be relieved by means of a loan, it would be unable to pay any portion of the interest, the whole of which would consequently fall upon the part of the union outside the borough. Besides, he preferred a rate in aid, because there would be a better chance of the money being judiciously administered.
  MR. POTTERsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. C. P. VILLIERSsaid, he proposed to substitute the following clause for Clause 1:—
  Clause (A.) (Guardians may charge cost of Relief in Parishes in excess of 5s. in the Pound on the other Parishes in Union.)
  "I. If the guardians of any union situate wholly or in part within any of the counties of Lancaster, Chester, or Derby, shall find that the expenditure of any parish comprised within such union in and about the relief of the poor for the quarter ending at Michaelmas or Christmas shall have exceeded the rate of 5s. in the pound per annum on the annual rateable value of the property of such parish, the excess shall be charged to the other parishes in the union in proportion to the amount of the annual rateable value of the property comprised in such parishes: Provided that if the expenditure of any parish for the quarter ending at any of the periods aforesaid, including its proportion of any excess charged upon it under this Act, shall exceed the said rate of 5s. in the pound per annum on its annual rateable value, all expenditure of suck parish in and about the relief of the poor for that quarter in excess of such limit shall be charged in like manner upon the remaining parishes, the expenditure of which, including their proportion of any excess charged upon them under this Act, shall not have exceeded the limit aforesaid, and so on, toties quoties, until the sum charged upon each parish shall amount to the limit aforesaid, and then all expenditure over and above that limit shall be charged to the common fund of the union."
  COLONEL WILSON PATTENsaid, that there being a great difference of opinion with respect to the propriety of a loan or a rate in aid, he had prepared certain words in order to test the opinion of the Committee with reference to which of the two principles they would adopt, He was about to propose to insert words in the clause which had been withdrawn, to this effect—

  943
  "That the guardians may, with the sanction of the Poor Law Board, borrow any overplus required beyond the rate raised in a particular parish, and apply the amount to the payment of any charges imposed under the Act."
  Such a proposition as that submitted to the Committee and a division taken upon it would at once decide the question whether they should adopt the principle of a loan or not. He was, however, debarred from bringing forward his Amendment, as he did not know at what part of the substituted clause it ought to be inserted. He would therefore suggest that time should be given for consideration of the new clause.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he wished to ask the Committee to consider the position they were in. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Poor Law Board had proposed a long clause, which nobody had seen, of a most important character; and immediately on that, his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel W. Patten) made another proposition, quite different in principle, of which no notice had been given. The effect of his hon. Friend's Amendment would do away altogether with the principle of the rate in aid, and bring forward the principle of a loan; whereas the Amendment of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets did nothing of the kind, but proceeded to supplement in some way or other the rate in aid. They knew not at all whether the system of loans was to be on the parish or on the union. His hon. Friend said that he would make that clear afterwards. He knew very well that it was most inconvenient to have any delay at that period of the Session, but he really thought they would save time if they passed it through Committee pro formâ, in order to have the Bill reprinted with the new clause and the Amendments proposed, for the difficulties came so thick upon every side that he defied any Member in the House thoroughly to understand how the Bill stood. For his own part he felt quite unable to come to any conclusion on what had been proposed. If it was to be a loan to the union, it was a rate in aid thrown over a number of years during which the interest was to be paid. That admitted the rate-in-aid principle, but only borrowing to carry it out. Was it to be a loan to the parish? His hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire (Mr. Puller) said that half the people in the parish would not be able to pay. How, then, could it be an advantage to them to borrow money on interest for ten or fifteen years instead of having a larger area? He confessed it
  944
  did not appear at all clear to him that they would benefit the ratepayer in that way. He implored the Government not to drive them to take all the steps in the dark, but to have that long clause printed before it was discussed, and let them know what they were about.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, that it was thought premature to discuss the question of the borrowing powers. The new clause did not go beyond the scope of the old one. It was confined to the aiding of the parish in distress by other parishes in the union, and did not extend to the relief of the union by borrowing money. So far as he understood the general purport of the new clause, he thought it satisfactory; but he had failed to catch its language. It appeared to dispose of many of the difficulties which had presented themselves to his mind as well as the minds of other hon. Members, while at the same time it preserved that invaluable test—the workhouse test. He considered that the question of proportionate increase had been quite set at rest by the Return moved for, which showed that proportionate increase of the rates would be impossible. He presumed that the proposed charge of 5s. in the pound would include both the parochial assessment and the contribution to the common fund, so that all they had now to dispose of was simply the question whether it would be preferable to supplement a rate in aid by a loan or not.
  COLONEL WILSON PATTENsaid, he would withdraw the proposition he had ventured to offer, in order that the new clause proposed by the President of the Poor Law Board might be discussed. Having had an opportunity of looking at the new clause, he thought it a great improvement on the former one, and should give it his support.
  MR. C. P. VILLIERSsaid, the intention of the clause was to lay down a fixed rate of 5s. in the pound as the measure of the distress when a parish should be relieved from the common fund. It also provided that the other parishes in the union should contribute till they all had to pay 5s. in the pound, and after that the union might come upon the other unions for aid.
  MR. J. B. SMITHsaid, he wished to call the attention of the Committee to the position of the borough he had the honor to represent, where there were 8,500 assessments, of which 6,000 were at or under £6, about 500 from £6 to £10. Of these more than 6,000 had ceased to

  945
  be ratepayers, and therefore the assessment would fall upon about 2,000, The available assessment at present was only 40 per cent in value of the whole. A rate of 5s. in the pound would, with respect to those who would have to pay, amount to 12 s. Besides that, there was a borough rate of 2s. 6d., which would become equal to a rate of 6s. Of the 40 per cent in value, 15 per cent were manufacturers, and they were in this position, that they had no income either from their trade or the rents of their cottages, and therefore their assessments must be paid out of capital. Every one of them was losing money; they were either working at a loss or working short time in order to keep their hands from starving. Many of the shopkeepers were so much reduced that they were unable to subscribe any longer to the relief of the distressed. From this statement the House would see that the pressure of a 5s. rate was more severe than many persons had imagined. It would be most injudicious to adopt the hint thrown out by the hon. Member for North Lancashire that the parishes should be allowed to borrow money. The parishes would, if that were done, instead of being relieved by a return of better times, find themselves embarrassed with the payment of the interest and principal of borrowed money
  MR. HENLEYsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Poor Law Board had been kind enough to let him see the amended clause, and all he could state was that if there should be any difficulty as to the meaning of the Bill, perhaps the Government would not object to recommit it, so that the House might have an opportunity of properly considering it. But he hoped that that would not be necessary. He had no wish to throw any impediment in the way of the measure. His only doubt was lest the clause would not enable the aid required by distressed parishes to come in quickly enough. The manner in which the rates would run up had been pointed out. But it ought also to have been shown that the remedy would come in not on the whole year, but after the quarter, and therefore it would come in quicker than if it had gone on for the whole year. The doubt he felt with respect to the clause was this—the getting in of the money as quick as the parishes might want it. Supposing parish A up to Michaelmas to have spent 5s., and there was an excess of expenditure of 3s., was
  946
  parish A to raise that 3s. in the first instance to relieve the poor, and then get it back again? What was wanted was immediate relief. He thought there was some difficulty in the clause in this respect, and therefore had called the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to it.
  MR. C. P. VILLIERSsaid, on the part of the Government, that there would be no objection to what the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire proposed if anything should make the recommittal of the Bill really necessary. As to the facilities for getting money, supposing there was anything urgent in the case, there never was any difficulty in that matter, because the guardians would make an order on their treasurer, who generally had the means. There were several cases in Lancashire where they had overdrawn the treasurer.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he was glad they had such wealthy treasurers in Lancashire, which was not the case in his part of the country.
  MR. COBDENsaid, that the alteration proposed by his right hon. Friend appeared to be so important that not only would it be necessary to have it postponed to give time for the Committee to look at it carefully, but he thought it would be of vital importance that the House should not proceed to legislate until the districts concerned themselves should have had an opportunity of expressing their views upon the clause. The change proposed was one of considerable magnitude. The Bill, as it originally stood, seemed to give a ready access to the necessary relief; and, as the right hon. Gentleman opposite had said, it was of the utmost importance that the relief should be available at once when required. When it was proposed in the original Bill to give access from the parish to the union, and from the union to the county, after the rates had risen by two-thirds of the previous averages, a ready possession was obtained of the means of assistance. But the change, as he understood it, was this:—That there should be an invariable cast-iron rule, that until a parish or a union was rated at 5s., there should be no relief at all. Was he right in that interpretation? [Mr. C. P. VILLIERS assented.] Then he had no hesitation in saying that that was a most injudicious alteration considered in relation to the exigencies of the case in the north of England. For ex-

  947
  ample, take the union of Rochdale. In 1861 the borough rate of that union was 1s. 1d. in the pound, and it was estimated that in the present year it would be 1s. 8¾d. Now, Rochdale union could have no assistance from the county until that rate had risen to 5s. Just see what a process Rochdale would have to go through. Calculated by the rateable value of the property, it would have to raise £37,000 by additional rates before it could have any relief from the county. But what was the state of Rochdale at that moment? He would read an extract from a gentleman of the first respectability, the treasurer of the Relief Fund, and whose services had been of immense value to the borough and district. That gentleman said—
  "Taking a radius of one mile from the centre of the borough, we have about eighty-five mills engaged in the cotton trade; of these thirty-six are closed now, fourteen to sixteen more are to be closed in a week or ten days, and the remainder are not averaging above two days per week, and many of them will close. I am of opinion that in another month out of the whole eighty-five mills at least sixty will be obliged to stop. If I were to extend the area, I should then most seriously add to the number. Private charity cannot grapple with the crisis. Our first subscriptions are exhausted, and we are this week commencing a second effort, about £1,300 having been promised. How the winter is to be got through I dare not attempt to say. The prospect is appalling in the highest degree; and yet in the face of this the Poor Law Board obstinately refuse all real and substantial aid. At their door must lie the responsibility. What difficulties we who live on the spot have yet to encounter are unknown."
  The Board of Guardians of Rochdale had unanimously petitioned the House for power to borrow on the security of their rates for tea years, and other boards similarly placed believed that such was the best course to pursue. He had been frequently referred to as an advocate for borrowing; but, in fact, he only went to those who were placed in the midst of the distress, and asked them what were their wishes and anticipations in reference to the coming winter; and when he found that these individuals, who were in the first instance responsible, were unanimously of opinion—and this opinion founded on a desire to be self-sustaining — that the best thing the House could do for them was to give them power to borrow now upon the security of the rates for ten years — he at once gave his assent to their proposition. Who were better able to judge than those parties what was best to be done? And who had any interest in preventing these powers being con-
  948
  ferred? Certainly not his right hon. Friend at the head of the Poor Law Board. But it was well known that the permanent officials in these departments exercised much influence in matters of this sort. But why should the House be tied up to any rules or precedents that had no applicability to the terrible state of things that had arisen? A right hon. Gentleman who spoke on a former occasion intimated that in the event of war the same calamity might occur again. But war had never produced such a calamity to our industry. Our wars had never prevented our getting raw materials to a greater or less degree. But the American cotton was hermetically sealed up, and would not be released so long as the war continued; and he did not believe that any one could realize the extent of the disaster that would be suffered if the war continued for another twelve months. An hon. Gentleman talked about their going and getting the cotton. He (Mr. Cobden) had not a word to say against friendly mediation, but he believed that any attempt to obtain the cotton by force, or by any violation of international law, would bring upon them greater calamities than even those which they were suffering from. He could not see any present remedy for the evil; and coming to the House without any plan or predilection at all, he wanted to know why the inhabitants of Rochdale should not be allowed to borrow money in the way that they proposed? He could not see why the Bill might not give borrowing powers, and provide a rate in aid also. Seeing the important change that had been made by his right hon. Friend in the first clause, he thought they should not then decide upon it. The clause should be printed, and before they proceeded to legislate, all the districts of the country that were interested should have an opportunity of considering it. He sincerely regretted that the matter had been left to the end of the Session. He did not approve of the way in which much of their time had been spent, but he would rather remain longer than have precipitate legislation on the subject. They must be called together in October or November, unless they now gave the widest latitude to those who were intrusted with authority to act in the mutter.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he was glad for once to be able to agree with the hon. Member for Rochdale. [Mr. COBDEN: For the first time in our lives.] The

  949
  workhouse test would be completely unavailing in the exceptional condition of the cotton districts, and would break down as it had done in Coventry. That test could only be relied upon in order to secure the due administration of the Poor Law under ordinary circumstances. What would be the result of a rate in aid without the power of borrowing on the rate? The expenditure would have to be regulated almost solely upon official cognizance, without the assistance of that local or personal knowledge which might be obtained by employing the parochial system. A temporary emergency could not be met by adhering rigidly to the ordinary rules of the new Poor Law. The object could only be accomplished by giving a borrowing power to the parishes on security of the rates, and thus eliciting the aid of local co-operation and personal knowledge. He agreed with the hon. Member for Rochdale, that the people of the cotton districts ought not to be deprived of the means of helping themselves. If the rates were only 1s. 8d., there must be much available capital; and he thought that the inhabitants ought to be allowed to borrow money, and to avail themselves of the credit afforded by the existence of that large capital.
  MR. GILPINsaid, that the practice of borrowing on the security of the rates had hitherto only been resorted to for the purpose of emigration or for building new workhouses. In one case, the money secured a permanent provision for the recipient; in the other, it provided a permanent building for the union or parish. He was aware of the exceptional character of the present crisis, and deplored it as much as any man could; but it was a new idea to propose to borrow money on the security of the rates to pay for the bread consumed at the present time. The consequence would be that the ratepayers, twenty years hence, would have to pay for the bread consumed by the poor of the present day. That was a proposition that did not appear to him sound in principle. As a rule they all knew that borrowed money was not so carefully spent as money that was not borrowed. Suppose an agricultural district was struck with sterility, as was suggested by his hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale, would it be wiser, he asked, to fix upon that stricken parish a charge for twenty years to come, or to go for help to parishes in the immediate neighbourhood
  950
  that were not so impoverished? He denied that the Poor Law Board had exhibited any remissness in the matter. Upon the contrary, they had endeavoured throughout the crisis to meet every application in a spirit of liberality, at the same time taking care to carry out the law, which, he agreed with the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock, was fundamentally a humane law. If they had proposed exceptional legislation some time ago, and the anticipated necessity for it had not arisen, hon. Members who now complained, would, probably, have been the first to find fault with the Government for ever having introduced such legislation. Even now he admitted, that if they had a guarantee that things in Lancashire would not get worse than they now were, no legislation of this kind would have been wanted. But the belief of the Poor Law Board was that we had not seen the worst, or anything like the worst, and that there should be a power somewhere to relieve effectually that distress which was likely to prevail during the next six months.
  MR. HENLEYasked how it was intended that the borrowing powers should be used? Was it proposed that the borrowing should be effected by the whole union, or by each parish?
  MR. COBDENsaid, that the union of Rochdale embraced a manufacturing community, and the rates were therefore uniform. The guardians of the whole union were unanimous in their opinion with regard to borrowing; but it might happen that a great difference would exist between different parishes, and that showed the necessity for deliberation on the matter. The hon. and gallant Member for North Lancashire had introduced a clause which should have been included in the Bill and proposed on the responsibility of the Government. What gave rise to the severe reflections upon the Poor Law Board made by his friend in Rochdale was this:—He was exceedingly indignant that after petitioning to have the right to borrow conferred on them, no mention of it was made in the Bill. He (Mr. Cobden) believed the parishes might borrow on their own security. A precedent with regard to borrowing was furnished by the destruction of Nottingham Castle during the Reform Bill riots, when an Act of Parliament was passed empowering the hundred to borrow the £20,000 or £30,000, which they had to raise, the repayment of this sum being spread over a period of

  951
  years. That rule might be applied to a parish, but it was a matter of detail which should be dealt with by the Government, and introduced into the Bill.
  LORD STANLEYsaid, that the Committee were discussing several questions at the same time. The only question before them was whether Clause 1 should be postponed, and all that had passed in debate convinced him that the Bill was one which the House ought to have had an opportunity of discussing at least three weeks ago. However, it was too late now to consider that point. As to the proposed postponement of the clause, he feared that the present scanty attendance would become still more scanty by the time the subject was next discussed, and, on the whole, therefore, it would be better to come to a decision then. He thought the right hon. Gentleman was justified in proposing the substituted clause; for the fluctuating test of distress, pointed out in the original Bill, would never have stood discussion and inquiry, and a fixed test, although no doubt open to objection, would be the fairest arrangement. As to the borrowing powers, they were not materially involved in this clause. The question was whether the parishes or the unions should have the power to borrow. He understood that his hon. Friend would not press his Amendment, that the parishes should have the power to borrow, but that left untouched the question whether the unions, which could give better security and raise money on better terms, should be intrusted with such a power. That was a question which was open to discussion at a future time, but all the Committee had then to consider was whether, before the powers granted by the Bill came into play, they would insist that a parish should tax itself to a certain fixed amount. He should feel bound to support the new clause to that effect, which was proposed by the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. BARROWsaid, he was of opinion that the limit of 5s. was too small a one to found upon it a claim for aid.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, the only question before the Committee was that the clause should be struck out for the purpose of substituting another in its place. The new clause could not be brought up until the remaining clauses had been disposed of, and then would be the time for hon. Members to propose Amendments.
  Clause struck out.
  Clause 2 (Guardians may make extraordinary Calls) agreed to.
  Clause 3 (Guardians of distressed Unions may apply for aid to the Poor Law Board, who may make a Representation to the Queen in Council, who may issue an Order for the Adoption of this Act) struck out.
  Clause 4 (Poor Law Board shall apportion the Sum over the Unions in the County.)
  MR. AYRTONsuggested that the clause should be postponed until it was seen what Clause 3 proposed to do.
  MR. C. P. VILLIERSsaid, that the chief alterations in Clause 3 were to fix a maximum of 5s. in the pound, instead of an excess of two-thirds over the average rate of the last three years, and the substitution of a special order of the Poor Law Board for an Order in Council.
  MR. COBDENasked, whether there would be any appeal from the order of the Poor Law Board?
  MR. C. P. VILLIERSsaid, there was no question of appeal in the matter.
  Clause struck out.
  Clause 5 (The Poor Law Board to exclude the Poorer Unions) struck out.
  Clause 6 (Provision for the cases of Unions in two Counties) agreed to.
  Clause 7 (No Order of the Board to be issued after the First of March) amended, and agreed to.
  Clause 8 (Orders in Council to be laid before Parliament) struck out.
  Clause 9 (Interpretation Clause) agreed to.
  Clause (A.) (Guardians may charge Cost of Relief of Parishes in Excess of 5s. in the Pound on the other Parishes in Union) brought up in lieu of Clause 1, and read 1°; 2°; and added to the Bill.
  The following Clause, in lieu of Clause 3:—
  Clause (B.) (Guardians of distressed Unions, when the Expenditure shall have exceeded 5s. in the Pound, may apply to the Poor Law Board, who may apportion such excess of Expenditure over the Unions in the County.)
  "If the guardians of any such union shall find that the aggregate expenditure in and about the relief of the poor of the whole union for the quarter ending at Michaelmas or Christmas next shall have exceeded the rate of 5s. in the pound per annum on the annual rateable value of the property comprised within such union, such guardians may apply to the Poor Law Board, and there upon the Poor law Board may, if they think proper, upon being satisfied that there has been such excess of expenditure as aforesaid, make a

  953
  general order upon the several unions and parishes under a separate board of guardians or select vestry in the county wherein such union shall be situated to contribute a sum of money to meet the excess, in proportion to the annual rateable value of the property comprised within such unions and parishes respectively; and the several sums so apportioned shall be paid by the guardians and select vestries of the said unions and parishes respectively out of the respective common funds of the said unions, and from the funds of the guardians and vestries of the said parishes respectively, to the treasurer of the union on whose behalf the said order shall have been issued."
  —brought up, and read 1°.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he would move the omission of all the words after the words "such guardians," in order to insert the words—
  "may, with the sanction of the Poor Law Board, borrow any sum not exceeding half the amount of such rateable annual value, and apply the money so borrowed in payment of any charges imposed under this Act on the common fund of such union."
  No doubt there was an obscure clause in the statute of Elizabeth which gave the quarter sessions power to rate one part of a county to meet the distress in another part; but when they came to examine the statute of Elizabeth, they would find that it did not apply to the present case. In the first place, the statute of Elizabeth never gave the power of rating for the assistance of able-bodied poor. What it did was to enable a rate to be levied for the purpose of buying wool to set the people at work; and to apply that to the present state of things the rate be levied under that statute ought to be applied in the purchase of cotton, to set the people to work in the manufacturing districts; but it was the inability to procure cotton that had produced their distress. In reality the statute of Elizabeth had nothing to do with the subject, and it was the statute of William IV. that applied to the present state of things. The distress which existed in the north could not, properly speaking, be attributed to any neglect or overtrading on the part of the cotton manufacturers; it resulted rather from the course pursued by the nation at large in adopting a particular line of policy, and the proposition made by the Government was to get out of the difficulty by giving an arbitrary and summary power to the Poor Law Board to levy a tax upon other unions, the reason given for such a proposal being that it would be inconvenient to call Parliament together before Christmas. Parliament, however, would, he contended, be guilty of
  954
  a gross dereliction of duty if they conferred the absolute power in question upon so light a ground. It was very true, no doubt, that when a parish was in distress increased rates would make it bankrupt. The only alternative was to adopt the commercial practice of enabling people to tide over difficulties which they could not immediately meet by borrowing money on permanent resources. Half of the annual rateable value of a parish would be a proper limit to such borrowing powers; but that, as well as the duration of the loan, was a question of detail.
  LORD ROBERT CECILsaid, he did not regard the Amendment unfavourably, because he believed it was better to leave the people to deal in their own way with distress in their own district. He had, however, the strongest objection to the arguments which the hon. Member used. The hon. Gentleman said, that as we did not interfere to prevent the American blockade, and as that had led to a cotton famine, we were bound to make good the losses of the cotton manufacturers. That doctrine ought not to pass without a protest. He would not inquire whether or not we were right in not interfering, although he thought we were wrong. But he could not conceive that the hon. Member was prepared to accept the logical consequences of that theory. Suppose that the States, instead of a blockade, had imposed a prohibitory export duty on cotton. A famine would equally have been produced. In such a case we surely would not resort to arms to get rid of the duty, and yet, according to the hon. Member, we should be bound to repair the losses of Lancashire. Such a proposition was quite untenable. The hon. Member also said that the Lancashire manufacturers were not to blame for their present critical position. Of course, no human being could have foreseen the extraordinary civil war which was raging; but if there had been a war between this country and America, that would have had precisely the same effect with regard to Lancashire. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Cobden) said that the trade in cotton during war time would be carried on just the same as in peace; but unless the Americans sent their cotton into the seas with the intention of being captured, he (Lord R. Cecil) could not see how that could be. At all events, the trade would be reduced to a mere smuggling trade. Now, what he wished the Committee to remember was

  955
  this, that the manufacturers, as tradesmen, were bound to look forward to the fact that war between this country and the United States was a possible contingency. That was an event that had been constantly contemplated, and against which we had made provision. It was therefore not fair to say that the distress was purely accidental, and that the manufacturers had nothing to do with it. The hon. Member cast discredit on the honour of the House by suggesting that they were hurrying the measure through, merely to avoid the inconvenience of a winter Session. The House would never degrade itself by such conduct. There was good reason why the people of Lancashire should contribute for the relief of the present distress. They had eaten the banquet, and ought to pay their share of the bill. They had enjoyed the profits, and ought to bear their proportion of the losses.
  MR. J. C. EWARTsaid, the noble Lord seemed to forget that in war time the trade would be carried on by means of neutrals.
  MR. COBDENsaid, the noble Lord imputed some blame to the cotton manufacturers, because they had not taken precautions to insure a supply of raw material. That was a common complaint, but was it well grounded? He supposed no man in his senses would say that the same labour, skill, and capital which had been devoted to the development of the cotton industry of Lancashire could at the same time have been applied to the cultivation of cotton in America or elsewhere. The same labour, skill, and capital could not be employed in two places at once. This country had produced men of the greatest ingenuity in inventing and working machinery, and the most enterprising and energetic cotton spinners and manufacturers. He thought, therefore, that the British capitalists had performed their part. In offering the best possible market for cotton wherever it could be got, they had done all that, as individuals, they could be asked to do to stimulate the growth of cotton. He did not mean to say that the spinners and manufacturers might not, as capitalists, invest their surplus means in growing cotton in various parts of the world, but it was not their duty to do so. What the noble Lord meant was this—that, as a community, Lancashire had taken no part in trying to devise means by which cotton might be produced in other countries. He (Mr. Cobden) contended that as a commu-
  956
  nity Lancashire had done all that they could to promote the growth of cotton in India. All that they could do was to memorialize and urge the Government, by making roads and improving the tenure of land, to remove the obstacles in the way of growing cotton in India. Did the noble Lord know how much Lancashire had done in that respect? He remembered that, as long ago as 1848, his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham made a speech urging the Government to send out a commission to report on the capabilities of growing cotton in India, and pointing out the imprudence of being solely dependent upon one market. The late Sir Robert Peel and the late Sir James Graham complimented his hon. Friend upon that speech, and his hon. Friend made another speech in favour of a Committee of Inquiry upon the same subject. The Manchester Chamber of Commerce had repeatedly discussed the question, and Manchester had twice sent out deputations to India on the subject. Not a Governor General had been allowed to go to India, or a finance Minister suffered to depart for the East, without the Manchester Chamber of Commerce inviting them to Manchester, or coming to London, to impress upon them the importance of removing the obstacles to a supply of cotton from India; until an outcry was raised that Manchester men looked upon India merely as a cotton farm, and made all the politics of India revolve round their own selfish interests. He declared that he had almost felt inclined to share that sentiment upon seeing Manchester persevering so pertinaciously in the matter. Indisputable as were these facts, how could any one impute blame to Manchester. The Manchester cotton-spinners were not a majority in the Cabinet. They did not appoint the President of the Indian Board. But all that they could do they had done in stimulating the Government to remove obstacles which the Government might have removed, so far as to enable cotton to be brought to the sea-coast by road or river, instead of on the backs of bullocks. All had been urged in vain; and when this crisis came, it was not becoming to cast blame on this great industry for a calamity which had fallen unexpectedly, and which it was the duty of Parliament to remedy by the best means within their power.
  MR. ALDERMAN SIDNEYsaid, he doubted the soundness of the principle involved in the Amendment, which would enable the distressed unions to borrow

  957
  money for the payment of ordinary relief. It was very proper to distribute the burden over neighbouring localities by a rate in aid, but it could not be right to encumber with debt parishes which were sure to be exhausted by unusual claims upon their funds. He should therefore vote against the Amendment.
  MR. PULLERsaid, it would be more convenient to have the clauses and the Amendments printed and the Bill re-committed, in order that they might fully understand what they were discussing, it was admitted that the manufacturers, tradesmen, and operatives were not in the least degree to be blamed for a crisis which was unprecedented in the whole history of the Poor Law. The only question was, how the difficulty could be best met; and, while he did not object to the principle of borrowing, he did not think that that mode would be altogether successful. He understood that the power to borrow was not to be exercised until the expenditure of the whole union amounted to 5s. in the pound upon the average annual value of the property in the union; but it must not be forgotten that in some parishes, like Stockport, the rates could only be collected upon 40 per cent of the annual value, and therefore the rates would have risen to a much higher sum than 5s. before the remedy could be applied.
  MR. J. B. SMITHsaid, he was decidedly opposed to the principle of a loan. Some hon. Members seemed to think that if the war in America were settled to-morrow, the distress in Lancashire would at once cease. But he could not share that opinion. We had been dependent on America for 85 per cent of the cotton we used. There remained in America some three or four millions of bales, but there was none elsewhere in the world. Therefore, as soon as that cotton was obtainable, a scramble for it would ensue, not only by England, but by France and Germany, and by America; for at that moment cotton was worth 2s. a pound in New York which was only worth 1s. 5d. in England. But the estimate that he had made was that in America not more than one-fourth of the usual quantity had been sown this year. Where were we to get our supplies from? India was our only resource. And what was the state of things in India? Last year we received 1,000,000 bales. His hon. Friend the Member for London (Mr. Crawford) once thought this year we should receive 1,250,000 to 1,500,000 bales, but he
  958
  believed he was not of that opinion now. From all accounts the cultivation had not increased there, except to a small extent. The expectation of obtaining Indian cotton was really very slight; and it was not likely, with the loss of capital and the disorganized state of the Southern States, that if they could settle their disputes to-morrow, they would be able at once to resume their old supply. The war appeared to be drifting into an anti-slavery contest, the issue of which no man could foresee, and it was obvious that America could not for many years to come, if ever again, produce so large a supply of cotton. With such a prospect before them, it would therefore be folly for the guardians of unions to burden themselves with the yearly payment of interest and sinking funds on loans. He must candidly confess that he did not know what the result of the present crisis would be. The manufacturers had kept their mills at work at a loss—in fact, the manufactured article had actually in some cases been sold at 3d. per lb. less than the raw cotton. He could not allow that the manufacturers had reaped the whole benefit of the trade's past prosperity. In his opinion, the landowners of the cotton districts had equally shared in the prosperity; for there had been instances in which the rents of land had been increased seven-fold; but whilst the cotton manufacturers were called upon to pay rates for the relief of the present distress out of their capital, the landowners did not pay one farthing out of their enormously increased rents. It would only be just and equitable therefore if they were called upon to sustain their share of the present burden.
  MR. C. P. VILLIERSsaid, the question raised by the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets was the principle upon which the unions should obtain aid in case of need. That question was a very difficult one to decide, and there could be no doubt that many hon. Members had changed their opinions upon the point since the Bill had been introduced. After a most careful consideration, he could only repeat the reasons which he stated the other night which induced him to prefer the mode which was recommended in the Bill, that mode being that relief to a union overburdened with the charge for the poor should be by a rate in aid rather than by a loan. It seemed to him that the proposal harmonized with the prevailing system—that it was consistent with

  959
  the mode in which the funds for the relief of the poor were always raised—namely, of rating local visible property to meet the current expenditure of the year. It was likewise considered to be a wholesome check on extravagance and careless expenditure. He thought, also, there was something equitable and appropriate in calling upon the counties to contribute to the distressed manufacturing districts, seeing, as was generally admitted, how much they had benefited from their neighbourhood with all the commercial wealth and capital which the cotton business brought into their districts. On the other hand, looking to the state of the country, it was utterly impossible to doubt that the prosperity of the district would, sooner or later, revive, and those who raised the money now would be sure to be able to repay it. There was this advantage in raising the money by loan—it would prevent a great deal of disorganization of labour and capital which must follow from the continuance of this distress and consequent pressure on the ratepayers; at the same time, it was open to the remark that people were not careful in administering money raised in that way, and unless the administration were very careful indeed, the most enormous mischief would be inflicted on those districts. He did not wish to say more against the proposition for raising the money by way of loan, but he thought the argument prevailed in favour of the plan proposed in the Bill. The opinion gained ground, that the more equitable way of raising the money would be by contributions in aid. There seemed to be a general assent to that on the part of the districts, and he hoped the House, by a division on his hon. Friend's Amendment, would maintain this portion of the Bill.
  COLONEL WILSON PATTENsaid, the diversity of opinion in the House very closely represented the divided state of opinion amongst his constituents. He thought they ought to make the owners of property in some sort contribute to the burden; but he was satisfied that that could not be done directly, otherwise it would become necessary to include stock in trade. On the other hand, if the plan of loans were adopted, the owner of property would be made to pay his proper share as well as the occupier.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: My right hon. Friend stated with great fairness the arguments in favour of these two modes of raising money—by rate in aid, and by
  960
  way of loan. No doubt raising money by loan would, on the first blush of it, recommend itself to most people. It is the easiest way. It postpones till a future time the pressure of the moment. Those who borrow the money will probably not have to pay it; and it is in all things and on all occasions the safe outlet from immediate difficulties. But there is an after-clap even to raising money by loan; the difficulty is not diminished by postponement; and I do not think that those parishes or unions which raise the rate would find, when the time came to pay interest and capital, that they were benefited by having the burden thrown on them, instead of having contributions from other parts of the county. I must say I think that the raising by loan would be the establishment of a new and a very dangerous precedent. For certain permanent purposes, which have been mentioned in the course of the debate—the erection of union-houses, the getting rid of a part of the pauper population by emigration — Parliament has sanctioned the principle of raising loans by a mortgage of the rates; but never yet, I believe, has a loan been raised for the purpose of the daily, weekly, and monthly wants of parishes or unions. Never yet have loans been raised to pay for the bread, linen, and daily expenses incident to the relief of the poor. Now, if you raise a loan for this occasion, other occasions would present themselves equally calling for it. Other parts of the country would call upon you equally to raise a loan; and then my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have an appeal made to him probably, as was made in the case of loans for Irish purposes, that the parishes or unions were oppressed by calamity — that it was impossible for them ever to repay; and then, according to the argument used, that the pressure arose from national policy, and the nation ought therefore to pay, we should be called to transfer the payments from parishes or unions to the Consolidated Fund. Now, I should hope the Committee will not take any step in that direction. The question has been asked, would these two counties be able to give the rate in aid? There can be no question about that. Those who are best acquainted with the resources of Lancashire and Cheshire assure me, that if the whole working population — man, wife, and children—were thrown entirely out of work, the rateable property of those

  961
  two counties would be perfectly able, without undue pressure, to supply the funds for aiding the whole. I think that is perfectly just; because no man can shut his eyes to the fact that there is not an acre of ground in these two counties which has not derived an infinitely enhanced value from the prosperity of their manufacturing industry. The owners and occupiers of land there may not share the profits arising from the capital of the manufacturers, who have amassed great fortunes, but the produce of the soil has been sold for a greater amount — those who have disposed of properties there have obtained for them a fabulous price, in consequence of the demand arising from the manufacturing industry of those counties. Therefore it is really very just that the proprietors there, even those who are not engaged in manufactures, and have not accumulated enormous capitals, as many of the manufacturers have done, should contribute on this occasion for the relief of the suffering working classes. It seems to me, then, that a rate in aid is fair in principle, that it will be sufficient for its purposes and in its application. I therefore trust that the Committee will not be led away by the plausibility of a temporary loan, that it will adhere to sound principles of legislation, that it will adopt in this case that system of a rate in aid which belongs to our old established law, and not now set a precedent which is not only vicious in itself, but dangerous in the consequences to which it might lead.
  MR. COBDEN: I would beg to suggest to my hon. Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets that he will not press his Amendment to a division. This is a question on which the Government has not yet expressed its opinion. ["Oh, oh!"] Although clauses have been omitted from the Bill, yet we have never heard distinctly that the Government would oppose my hon. Friend's proposition. I think it would be much better that the districts concerned should have an opportunity of considering the Bill in its amended shape before a division is taken upon the question whether borrowing powers should be granted to them. There can be no doubt that the Bill has been completely changed. At first it was proposed that a rate in aid should be given where the rates in any parish amounted to two-thirds more than the previous average, but now it is proposed to give no extraneous assistance until after the rate has risen to 5s. Those
  962
  parishes which had been expecting that this Bill would bring them aid from other parishes by means of a rate in aid, in the event first contemplated by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Poor Law Board, ought therefore to have an opportunity of considering the change now introduced in the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport would seem to have forgotten that his own constituents have presented a memorial strongly urging that they should be allowed to borrow money on the security of the rates, in order that they may set people to work. My hon. Friend has had a deputation from them in London, and perhaps his eloquence convinced them that they are wrong, but he has not convinced the board of guardians at Stockport. I hold that it is the interest of the country, as well as of Lancashire and Cheshire, that they should know what we are doing before we finally decide this question. I hope my hon. Friend will not press his proposition to a division, especially as he has mentioned the maximum. He has proposed that the parishes or unions should be allowed to borrow to the extent of one-half their rental. Now, I do not think that it is necessary in the case of Rochdale that they should have the power of borrowing more than one-fourth between this time and next March. If the Government will take upon themselves the responsibility of this question, I hope my hon. Friend will not press his proposition to a division.
  MR. J. B. SMITHsaid, it was quite true that the board of guardians for Stockport did desire to have power to raise a loan, but it was under a misapprehension which he had explained. The mayor of Stockport and the chairman of the board of guardians were satisfied that it would be best to adopt the Bill of the Government.
  MR. E. P. BOUVERIEsaid, he must protest against the question being treated as one affecting Lancashire and Cheshire only. It was a national question, which concerned all the ratepayers of the country. The arguments of the noble Lord at the head of the Government and those of the hon. Member for Stockport against a loan were conclusive. Borrowing was a very tempting and easy means of getting rid of a difficulty; but after the indulgence in that luxury came the terrible ogre called "interest," which grew larger day by day, and was often followed by the process of re-borrowing, which they all knew to be

  963
  the certain road to ruin. If the hon. Member for Rochdale would examine the matter broadly and impartially, he would see the dangerous nature of that course.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he had fulfilled his duty in bringing this matter before the Committee, with whom it rested to express its opinion upon it then, or adjourn it to a more convenient time. At the same time, he would beg to disclaim the ulterior views which the noble Lord (Lord R. Cecil) had ascribed to him.
  MR. COBBETTsaid, he should be sorry if they came to a division at that stage of their proceedings. His constituents had scarcely had time to consider the measure. He had received a short letter from the clerk to the Oldham board of guardians, stating that they were not disinclined towards the Bill before the House, but desired that a borrowing power should also be conferred. He was, himself, much inclined towards a rate in aid, but at the same time was not opposed to any other course which the Government might propose to avert the danger of the people of the manufacturing districts being left to starve. It had been said that they had been much pressed on this matter. Now he had heard that the rates paid by his constituents were 2s. in the pound, but great apprehensions existed, and he could not help feeling that there would be great distress before that time twelve months.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  MR. C. P. VILLIERSsaid, he would then propose the following new clause:—
  Clause (C.) (How Annual Rateable value of Property to be Estimated.)
  "For the purposes of this Act the annual rateable value of the property within the several parishes and unions hereinbefore referred to, shall be estimated in the manner in which the same is required to be taken in computing the amount of contributions to the common fund by the law in force for the time being."
  Clause agreed to.
  MR. LYGON MR. LYGON moved a new Clause:—
  (Chairman and Vice Chairman of Unions contributing may vote at Meetings of Guardians of the Union aided.)
  "The chairman and vice chairman of the board of guardians of any union, parish, township, or incorporation, any part whereof is called upon to contribute in aid to another union, parish, township, or incorporation, shall be entitled to take part in the proceedings of the board of guardians administering the relief so contributed, and to vote thereupon, in like manner as if they were guardians of the poor within the union, parish, township, or incorporation receiving the contribution in aid."
  MR. C. P. VILLIERSsaid, he thought the admission of such a large number of persons to the board aided would be productive of considerable confusion, and that the object of the hon. Member might be attained by the appointment of auditors to examine the accounts.
  COLONEL WILSON PATTENsaid, he considered some check necessary on the parties voting the money.
  MR. LYGONsaid, that he would withdraw the clause; but, at the same time, he wished to intimate an intention of bringing forward the subject again, should the Ministry take no step in the same direction.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. COBDENsaid, he wished to inquire when the next stage would be taken.
  MR. C. P. VILLIERS: To-morrow.
  MR. COBDENsaid, he considered that too early, and would suggest Thursday for the next stage.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he thought that sufficient time ought to be allowed in order that hon. Members representing the districts affected might learn something more of the opinion of their constituents.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered on Wednesday, and to be printed. [Bill 240.]

BANKRUPTCY ACT (1861) AMENDMENT BILL— [BILL NO. 223.]

  CONSIDERATION.
  Order for Consideration read.
  MR. ROLTsaid, that the Bill proposed to abolish certain offices, and give compensation to the holders. It was quite right that the House should vote compensation for offices abolished, in order to effect real improvements in the law; but care should be taken that while one set of officers were abolished, another set, substantially the same, was not created, to be paid for out of the Bankruptcy Funds. Three houses belonging to the Insolvent Debtors Court were to be retained for the purposes of the new Bankruptcy Court. Some of the officers were transferred, and were to discharge their duties in these three houses. The housekeepers, however, were to be abolished and to have compensation. Now, he objected to their handing over those offices to other persons who were to receive salaries from the Bankruptcy Court. He did not observe in the Bill any proviso respecting the arrears since October, 1861.
  MR. PEELsaid, that the Bill related altogether to the officers of the late Insolvent Court for whom no employment in the Bankruptcy Court could be found, and who were to receive compensation for the loss of their offices. Those officers who were transferred to employment in the Bankruptcy Court would continue to receive their salaries; those left in charge of houses, if any, would be paid as hitherto; those who were not employed at all would be pensioned on the basis of an average of seven years' emoluments, into which class the housekeepers would fall on their ceasing to have charge of the houses. No new offices would be created; and if additional officers were required, it would be easy to re-appoint those whose services had been dispensed with, in which event they would receive salaries, but of course their compensation would in that case cease to be paid.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, that though nothing might be easier than to do what the right hon. Gentleman proposed, the question was whether it would be done. Some words should be inserted in the Bill to that effect.
  Bill, as amended, considered.
  Bill to be read 3° To-morrow, at One of the clock.

NIGHT POACHING PREVENTION BILL.

  [BILL NO. 232.] CONSIDERATION.
  Order for Consideration, as amended, read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now taken into Consideration."
  MR. W. E. FORSTERremarked, that the Bill, as originally introduced, was a Bill to prevent "night" poaching; but in Committee the words defining night to mean from sunset till eight in the morning were omitted, confessedly under a misapprehension; and he therefore would move that the Bill be re-committed, in order to the restoration of the expunged provisions. So important an alteration should be fully deliberated upon before it was adopted, as it tended to add greatly to the objections already existing to the Bill. Another important change was made in Committee, by the rejection of the clause throwing the onus probandi on a suspected person to show that he was not a poacher, and that was an improvement. Still the Bill in its present form was highly objectionable, because its effect was to make the police game preservers by night and day. He admitted that outrages had occurred in
  966
  connection with game, but he attributed them to a system of over-preservation.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "Bill" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "be re-committed,"—instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he would point out that it was not necessary to recommit the Bill to restore the restriction, which could be done when the amended clause came under consideration.
  MR. P. S. WYNDHAMsaid, he should oppose the proposed alteration. If the police had power to search by day as well as by night, much would be done to put down the abuses which now prevailed. Professional poachers were in the habit of sending away their game by day rather than by night, and a case had come to his own knowledge in which carts laden with game were sent away three or four times a day from a certain village; and though all in the village knew where the game was got, nothing could be done to stop the carts.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he should withdraw his Amendment for the present, but would raise the question again when the hon. Baronet (Sir Baldwin Leighton) should move to omit the word "night" from the preamble.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill considered:—
  SIR JOSEPH PAXTONsaid, he wished to move a new clause. He proposed simply to have a register kept of the times that the police might have orders to interfere in the preservation of game, and also to oblige the persons who so employed them to pay for their services. If they were to give any effect to the Bill at all, the gamekeeper must have the power to call in the police when he knew that a gang of poachers were about to invade his master's premises. He thought it was right that the services of the police should be paid for in such cases. He had called upon Sir Richard Mayne that morning, and asked how he dealt with exceptional cases in which the services of the police were required; and Sir Richard told him that those services were paid for, and that the Commissioners of the International Exhibition, for example, would have to pay about £20,000, not only for the care of the Exhibition, but for three-

  967
  fourths of the policemen up to Hyde Park Corner. He begged leave, therefore, to propose a clause to the effect—
  (Register to be kept by Policeman.)
  "That every policeman employed in carrying out the purposes of this Act shall keep a register of the orders given to him, and of the time he was employed on each occasion, and that the person by or for whom he was employed shall be charged for the time occupied and services rendered."
  Clause (Register to be kept by Policeman) brought up, and road 1°.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
  SIR BALDWIN LEIGHTONsaid, one would have thought that the hon. Gentleman had since the last stage of the Bill purchased a large property, and was become a great game preserver. According to the proposed clause a gentleman who wished to preserve game might get twenty or thirty policemen sent to preserve his game on conditions that he paid the cost. That was going further than he had himself intended.
  SIR HARRY VERNEYsaid, he was convinced the effect of the Bill would be most injurious. One-fourth of the prisoners in Aylesbury Gaol were in for poaching, and the cause was the enormous amount of game preserving in the country around. Game preserving was most injurious to good farming, and whatever allowances the landlord made could not remunerate the farmer for the injury that was done to him.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he hoped that his hon. Friend would not press his clause. He wished to call the attention of the hon. Baronet (Sir Baldwin Leighton) to the Irish Constabulary Act, which enacted that no constable should be employed, under the authority of the justices, in enforcing the preservation of game and fish. The present Act extended to Ireland, but the Irish police would not be employed in the manner proposed by the Bill.
  COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he trusted that an Act would be brought in in the following year to repeal the clause of the Irish Constabulary Act.
  COLONEL FRENCHsaid, that a pledge was given that the Irish constabulary should not be employed in the collection of revenue, but that pledge had been violated.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he had never heard a more
  968
  inconsequent remark. The police of Ireland happened to be paid out of the public revenue, yet his hon. Friend argued that it was improper they should collect the public revenue.
  COLONEL FRENCHexplained that a pledge had been given that they should not be so employed.
  Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  On Question, "That the Preamble be agreed to."
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he should propose to move an Amendment in line 1, which set forth that "whereas night poaching and murderous assaults arising therefrom have increased." That assertion rested on no evidence, for offences of the kind had not increased. He should therefore propose to omit the words after the word "whereas," so that the preamble might read, "Whereas it is expedient that the laws now in force should be amended."
  MR. BERNAL OSBORNEsaid, he was not aware that this Act was to be extended to Ireland. Certainly, as far as that country was concerned, the preamble was inapplicable to the existing state of things. There was, he fully believed, no such thing as gang-poaching in Ireland. As a rather extensive game preserver, he did not believe that he had ever lost a head of game, nor had he ever heard of poaching in Ireland. This was the most extraordinary Bill ever brought in by a private Member at the termination of a lazy Session. If the Game Laws were to be tinkered with, it should be done by the Government. The fact was that game ought to be regarded as property. Pheasants were brought up like poultry, and ought to be considered as such. He could not agree with the hon. Member for Buckingham (Sir Harry Verney) as to the injury done to farming by game preserving, because the best farming was in Norfolk, and the greatest quantity of game was found in that county. [Mr. Cox: Not pheasants.] His hon. Friend who interrupted him had, he suspected, a much greater acquaintance with town sparrows than with pheasants. He believed his hon. Friend was a good shot; but if he went down into Norfolk, he would see whether there were any pheasants there or not. He believed that the House was only provoking unnecessary odium by tinkering with such a subject in such a manner. He should certainly vote against the extension of the Act to Ireland.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he would move, as an Amendment, that the words "night poaching" be inserted after the word "of," making the preamble read, "Whereas it is expedient that the laws now in force should be amended for the better detection and prevention of 'night poaching,'" instead of "such crimes."
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 4, after the words "prevention of," to insert the word "night."
  Question put, "That the word 'night' be there inserted."
  The House divided:—Ayes 75; Noes 97: Majority 22.
  Preamble agreed to.

  Clause 1 (Interpretation of Terms).
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he would move the omission of the definition of the word "game" contained in the clause—namely, hares, pheasants, partridges, eggs of pheasants and partridges, woodcocks, snipe, rabbits, grouse, black or moor game, and eggs of grouse, black or moor game, for the purpose of substituting the definition contained in the present Game Acts. With regard to eggs, they had never before been included in any definition of game; and though in one Game Act there was a special provision relating to the eggs of pheasants and partridges, yet it only sentenced persons taking them to a fine of 5s., whereas the Bill would subject them to a fine of £5 or imprisonment.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 1, line 10, to leave out from the word "Act" to the word "and," in line 13, in order to insert the words "have the same meaning as it is defined to have in the Acts passed, the one in the ninth year of King George the Fourth, chapter sixty-nine, intituled 'An Act for the move effectual Prevention of Persons going armed by Night for the Destruction of Game,' and the other in the Session of the first and second years of King William the Fourth, chapter thirty-two, intituled 'An Act to amend the Laws in England relative to Game,'"
  —instead thereof.
  SIR BALDWIN LEIGHTONsaid, he thought the definition clause better as it stood. Former Acts had included the words "game or rabbits." He admitted that eggs were a new addition. It was not his proposition, but was proposed by another Member, and passed without a word of opposition.
  MR. CRAWFORDsaid, that a division was taken on the word rabbits. He regretted the result of the decision which had been come to, because the objection
  970
  was to increasing the law against day poaching; and the opponents of the Bill also objected to woodcocks, snipes, and rabbits being described as game, they not being game.
  MR. BARROWsaid, he was not sure whether he should not at once move that the House do adjourn; and he thought he should be doing right in taking division after division until the supporters of the Bill could be induced to listen to the arguments against it. He believed stringent laws would not put down poaching. It was because he believed that this Bill was an entire mistake that he was opposed to it. The petitioners all objected to the police being employed in the preservation of game. It was impossible to make game property. There was no one more desirous to put down poaching than he was.
  LORD LOVAINEsaid, he rose to order. The question they were discussing was, whether conies were to be classed as game.
  MR. BARROWsaid, then he would speak about rabbits, and he did not think that hon. Gentlemen were wise in endeavouring to make rabbits game. A farmer was quite as much justified in destroying a rabbit as he would be in destroying a rat.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  The House divided:—Ayes 85; Noes 75: Majority 10.
  MR. BUTTsaid, he wished to move words to exempt females from being searched under the provisions of this Act.
  Amendment proposed,
  To add at the end of Clause 1 the words "but nothing in this Act shall be construed so as to authorize the searching of the person of any female under any of the provisions herein contained."
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he regretted the clause had been struck out which compelled game dealers to keep a register. He thought as the Bill was at first framed it was a very bad one, but it would leave the House in a good shape. He believed it would be impossible to make game property. The Amendment he should oppose, as it would be very easy to employ women to drive a cart containing game; and if they did so, they ought to be made amenable to the law.
  SIR BALDWIN LEIGHTONsaid, he had no objection to the Amendment.
  Question put, "That those words be there added."
  The House divided:—Ayes 53; Noes 80: Majority 27.
  Clause agreed to.

  Clause 2 (Power to Constables to search persons without Warrant in certain cases).
  Mr. CRAUFURDobjected to the extension of the Bill to Scotland. No case had been shown for such a provision. There were few or no preserves of pheasants and partridges in Scotland. He submitted, that the experiment should be tried in England first, and moved, that the words "Great Britain" be expunged, and the word "England" inserted.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 5, to leave out the words "Great Britain," in order to insert the word "England,"—instead thereof.
  Question put, "That the words 'Great Britain' stand part of the Bill."
  The House divided:—Ayes 95; Noes 55: Majority 40.
  Mr. BRADYsaid, that Ireland never had been a poaching country. Moreover, the police in Ireland had other duties to perform than to protect game. He moved that the words "and Ireland" be omitted from the Bill.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 5, to leave out the words "and Ireland."
  SIR BALDWIN LEIGHTONsaid, he feared he could not consent to the Amendment. The Bill could do no possible harm to Ireland.
  Question put, "That the words 'and Ireland' stand part of the Bill."
  The House divided: Ayes 88; Noes 59: Majority 29.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 8, after the word "Game," to insert the words "or of being accessory thereto."
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Another Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 8, after the word "Game," to insert the words "or any person acting in concert with such person."
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. CRAUFURDsaid, he would move that the debate be adjourned.
  MR. NEWDEGATEopposed the Motion. He thought the hon. Gentleman was only making political capital out of the opposition to that Bill; but as he had not the wit of the hon. Member behind him
  972
  (Mr. Bernal Osborne), he did not know how to bring his small wares to the best market.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
  The House divided:—Ayes 47; Noes 96: Majority 49.
  Original Question again proposed.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR BALDWIN LEIGHTON SIR BALDWIN LEIGHTON moved the insertion, after the word "game," of the words "or any person aiding or abetting such person," or having in his possession any game unlawfully obtained, &c.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 8, after the word "Game," to insert the words "or any person aiding or abetting such person."
  MR. BUTTsaid, the clause as it stood was neither good English nor good sense. According to its language, the policeman would be bound to take himself into custody, and go through the ceremony of a search upon his own person.
  MR. E. P. BOUVERIEsaid, he would put it to the House whether they could go on with a Bill in such a state, or whether it was not discreditable to the House and to the country to persist in discussing a measure which was most unpopular with the public, and would be the laughingstock of the courts. He hoped the hon. Baronet would withdraw the Bill, and obtain the assistance of some legal Gentleman who would put the clauses into proper shape.
  COLONEL NORTHsaid, the right hon. Gentleman did not seem to know that the clause had been drawn up by the Lord Chancellor himself, the phraseology of which had been so much ridiculed.
  SIR GEORGE GREYbelieved, that the Bill was incapable of amendment, and it would be open to any hon. Member to move its rejection on the third reading. The Amendment now under consideration would render the measure more unintelligible than before.
  SIR BALDWIN LEIGHTONdefended the clause, and had no doubt that the Bill would be easily worked.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The House divided:—Ayes 85; Noes 58: Majority 27.
  SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMIDsaid, he would move the adjournment of the debate. He wished, also, to point out that the

  973
  words just inserted would only apply to the "accessory," while the principal would escape altogether. The Bill was a disgrace to the Legislature; and as for checking poaching, its supporters might dismiss that from their minds at once.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it was too bad that they should be kept through the night upon such a measure. He should therefore vote for the adjournment, not for obstruction, but because of the very serious objections there were to the provisions of the Bill, especially those enabling policemen to search women, and to take men into custody merely on suspicion.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the further Consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned."
  The House divided:—Ayes 51; Noes 81: Majority 30.
  MR. BONHAM-CARTERproposed, that the penalty should be reduced from £5 to 40 s.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 25, to leave out the words "five pounds," in order to insert the words "forty shillings,"—instead thereof.
  Question put, "That 'five pounds' stand part of the Bill."
  The House divided:—Ayes 76; Noes 48: Majority 28.
  Other Amendments made, and Title amended.
  Bill to be read 3° on Wednesday, and to be printed. [Bill 241.]
  House adjourned at half after Three o'clock.

MINUTES.
Sal First in Parliament.—The Lord Berwick, after the Death of his Brother.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Consolidated Fund (Appropriation); Militia Pay; Corrupt Practices Prevention Act Continuance; Court of Common Pleas (Officer for Acknowledgment of Deeds); Drainage (Ireland); Elections during Recess.
2a Charity Commissioners' Jurisdiction; Poor Removal; Recovery of Poor Rates, &c.; Moveable Property (Scotland); Lunatics Law Amendment.
3a Turnpike Acts Continuance; Copyhold, &c. Commission; Metropolis Local Management Acts Amendment; Public Offices Extension.

CHINA—ENGLISH OFFICERS IN THE CHINESE SERVICE.

  MOTION FOR PAPERS.
  EARL GREY, in moving for Copies or Extracts of Correspondence explaining the arrangements that have been made for permitting Officers in the Naval or Military Service of Her Majesty to accept employment under the Government of China, said,—My Lords, the permission to which I allude seems to me a measure of no ordinary importance, inasmuch as it implies a great change in the policy hitherto pursued by Her Majesty's Government with respect to the present distracted state of China, as explained in the Papers laid before Parliament by Her Majesty's command; and it appears to me fit, before separating for the recess, that we should obtain some explanation from Her Majesty's Government, of the reasons for that change of policy, and the extent to which it is to go. My Lords, I have said that this measure implies a material change in the policy hitherto pursued by Her Majesty's Government towards China. I say so, because your Lordships must remember that hitherto that policy has been declared to be one of strict neutrality between the Imperial Government and the Taeping rebels. There was an exception to that neutrality, as far as regarded the part we took in the defence of Shanghai, in the commencement of last year. In January, 1861, Mr. Bruce expressed his opinion that the defence of Shanghai should only be a temporary measure, or until the power of the insurgents was established in the district, and that the protection should not be extended to the other treaty ports. This view taken by Mr. Bruce seems to have been approved by Her Majesty's Government, and in the month of May last year the Admiral, acting under the instructions he had received, formally announced to the Taeping authorities at Nankin that Her Majesty's Government intended to remain neutral between the Imperial Government and the rebels, and that the authority of the rebels would, with certain limitations, be recognised in those places in which they were in actual possession. Again, in the August of last year the Secretary of State, writing to Mr. Bruce, stated that it was the desire of Her Majesty's Government to maintain as hitherto a strict neutrality between the contending parties; and it was not until the month of March last that the Secretary of State so far relaxed this rule as to

  883
  authorize the protection by British forces of other ports besides Shanghai. Very soon after the neutrality of this country was formally announced to the Taepings, we find that heavy guns were mounted at Ningpo for the Imperialists, and that the men were instructed by British officers how to use them, and, as the Admiral said, everything was done to assist the Imperialists in defending the town, except the actual employment of British forces against the rebels. Now, it certainly appears to me that this was a line of conduct hardly consistent with the strict neutrality which had been expressly promised. Notwithstanding, however, the just ground of complaint we had given to the Taepings, there was nothing in their conduct to us with which we could find fault. Some time after the capture of Ningpo it was reported by Mr. Harvey, the Consul there, that the Taeping authorities had strictly performed their promises, and had shown the utmost desire to remain on good terms with us. On the 17th of December Mr. Parkes wrote to the same effect. But, notwithstanding these declarations of our Consuls, and without any explanation laid before Parliament, we know from despatches published in the Gazette, and from other less authentic sources of information, that we have really engaged in a regular war with the rebels. In the first place, we find our forces have been employed in protecting other treaty ports besides Shanghai; and then that British and French forces, in conjunction with a person named Colonel Ward, at the head of a disciplined body of Chinese, retook the city of Ningpo, and afterwards undertook to drive the insurgents from the posts they occupied within a certain distance of Shanghai. It appears that the operations which followed were successful, but not without some resistance on the part of the Taepings, inasmuch as the French Admiral was killed. In the month of May last year we had as far as possible discouraged the employment of Europeans by the Imperialists, and Mr. Bruce reported the measures taken to enforce the surrender both from Imperialists and Taepings of British subjects, and he spoke in somewhat contemptuous terms of Colonel Ward. He described him as a man of the name of Ward, an ex-Californian filibuster, a person of United States origin, though he did not claim the privilege of a United States citizen, apparently on account of the severity of the law of that country against such of their citizens as
  884
  should engage in the military service of foreign Powers. Notwithstanding his having been thus spoken of by our Minister little more than a year ago, the gentleman so described is now acting in command of a body of disciplined Chinese, in concert with the French and English military officers. Such having been the change that has taken place in our policy, I am anxious to know upon what grounds it has taken place. It is not my object now to endeavour to show that the English authorities upon the spot have been in error in the course they have pursued. However doubtful I may be of that policy, I am not sufficiently informed of the circumstances to have any right to condemn it. I confess I am not surprised, in the extreme difficulties in which they are placed, that our diplomatic agents and naval and military officers should have thought fit to take the course they have taken, in spite of the strong objections to which it is open. My Lords, by our past policy, we had unfortunately rendered the Imperial Government totally unable to put down the rebels. By the war with us, that Government had been disgraced, beaten, and reduced to so feeble a state that it was wholly incapable of protecting itself or its subjects against the Taepings, who were becoming more and more formidable. In the papers before us, I find that a captain in Her Majesty's service (Captain Drew) was quite surprised at the steadiness and organization shown by the rebels. He stated, that when compelled to retire by the French fire, they did so in perfect good order. In his Report to the Admiralty, another officer stated that the measures taken by the Taepings exhibited a marked contrast in point of energy and decision to the miserable weakness of the Imperial authorities. This is not quite consistent with the assertions we have heard, that the Taepings are nothing but robbers and murderers, and unable to form a regular army. It is far from my object to censure the conduct of the officers in command of Her Majesty's forces in China; but I think that what has occurred makes it necessary we should have a distinct explanation of the ulterior intentions of Her Majesty's Government, and how far they mean to go in support of the Imperial Government in China. Because, my Lords, I consider, that in undertaking to support the Imperial forces, and to throw the weight of our arms in the scale against the Taepings, we are incurring a very serious responsibility. Any territory that Her Majesty's forces can occupy within

  885
  twenty or twenty-five miles of Shanghai, will do very little for the maintenance against the Taepings of that great city and its inhabitants, increased as they are by the refugees who have taken shelter there from other places; and, above all, will do nothing for the benefit of our trade. The provinces which supply the silk that forms so valuable a part of our trade are already in their power, and we shall therefore make things worse rather than better, if, having declared hostilities against the Taepings, we do nothing for the protection of these provinces and the trade we carry on with them. The tea districts are also in danger; so that if this policy of hostility to the Taepings is to be pursued, with the necessity of defending against them the territory from which we draw supplies for our trade, we shall have to extend our protection over a wide area. It will not be a few hundred, or even a few thousand men that will then answer the purpose, and we must lay our account to having a war of gigantic proportions on our hands. It is possible, no doubt, that the war will not extend to these dimensions. It is possible, that by our undertaking to protect certain forts within the reach of our naval force, so that a small land force may also act in conjunction with it, and by giving the Chinese Government the assistance of British officers to drill and organize their forces, the Imperial authorities may be able to recover their territory and re-establish tranquillity. But if British officers in the Chinese service are to be supported by our diplomatic agents, and are to fall back in the last resort on the British forces for assistance in driving back the Taepings, this will be only British interference in another form. If, on the other hand, these British officers in the Imperial service are merely to do what they can individually to assist the Chinese Government, I confess, that judging from what we know of Oriental nations, I very greatly doubt whether they will have any decided success in putting an end to the war. Supposing, however, that the Imperial Government are enabled by their means to put down the rebellion of the Taepings, nothing will still be done to cure that inveterate corruption, weakness, and dishonesty on the part of the Imperial authorities of which Mr. Bruce and all our agents in that country complain. Her Majesty's Government are, I believe, disposed to augur favourably of the Government of the person who, by a quasi revolution, has succeeded to supreme power
  886
  in China. I doubt very much, however, whether any change of that kind in the supreme authority can correct the inveterate and long-standing evils to which I have referred, or cure the corruption and misconduct of the subordinate authorities. The general character of Oriental Governments is that of a despotism tempered by the power of resistance in the governed. The rulers are too commonly corrupt and oppressive; but having no well organized force at their disposal, when oppression passes the point of endurance, a successful rebellion generally gives relief to their subjects. This being the case, experience proves that the consequence of leaving the character of an Oriental Government unaltered, but increasing its strength, by giving it the advantage of European intelligence and skill in creating an efficient armed force, is to establish a system that is perfectly intolerable. In India it is invariably found, that in the native States under our protection, which have subsidiary forces under European officers to carry out their orders, such a grinding tyranny is created that it is impossible for the Indian Government to leave those native Princes unchecked to manage their own affairs. Having once interfered to give these powers, the Government are obliged to interfere still further, and to check these native rulers in the mode in which they exercise them. You are compelled to check them at every turn; and this is found to be the case—that a native Government, interfered with by British advice, yet not altogether directed by it, is practically as bad a Government as is possible. The result is, that you are almost invariably compelled in such cases to assume the administration of the Government. The latest instance of our interference in a case of this kind was in the case of the intolerable tyranny of Oude. Is there not, I would ask, great danger that these evils will re-appear in China, and produce a state of things in that great empire infinitely worse than that which would have arisen if we had left the Imperialists and the Taepings to fight out the matter between them? My object is not, however, to censure the Government, but to ask for information as to the grounds on which Her Majesty's Government have acted, and as to their future intentions. I think it most necessary that they should be able to show us the course which they have chalked out for their own guidance, and the guidance of the servants of the Crown who have gone to China. I think the

  887
  Government should show that they are acting upon some clear and definite system, to be steadily and consistently pursued—that their policy is not a hand-to-mouth policy, sufficient merely from day to day to deal with difficulties as they may arise, without much concern as to the future. My Lords, if we fail to look carefully into the whole situation of affairs—to take a comprehensive view of the actual condition of China, and of the means by which that condition may be improved—if we neglect to do this, I am persuaded that we shall incur the utmost risk—I would almost say the certainty—of drifting into a costly and fruitless war, and becoming involved in responsibilities and embarrassments which will press with a heavy load on the nation for many years to come. The noble Earl concluded by moving an Address for—
  "Copies of Extracts of any Correspondence explaining the Arrangements that have been made for permitting Officers in the Naval or Military Service of Her Majesty to accept Employment under the Government of China."
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSET: My Lords, I am not surprised that the noble Earl should have called your attention to the state of affairs in China; because, considering our relations with that country, and the expense to which we went in establishing those relations, and also considering the difficulties connected with the administration of affairs in China, it is natural that your Lordships should be anxious to hear not only what Her Majesty's Government have done, but likewise what are the measures which we are now taking in connection with the maintenance of British commerce in the Chinese Empire. My noble Friend has stated fairly enough, that up to the beginning of this year our policy has been neutrality as between the two parties in China. In the despatches of my noble Friend the Foreign Secretary will be found directions that force should not be used against the rebels, but that a strict neutrality should be maintained by our officers. Vice Admiral Hope speaks in the same manner and expresses a hope that some sort of agreement may be come to with the Taepings, by which any interference with our trade may be prevented. Mr. Parkes, with Vice Admiral Hope, did come to a certain agreement with them, to the effect that they should not approach within 100 le, or about thirty-four miles, of Shanghai. That arrangement was considered necessary, because the outposts of the Taepings consisted of marauders who
  888
  plundered the villages and murdered the inhabitants; and in consequence the unhappy Chinese sought refuge in Shanghai. The Chinese authorities employed Colonel Ward—who since his arrival there has, I believe, behaved very well—to drill a Chinese force to meet the marauding parties. With this state of things the difficulty of protecting British interests came on. Connected with the Taepings who acted on land were a great number of pirates, who acted on the various rivers of China; and, what was worse, in every town to which the Taepings came, there was a European banditti of the worst character, who took advantage of any disturbance. Such being the state of things, it is said that the interference of the British authorities will make matters worse. I regret, my Lords, to be oblige to express an opinion, that between the Imperialists and the rebels nothing can make matters worse in China. Your Lordships may have read of some of the atrocities which have been committed by the Taepings, including the destruction of an old and important town, containing many thousand inhabitants, in which the Taepings, for a period of four days, kept slaughtering the people. The Chinese flee to Shanghai, carrying their property with them; so that there is now in that town a large number of natives as well as British merchants. Shanghai is at present a place of importance, and it promises to become much more important. Officers who have returned from China tell me that in a few years it would become the New York of China—a great commercial capital; but the progress of trade must necessarily be interfered with by the proceedings of those marauders on land and of the pirates in the rivers. That being the state of affairs, the Chinese Government made an offer to a naval officer who has had great experience in China, that he should organize a naval force to enable them to put down these pirates. On the matter being brought to the attention of Her Majesty's Government, I thought the object contemplated was so far desirable as that we should give him liberty. It was not our duty to say, "You shall be prevented from accepting the offer. We know the miseries caused by the acts of those pirates; but we shall not allow the Chinese Government to take advantage of the experience of one of our naval officers." We have great interests in China. For very many years we have been acting as the police of those waters; and if the

  889
  pirates were to continue their operations, we should be obliged to keep a force in the rivers for the protection of our commerce. I do not think that there is the objection which the noble Earl has urged to our strengthening the Government of China. On the contrary, I am of opinion that it would be desirable that that Government should have greater strength. Indeed, some of Lord Elgin's despatches went to this effect—that the most dangerous consequences of its contest with the Europeans would be that the Chinese Government would be so weakened that it would not be able to put down the rebellion, and to stop the desolation which was going on. It is true that the Government of China is a very bad one; but the Taepings have been ten years in China, fighting and destroying, but have established no Government and no order. There is no organization of any kind. If your Lordships look at the state of things at Nankin, you will find that they reject all trades except the trade in arms, putting persons to death who engage in others; and that they will have no sort of organized society, except a camp for the purposes of war. They say that when they have conquered all China, then will be the time to organize a social system, and that at present they must go on as a camp. From our experience of ten years, and from their own statements now, that is the prospect for the future. More than this—they have broken their compact with us. They agreed not to come within a certain distance of Shanghai; but they violated that agreement and attacked Hoo-Sing, from which they were driven off by the French and English forces. We cannot hold Shanghai except by force; and unless we are prepared to withdraw from China altogether, we must hold that place. We cannot allow it to be taken. We tried that experiment at Ningpo; but, instead of the Taepings establishing anything like order there, they were guilty of such sanguinary actions and horrible crimes that the missionaries were obliged to leave it. Not only, however, have the Taeping violated their agreement as to not approaching Shanghai, but their "Heavenly King," as they call him, has proclaimed that it is time that they should take Shanghai, and has required us to repent and submit. We must, therefore, either "repent and submit" to the conquest of Shanghai, or we must defend it. I think that the feeling of this country will be, that considering that we have the right to trade there,
  890
  and that it contains so much British property, we should not be justified in giving up Shanghai in order to gratify the rapacity of these people. I think that is a clear line to draw. I do not say that we are bound to protect, or can protect, all the fourteen ports with which we have a right to trade; but where there are large stocks of British property and important British interests it is our duty and our obligation to defend them. I do not even say that the lines which are drawn round Shanghai are precisely those which ought to have been fixed; but that is a question which must be decided by the naval and military officers there, whose decision must depend a good deal upon the lines of the various canals, and upon the nature of the country round Shanghai. What is certain is, that we must not allow these marauders to come close to that town and interfere with our trade and our peaceful occupations. Your Lordships will see, from the papers which are upon your table, that the merchants have been compelled to form "a Committee of Safety," and, instead of attending to their own affairs, to parade the town night and day, as volunteers, to defend their property and even their lives from the attacks of these men. The mode in which the Taepings act is this:—They approach a town, driving in the inhabitants of the country—those who escape being murdered—and among them they send in some of their own followers. These men take the first opportunity of setting fire to the town in various places, and thus create a confusion, which enables those outside to take the place. When they had to deal only with Chinese, these tactics were generally successful, as at Ningpo, when, although there was a Mandarin in command of a large force, who declared that no Taepings could ever come near him, and that if they did, he would destroy them, yet as soon as they appeared he scrambled over the wall on the opposite side of the town and took refuge in an English gunboat. With such a people as this it is no wonder that the Taepings should succeed; and if we are to allow these things to go on, we shall have no alternative but to give up the advantages of trade and to retire from the coast to some of the islands in the neighbourhood. With the Taepings it is clearly impossible to come to any arrangement. We have endeavoured to maintain neutrality in China. We have tried over and over again to deal with the Taepings. Their chief has, according to his own ac-

  891
  count, no authority to punish any marauding band which acts in violation of promises that he may have given, and it is therefore idle to hope that we can come to any understanding with him. What we ought to do is to take measures for the defence of Shanghai, and of other places where we have important interests. We have a large trade at Hangkow, on the Yang-tze-Kiang, and it will be very desirable that we should, if we can fairly do so without running too great a risk, protect that place from the rebels. We ought to give all the security that we can to places where we have trade, and to warn persons who carry on trade with places which we cannot defend that they do so at their own risk. My noble Friend says that he does not think that any good can be done by a British officer taking the command of a Chinese force. I entirely differ from him upon that point. I think that a British officer organizing a small fleet of gunboats will establish order and peace; will put an end, at least upon the sea, to much of the wholesale murder and robbery which is now going on; will do much which we have hitherto been obliged to do ourselves, but which ought not to be done at the charge of this country, and will enable us to reduce the force which we now have in the Chinese waters, and which is kept up mainly for the purpose of putting down piracy in those seas. We must provide one or two vessels for the use of the Admiral and chief officers, but the real employment of most of the small vessels that are now there is to put down piracy, and I should be very glad if I could see a chance of the Government being so strengthened as to be enabled to undertake the performance of this duty for itself. So far from thinking that we shall make things worse by this interference, I am of opinion that the state of things is so bad that we cannot make them worse. I believe that in giving this leave to Captain Osborne we have taken that which is a right and a safe course, and it is one which we have adopted in other cases. In the case of Turkey and other instances we have allowed officers to take service under foreign Powers and to organize their navies, and I think that what we have done there we may do to some extent in China. I admit that the Imperialists have often been as cruel as the Taepings; I do not mean to say that they have always been right and the Taepings always wrong; but the proof that the Imperialists are the better of the two is, that when a place is taken by the
  892
  Taepings, the people run away; and when the rebels are driven out by the Imperialists, they return in crowds—showing that they have confidence in the one party and not in the other. There was a striking instance of this at Ningpo. The European location was divided from that town by a narrow channel, and the French and English officers warned the Taepings that they must not approach or disturb that location. For a time they acted in deference to this warning; but when they saw that all the property and wealth was leaving their side of the creek and crossing to ours, they became dissatisfied, and fired at our ships; upon which the officer in command told them, that unless they desisted, and removed the guns from the part of the wall which commanded our position, he should fire upon them. They declined to do so, and, accordingly, a body of men was sent to take the guns from them. It was curious, we are told, to observe how within three days the Chinese flocked back to the dwellings which they had deserted; thus showing that they had confidence when a regular rule was established. The Government of the place was, of course, handed over to the Imperial authorities, and, I believe, Colonel Ward sent down a Chinese force to protect it. Well, that is the state of things in China. I hold it to be most unsatisfactory, but I deny that Her Majesty's Government is in any way responsible for it. We have endeavoured, so far as possible, to practise neutrality between the two parties. We have told them that we seek no land, that we desire no benefit for ourselves; that all we want is the safety of the lives and the security of the property of our countrymen, according to the terms of the commercial treaty. But when we found that our people were fired at and murdered, and that our property was plundered by the Taepings, it became necessary for us to take measures to check those outrages. We attempted to accomplish that object by an agreement with the Taeping chiefs, but to no purpose. We were therefore driven to take the matter into our hands. Unless we are prepared to "repent and submit," as the Taepings bade us, we must for the future defend ourselves against those marauders. I regret that we should be obliged to take such a course, but we cannot avoid it, unless we mean to retire altogether from China. If, with the assistance of the force under English officers, the Chinese can establish any sort of Government in Central China, it will be,

  893
  in my opinion, a great blessing, not only to that country, but to all the other nations who have communication with it, and, indeed, to mankind generally. I believe it may lead to the introduction of a real Christianity, instead of that spurious mockery of religion which is professed by the Taepings. There is no objection to produce the papers for which the noble Earl has moved.
  VISCOUNT STRATFORD DE REDCLIFFEsaid, the question appeared to be mainly what was due to the great commercial interests which were involved in China. They must all deplore the position to which the Chinese empire had been reduced, and it must be especially matter of regret that the course we lately took had tended to aggravate the weakness of the Imperial Government. But whatever regret we might feel as to the past, it was too late to return to the old principle of neutrality; and on that very account we ought to look with additional favour on the Chinese Government in connection with the interests of our trade. Under any circumstances, the interests of those who had been induced to invest their capital in China must be attended to. On this principle we were bound to adhere to those who were most likely to support the lights which we held by treaty; and it was evi-evident from the papers that had been laid on the table that Her Majesty's Government had been anxious to maintain the rights of British subjects in China, and he believed the majority of their Lordships would be of opinion that they were right in so doing. The two parties now engaged in conflict in China did not present to his mind any feature so similar as to justify us in placing them on an equal footing. He put it to any one who had perused the published papers on the subject whether there was anything in the character and conduct of the Taepings to justify us in paying them such a degree of respect as would interfere with our interests and with the duty which we owed to a friendly Power. It seemed to him that the course of the Taepings amounted to an indiscriminate violation of every moral principle. There was no reason to believe that they acted on any principles capable of producing a beneficial effect on the Chinese empire. If there were faults on the part of the Imperial Government which occasioned discontent among the numerous population of the country, on the other hand the conduct of the Taepings was marked by the total absence of everything calculated to obtain
  894
  the confidence of the people, and could not fail to disgust those sober-minded and moderate men whose support would be a real source of strength. We were placed as it were between hammer and anvil in China, and it was rather hard that we should be called upon at such a time to compromise our national honour or to abandon the interests of our trade. The merchants who invested their capital in the commerce of that country were entitled to look to their respective Governments for protection. He thought the agents of the English Government had acted in a very proper manner. As long as it was possible they had scrupulously respected the principle of neutrality; and when it became absolutely necessary to deviate in some degree from that principle, they had acted with vigour, prudence, and humanity. At a time like the present, when the expenditure of the Government was necessarily so great, we were especially bound to protect those commercial establishments which contributed to the wealth of the country and were based on the faith of treaties.
  EARL RUSSELL: I think my noble Friend (Earl Grey) was well entitled to raise this question, and that Parliament may justly expect some statement from the Government concerning it. I should myself prefer to have laid on the table the despatches containing an account of what has been done, and the instructions which had been given to Her Majesty's Minister. But the Session is now drawing to a close, and I think it is necessary that Parliament should be informed of the views which Her Majesty's Government take of the present state of affairs in China. That is the more incumbent on us because our course has been in some degree changed. That neutrality which was proclaimed last year, and which we informed the Taepings would be observed, has been deviated from. It is therefore advisable that we should explain—at least, your Lordships may well call on us to do so—why we have done anything which is inconsistent with the principles of the strict neutrality we formerly professed. By virtue of the Treaty of Tien-tsin (which was formally ratified after events which are well known to your Lordships) we are entitled to certain ports for the purposes of trading; and as far as the Government of China is concerned, they have been acting in perfect good faith towards us. Communications have been carried on in a thoroughly satisfactory manner, and, as would appear from Mr. Bruce's despatches, the Government of

  895
  China have met us in a spirit of fairness, and with the desire to maintain friendly relations with this country. As far, therefore, as the Chinese Government are concerned, we have no reason to complain. We have, then, to consider the value of the trade carried on with China. It is a very growing trade, as I will show your Lordships. The trade in British and foreign vessels to Shanghai was, in 1855. £7,500,000. In 1857 it was in round numbers £14,000,000. The trade in British vessels only to Shanghai amounted, in 1858, to £10,000,000. The whole trade of Shanghai in British and foreign vessels was, in 1856, £13,000,000; in 1858, £15,500,000; and in 1860, £18,000,000. Besides this there is other trade not included in any returns; so that the whole commerce at Shanghai must be £29,000,000 or £30,000,000. It is not only an increasing trade, but it is an important trade, a large part of it consisting in such valuable articles as tea and silk, which enter largely into European consumption. Having, therefore, by treaty a trade with China, and that trade being in a flourishing state, it is not a matter of light importance whether or not that trade shall be maintained, and whether or not the British Government shall be able to protect it. My noble Friend said, very rightly, that for a considerable time, while the Taepings were carrying on hostilities against the Imperial Government of China, Her Majesty's Government remained neutral, and took no measures against them. This was so much the case, that when Ningpo was attacked, no resistance was offered. But two questions of most serious importance have arisen. One is whether the Taepings will, if successful, continue the trade, and give us the same advantages which the Government of China is bound to give us. The second is whether the Taepings can form a Government with which foreign Powers can form treaty relations. My noble Friend has told us that Admiral Hope entered into a formal agreement with the Taepings at Ningpo, by which they were to agree not to interfere with the ports, not to come within a certain distance of Shanghai, and not to molest our trading vessels. There was an apparent consent given to this agreement; but everything which has happened of late shows that the Taepings, far from observing such an agreement, were determined to disregard it. They approached very near to Shanghai; junks belonging to British owners were seized; the crews
  896
  were imprisoned; one European was murdered, and every determination was shown to interfere with the British trade of that port. Accordingly, in the month of February a change took place in the views of the persons intrusted with the management of British and French interests in China. By the papers which have been produced it is evident that in February there was a disposition on the part of Mr. Bruce and others to look more closely into the matter, and to see whether trade could possibly continue if the Taepings were allowed to ravage the country. Mr. Bruce came to the opinion that it was impossible, and that our trade must be extinguished if we did not defend Shanghai, and perhaps some other ports. Upon this conviction being forced upon him, communications took place, and it is curious that at the same time almost all the chief persons representing the British and French Governments seemed to have formed the same opinion. Mr. Bruce, General Mitchel, Admiral Hope, Admiral Protet, and General Staveley, all thought it necessary to check the attempts of the Taepings to destroy the trade of Shanghai. Accordingly, they began to act, and on several occasions were successful, with a very small loss, in routing and driving off the Taepings. The other question to which I alluded is whether there is any chance, that supposing the Taepings consented not to annoy us any longer, and we made peace with them, they could form a regular Government; and upon this point we have the most convincing testimony. Mr. Roberts, a missionary, was for a long time in hopes that they might form a Government, and that some form of Christianity might be established; but he admits that he was entirely undeceived by what he saw passing around him. He found that their pretended Christian religion was nothing but blasphemy. He found that one chief pretended to be the brother of Jesus Christ, and that he and his son formed "the Heavenly Kingdom." He found, that if any one of them suffered the least contradiction, the person offending was instantly murdered, and that a boy in his own service was murdered by one of these men without the slightest reason. The evidence of Mr. Harvey, the British Consul at Ningpo, was to the same effect. He declared that the Taepings, when they took possession of a place, instead of establishing new authorities, began by giving up all the women to the fury of the soldiery; in the next place, they seized all property as

  897
  plunder, and they finished by murdering indiscriminately men, women, and children. One of their laws, it was said, was that marriage was not to be allowed, and another that any person trading without specific authority should be put to death. It must, therefore, be clear to your Lordships that it is quite impossible anything like civil relations can be established with the Taepings, or that they can govern the Chinese empire, or conduct relations with foreign countries upon that footing of amity upon which alone peace can be preserved. When the Taepings attacked our vessels, and endeavoured to kill the people on board, Captain Drew knew no other alternative to adopt but to return their fire; and the result was that Ningpo was taken. It appeared clear from this that there was no chance of our being able to maintain any relations of amity with the Taepings; and, as they seemed determined to destroy us, or to take possession of the territory we occupy, all that we could do was to protect our trade and the lives of our merchants. On the 7th of this month I wrote to Mr. Bruce the following despatch:—
  "I have received your despatches Nos. 41 and 43 of the 21st and 23rd of April, explaining the policy you have been pursuing in China. Her Majesty's Government entirely approve of that policy. If we were to attempt to establish relations with the Taepings, we should find no settled authority among them with which any secure engagements could be contracted, and we should be unable to obtain secure trade and the rich productions of China from a rabble who understand nothing but plunder, and are a scourge to every place of which they obtain possession. On the other hand, if we were to undertake to put down the Taeping rebellion, we should soon be engaged in an extensive war, while the Chinese Government would only look on, and leave the burden and expense of it to us. The rational course for us to pursue is to defend our own trade, to protect the treaty ports, and to encourage the Chinese Government to arm a sufficient force of artillery, infantry, and cavalry to overcome the rebels, and reduce them to subjection. Should this plan fail, graver questions will arise, upon which it is not at present necessary to enter. You will arrange for the stay of the troops at Shanghai so long as that settlement is menaced by the rebels. Ningpo ought to be recovered by the Imperialists; and when they have force sufficient for the purpose, they should undertake vigorous operations against Nanking. The Taepings appear to be a rope of sand, and have no cohesion or permanency. Their number forms their strength; but when the chiefs are defeated, the multitude of followers will be dispersed with case."
  That is an indication of the policy which Her Majesty's Government propose to pursue. They do not propose to give to the Chinese Government the whole force of the
  898
  British Empire for their support; but they desire to encourage them to arm a sufficient force for themselves, by furnishing them with such arms as they may require, and by advising them as to the formation of the force which they might stand in need of. On the other hand, it is evident that this course must place us in a state of hostility to the Taepings; but whenever any attempt should be made to destroy our treaty ports, where British merchants are established, we should do our best to support those merchants. Having formed with China a treaty which the Government of China have faithfully carried into effect; and having encouraged merchants to settle in the treaty ports, and carry on trade there, we do not think it right to leave those merchants at the mercy of a band of marauders and murderers. With regard to Shanghai and some other ports, it is very possible that the naval forces of Her Majesty which happen to be there, assisted by whatever other force should be on the spot, will be entirely adequate for the purpose of this protection. No doubt, in the course of these hostilities the Taepings may occasionally succeed in taking possession of a city; but I do not think that that is any proof that these Taepings can form a Government, or are able to organize a military force. Pirates very often conduct the ship which they man with admirable skill and discipline for the purpose of carrying on their trade of plunder and murder, and robbers frequently form their bands most efficiently. In like manner these Taepings act, and they seem to be nothing else but an immense body of men determined to live only by plunder. That is so much the case, that after occupying a town for a certain time they quit it for some other town, because they find all trade, commerce, and society abandon the place they occupy; and thus they go on destroying one place after another. It is impossible to make peace with such people. The noble Earl says that the Government of China is corrupt. No doubt of that; and, unfortunately, many Governments in the world are corrupt; but still the Chinese Government is the Government which in that country shows the greatest desire for civilization, and seems the best able to maintain it. My noble Friend (the Duke of Newcastle) has very truly said, that the people of China evince, whenever they have the opportunity, a preference for the Imperial Government over the rule of the Taepings, and that

  899
  whenever the Taepings leave a place, the people flock back again, returning to their former houses and shops. Such is the state of things in China, and such as I have just explained is the policy which Her Majesty's Government propose to pursue. No man can say that these Taepings may not carry their desolation completely over China, and in that case, no doubt, we should not enter into a great war to form a Government in China; but if we can assist the Imperial Government, and enable them by their own industry—and no people are more industrious than the Chinese—to restore a civilized condition of things, I think it would be the duty of the Government to pursue that policy. At all events, we should not allow the trade and commerce of our merchants to be destroyed without some effort on our part to protect them.
  EARL GREYin reply said, that though the Taepings were charged with the violation of an agreement, he thought it would be judicious not to enter into too strict an inquiry as to which party had most fairly executed the agreement. It appeared, besides, that from the first the promise of the Taepings was of a temporary kind. We had not said to the Americans that they were not to carry on the war in their country because it would interfere with our trade. But Mr. Bruce's claim was, that an English subject who might buy in the interior of China a Chinese ship laden with Chinese produce, might claim for that ship a free passage to Shanghai. But had we ever claimed a free passage for the cotton bought in New Orleans for our manufacturers? Of course not, as it would entirely interfere with the ordinary exercise of belligerent rights. That was the reason why the Taepings had resisted, and he must say they had a right to resist. It was said that Captain Sherard Osborne had only leave of absence, and that he was acting for himself in accepting employment from the Chinese Government. But he begged to call attention to this fact—that by the Foreign Enlistment Act no British subject could take service under any foreign Power without the authority of an Order in Council, or the licence of Her Majesty under the sign manual. Well, but that was not leave of absence. But it was said we had a right to do what was best for our trade. The state of China was now most miserable; and, unhappily, we were reaping what as a nation he must say we richly deserved—the fruit of that seed which we had so carefully sown. When
  900
  we began our wars with China, that empire had a Government, which though in many respects very bad and very corrupt, yet was able to maintain order and security, and which, by the testimony of Lord Elgin and of every one of our naval and military officers, had brought a large part of China to the highest state of improvement. Unfortunately, we thought that we might extend our trade by force, and hence the first war of 1840. That war was the beginning of the mischief, and from it came the first shock to the Imperial Government. The mischief done in 1840 was, however, comparatively partial, and for several years, when the noble Earl the Secretary for Foreign Affairs was at the head of the Government, the most severe and stringent instructions were issued, many of which he himself (Earl Grey) had the honour of writing, against the adoption of any course which should bring us into collision with China. But, by and-by came a change over the spirit of our policy—by-and-by came the disgraceful lorcha affair, which again brought us into collision with the Chinese, and of which the war lately concluded might be considered the continuance. By the last war, as he found it recorded in the despatches of all our diplomatic agents, the Chinese Government had their strength exhausted, their money absorbed by the indemnity which we claimed, and were rendered incapable of protecting their subjects. In the present state of things it was most difficult to say what ought to be done—it would require a far more intimate acquaintance with affairs in China than they possessed to express an opinion. But, taking as a guide what was best calculated to promote the extension of our trade in China—namely, a state of tranquillity and peace, he could not help entertaining serious doubts of the wisdom of the policy which Her Majesty's Government were now pursuing. It might be right to say that we ought to protect our treaty ports; but how were we to prevent the Taepings cutting off the supplies of the goods which were to be brought up to those ports? His noble Friend said we were not to undertake a war of any magnitude, to become defenders of the Chinese Empire, or to give the Imperial Government a right to expect the support of the whole of the forces of the British Empire. But what then were we to do? To give them a sort of modified assistance, partly by the operations of our naval and military forces acting within a limited range, and partly by encouraging our officers to take

  901
  service with them? But would not all that encourage the Chinese Government to rely upon us; would it not tend to lower that Government in the eyes of its subjects, and render it less efficient for the performance of its duties? That was the opinion of Mr. Bruce a short time ago. It appeared to him that the whole matter required to be looked at with a more enlarged survey than had been taken by Her Majesty's Government, and with reference to more distant prospects. However, he had done his duty in calling attention to the subject.
  Motion agreed to. [Parl. P. 1544.]

BETTER PRESERVATION OF LIFE (IRELAND) BILL— [BILL NO. 184.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE EARL OF LEITRIMsaid, that it was too late in the Session to ask their Lordships to go on with the Bill. The state of Ireland, however, was such as to demand the serious consideration of the Government during the recess. He would now move the second reading of the Bill.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that the provisions of the noble Lord's Bill were of so extraordinary a character that he doubted whether he could find a single Member of their Lordships' House to support it. He must really move as an Amendment that the Bill be read a second time that day three months. By Clause 5 of the Bill it was provided, that in the event of a jury finding that a person had come by his or her death by violence, a sum of not less than 10 per cent should be levied off the parish in which the body of such person had been found; and the clause further provided that 10 per cent should be levied off the income of "every clergyman, minister, priest, curate, or other ecclesiastical person, society, brotherhood, convent, or monastery, and all schoolmasters or teachers of schools within such parish." The coroner was to receive 5 per cent on the total amount of the money collected under his warrant. The clerk of the union was to receive a remuneration of 5s. a day for his attendance at the inquest, the jurymen were to receive a mileage of 6d. per mile, and every juryman who should have returned a verdict which should have been accepted by the coroner as a legal and proper verdict, was to receive an additional
  902
  sum of 5s. for each day's attendance, and a further mileage of 6d. per mile.
  Amendment moved, to leave out ("now") and insert ("this Day Six Months.")
  On Question, That ("now") stand part of the Motion? Resolved in the Negative; and Bill to be read 2a on this Day Three Months.

  SHANNON NAVIGATION.—QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF LEITRIMasked, pursuant to notice, If the Lords Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury will be pleased to give Instructions to the Engineer appointed to inquire into the Flooding of the River Shannon, to inquire into and examine the Works constructed on the River Shannon for the purposes of the Navigation; and to report if any, and which, of those Works are defective or not in conformity with the Plans approved of by Parliament; to what extent they are defective; and estimate the Cost that will probably be requisite to render the Navigation practicable to the Boats plying on the River?
  EARL GRANVILLEregretted that the Government could not assent to the request of the noble Earl, as the subject had been already considered and settled.

POOR RELIEF (IRELAND) BILL.

  [BILL NO. 229.] COMMONS' AMENDMENTS CONSIDERED.
  Commons' Amendments to Lords' Amendments, and Reasons for disagreeing to certain Amendments made by the Lords, considered (according to Order).
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEsaid, that the Commons had agreed with several important Amendments introduced into the Bill by their Lordships; but they disagreed with some others. One of the most important of those to which they objected was that which consisted in striking out the clauses inserted with the object of creating union hospitals. Their Lordships would remember the arguments which had been used when it was proposed to strike out those clauses; and he would now read to their Lordships the Reasons which the Commons had submitted for not agreeing to the Amendments. The noble Duke then moved—
  "Not to insist on the Amendment made by the Lords to leave out Clause 3, to which the Commons have disagreed."
  THE EARL OF DESART, on the contrary, moved, that their Lordships should insist upon their Amendments, and contended that the establishment of union hospitals would be a heavy burden upon the ratepayers; the people would have strong objections to avail themselves of such institutions, and their creation would have the effect of destroying the existing county infirmaries.
  LORD STUART DE DECIESsaid, the county of Waterford had no infirmary; and where county infirmaries did exist, they were not of much use to the poor. The machinery, as proposed by this Bill, for working the workhouse infirmaries would be much more easy, and therefore he would, both on the score of expediency and humanity, entreat their Lordships not to insist on their Amendments.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, the argument of the noble Lord was a very good one for the establishment of an infirmary in the county of Waterford; but it also went to sustain the objections of those who maintained that these clauses were an indirect means of substituting poor-house infirmaries for the ordinary county infirmaries. The county infirmaries were very well-conducted institutions, and were far superior to anything of the kind connected with Poor Law unions; but still there was no doubt that in large counties the infirmaries were such a distance from portions of the county, that a large part of the population was practically excluded from their benefits. No doubt this was a very serious objection; but, on the other hand, he confessed that there was very great objection to their placing in the hands of the Poor Law authorities a system of hospital management which was wholly separate from their main duty of attending to paupers. He would ask the noble Duke (the Duke of Newcastle) whether the difficulty might not be met by some fair and reasonable compromise in one of two ways—either by permitting the establishment of Poor Law hospitals in any case where the county infirmary was more than a certain distance—say fifteen or twenty miles—from the Poor Law union, or by making the provisions which had been inserted originally in the Bill to continue for one or two years only, so as to afford time to increase the number of county infirmaries in those localities where they were not sufficient at present.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEapproved the suggestions to limit the
  904
  operation of the clauses to a period of one or two years, and hoped the Government would accede to it.
  LORD DENMANspoke in favour of the suggestion to render the Bill a temporary measure.
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEregretted that he could not agree to either proposal made by the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby). He felt that the first proposal would not work at all; and with regard to the second, limiting the operation of the Bill in point of time, though it appeared at first very plausible, yet it must be recollected that there had been for years an infraction of the law in Ireland; and what the Government now proposed was, to render that legal which was at present done illegally. By making the Bill temporary, the effect would be to deprive persons of advantages they had hitherto enjoyed.
  THE EARL OF LEITRIMwas understood to oppose the provision as sent up from the Commons.
  THE MARQUESS OF WESTMEATHthought the experiment of setting up the hospitals ought to be tried. He was not afraid that the county infirmaries would be put down by them; and seeing how important it was to provide surgical relief for the poor, he should vote not to insist on the Amendment.
  VISCOUNT DUNGANNONsupported the Amendments made by their Lordships. The establishment of the hospitals proposed in the clause would tend in a great degree to injure not only the infirmaries, but the dispensaries.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, considering the narrow majority by which the vote the other day was earned, and the error into which he had fallen with respect to the majority in the House of Commons, he regretted he could not support their Lordships' Amendment. However, he felt so strongly the inconvenience of mixing up the administration of the Poor Law with a question of that kind, that when the Motion before their Lordships was disposed of, he would move to insert words which would make the proposed measure temporary.
  Question put, "Whether to insist upon the said Amendment?"
  Resolved in the Negative.
  THE EARL OF DERBYthen moved, in line 19 of Clause 3, to insert the words

  905
  "during the next two years from and after the passing of this Act."
  On Question, "Whether the said words be there inserted?" their Lordships divided:—Contents 20; Not-Contents 28: Majority 8.

  CONTENTS.

  Manchester, D.

  Churston, L.

  Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)

  Bath, M. [Teller.]

  Salisbury, M.

  Colchester, L.

  Derby, E.

  Denman, L.

  Desart, E.

  Ravensworth, L. [Teller.]

  Powis, E.

  Stradbroke, E.

  Redesdale, L.

  Dungannon, V.

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  Melville, V.

  Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)

  Berners, L.

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

  Walsingham, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Westbury, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Worcester, Bp.

  Camoys, L.

  Newcastle, D.

  Churchill, L.

  Somerset, D.

  D. Freyne, L.

  Ebury, L.

  Westmeath, M.

  Foley, L. [Teller.]

  Harris, L.

  De Grey, E.

  Llanover, L.

  Ducie, E.

  Methuen, L.

  Fortescue, E.

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.) [Teller.]

  Granville, E.

  Russell, E.

  Saye and Sele, L.

  Saint Germans, E.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Yarborough, E.

  Stuart de Decies, L.

  Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)

  Leinster, V. (D. Leinster.)

  Wensleydale, L.

  Sydney, V.

  Resolved in the Negative.
  Then it was moved, "To agree to the Amendments made by the Commons to the Amendments made by the Lords to the said Bill."
  The same was agreed to.

METROPOLIS LOCAL MANAGEMENT ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.

  [BILL NO. 227.] THIRD READING.
  Bill read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments.
  LORD RAVENSWORTHsaid, that there ought to be an appeal against the decisions of the Metropolitan Board, and moved an additional clause, to the effect that any vestry, board of works, or person aggrieved might have an appeal to the Court of Quarter Sessions.
  On Question, "Whether the said Clause be there inserted?" their Lordships
  906
  divided:—Contents 11; Not-Contents 15: Majority 4.

  CONTENTS.

  Manchester, D.

  Dungannon, V.

  Bath, M. [Teller].

  Churston, L.

  Salisbury, M.

  Colchester, L.

  Denman, L.

  Romney, E.

  Ravensworth, L. [Teller.]

  De Vesci, V.

  Redesdale, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Westbury, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Ebury, L.

  Foley, L. [Teller.]

  Newcastle, D.

  Llanover, L. [Teller.]

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.]

  De Grey, E.

  Fortescue, E.

  Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)

  Granville, E.

  Powis, E.

  Walsingham, L.

  Saint Germans, E.

  Wensleydale, L.

  Stradbroke, E.

  Resolved in the Negative.
  Bill passed.
  [25° & 26° Vict., c. 102.]

JURIES BILL— [BILL NO. 190.]

  COMMONS' AMENDMENTS CONSIDERED.
  Commons' Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Amendments made by the Lords considered (according to Order): One of the Amendments not insisted on; the other Amendments amended; and Bill, with the Amendments, returned to the Commons.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Ten o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter before Five o'clock.