Sitting of 17 February 1863

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN.—For Devonport, William Ferrand, esquire.
SELECT COMMITTEES.—Inland Revenue and Customs Establishments, appointed; Private Bill Legislation, appointed.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1°—Prison Ministers [Bill 24].
Considered as amended.—Illegitimate Children (Ireland) [Bill 13].

LIVERPOOL LICENSING BILL (by Order).

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  LORD FERMOYsaid, he rose to move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months. He objected to the Bill on account of the mode in which it was introduced. He contended also that it involved a proposition interfering with the social rights of the people. If any such measure were introduced, it ought to be brought forward by her Majesty's Government, and ought to extend over the whole country. The effect of this Bill would be to repeal a number of Acts of Parliament and to do that only so far as related to Liverpool. It proposed, in short, to establish complete free trade in licensing in that town, inasmuch as, if passed into a law, the magistrates would under its operation be obliged to grant licences to any number of persons in a street who were the occupiers of houses of the value of £50 per annum, and who could not be proved to be of bad character; so that the whole or any smaller number of houses in a particular locality might be converted into public-houses almost at pleasure. Now, he was as earnest an advocate of the principles of free trade as any man who listened to him; but the system of thus licensing houses in towns was one into which, in his opinion, it ought not to enter. The magistrates ought, he thought, to have it in their power to take into account, over and above the facts that the man applying for a licence lived in a house of the value of £50 and had not garotted anybody, the additional consideration whether it was for the good of society in the place that the licence should be granted. If the Bill received the assent of the House, the result would be that the magistrates would be subject to the alternative of either granting a licence to everybody, or of rendering themselves liable to a mandamus to compel them to do so. The fact was, the question had at Liverpool, as he understood, been made a party one; and if that were so, he thought it was a great mistake. The noble Lord concluded by moving his Amendment.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."
  MR. HORSFALLsaid, he would beg leave to assure the noble Lord that he had fallen into a great mistake in supposing that this had been made a party question at Liverpool. The necessity for the Bill had arisen in the difference of opinion which existed among the magistracy of Liverpool with respect to the granting of licences; one section being desirous that certain restrictions should be imposed in such cases, while there was another section disposed to grant licences almost indiscriminately. To obviate the difficulties which were in consequence occasioned, it was deemed desirable that the present Bill should be brought in, and he thought the provisions of it would commend themselves to every hon. Member who read them. It would be found that the persons applying for licences should not only be of good character, but should find sureties for their good conduct. It was also required that no licence should be granted to a house rated at less than £50 per annum, and the cost of the new licences was to be £30 each per annum, while as to existing licences it was agreed that fourteen years should elapse before parties now possessing licences should be called upon to pay the higher rate for them. The Bill was mainly framed on the Resolutions of a Committee of that House which sat in 1854. As to the advisability of such a measure being introduced for the whole country, the particular circumstances of each locality should be taken into account; for instance, in Liverpool 1,540 licences had been granted, while in Manchester, with a larger population, there were only 600; and on a recent occasion 124 new licences had been granted in Liverpool, while at Manchester almost every licence was refused. The Bill was not a Bill promoted by the licensed victuallers of Liverpool, but it had received the general support of the people of the town; and he believed that only one petition had been presented, and that not against it, but in favour of a clause being inserted for the purpose of requiring all public-houses to be closed on Sundays. He trusted, therefore, that the House would allow the Bill to proceed.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he wished to call the attention of the House to the important principle involved in reading a second time as a Private Bill the measure under
  396
  discussion. It could not, he found, looking at the Standing Orders, which embraced forty different categories under which Private Bills might be ranged, be classed under any one of them, while there were several rules relative to the bringing-in of public Bills which had been evaded by its introduction in its present shape, inasmuch as it proposed wholly to alter certain general regulations relating to the revenue and the conduct of trade. Every measure of that nature ought to be introduced in a Committee of the Whole House; and further, any measure which imposed a charge upon the people ought to be submitted to that House on the responsibility of the Government and with the assent of the Crown. The Bill had not been so introduced, and he therefore thought it ought not to be proceeded with any further. The question for the House to consider was, whether, by assenting to the second reading of the Bill as it stood, they were prepared to take the first step in the substitution of private for public legislation on the subject of licensing. The law, he maintained, on the subject was sufficiently intelligible; and if magistrates chose to quarrel among themselves when called upon to execute it, the course to pursue was to appeal to the Lord Chancellor for redress.
  MR. MASSEYsaid, the objection of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) was that the Bill ought to have been introduced by a Resolution of a Committee of the Whole House. No doubt Bills of a public character relating to money or taxation ought to be founded upon a Resolution of a Committee of the Whole House. The reasons for such a regulation were somewhat antiquated; but however forcible they were, and although the regulation had been established long before Private Bills existed, it was not thought expedient to extend it to Private Bills. The objection, therefore, of the hon. Gentleman, he thought, wholly untenable. It had been also argued that the measure would establish the principle of exceptional legislation, which was said to be highly objectionable upon such a question as that involved. But it could not be denied that the principle of exceptional legislation had already been laid down in regard to particular bodies and individuals. The question, then, arose whether there was anything in the matter entitling the people of Liverpool to be heard before a Committee above stairs. He thought there

  397
  was. Liverpool contained a population of nearly 500,000. An immense trade and commerce were carried on within the town. The magistrates of the place had expressed themselves favourable to the enactment of such a measure of police as the present Bill really was. The Bill, too, was mainly founded upon the Report of the Committee of 1854. Under all those circumstances he thought it was only reasonable that the promoters should have the power of satisfying a Committee upstairs, if they could do so, that Liverpool was entitled to this special legislation.
  MR. HARDYsaid, the more he considered the measure the more satisfied was he in his own mind, that it was not a question that ought to be referred to a Select Committee. He denied that the recommendations of the Committee of 1853 and 1854 were in favour of a measure of the kind under consideration. So far from the proceedings of that Committee being a ground for enacting such a measure as the present, they went to show that the difficulties in the licensing system were such as to demand a general Bill upon the subject. The measure was not merely one of police regulation, it involved the comfort and happiness of a whole population; it involved considerations of the most serious and important character. He thought that they would be establishing one of the worst precedents if they referred a matter of such a character to a Committee of five Gentlemen upstairs, who would deal with it as they thought fit, and only afford the House the opportunity of deciding upon so momentous a question upon the third reading of the Bill. It should be also recollected that the Bill was one for which the Government were actually waiting in order to found a precedent. The right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department had told them that he was delaying his own general licensing Bill until he saw the result of the present proceedings—that he was preparing a measure to apply to the licensing system of the whole Kingdom. Why, then, should that exceptional legislation be proceeded with? It was impossible to form a fair judgment of the results of the working of such a measure as the present until it had been for years and years in operation. In conclusion, he should oppose the second reading of the Bill on the ground that the system of licensing extending over a population of half a million of people was not one that ought to be
  398
  decided by a Committee of five Gentlemen above stairs, but ought to be established by a public Bill, and submitted to Parliament in such a shape as would afford the fullest opportunities for the consideration of its principles and their effects upon the country generally. With the greatest reluctance, he felt himself compelled to oppose the Motion for a second reading.
  MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had no intention of adopting in any measure with reference to the licensing system the principle of the Bill before the House.
  MR. J. C. EWARTsaid, that there was no quarrel among the magistrates of Liverpool. No petition had been presented against the Bill, which had been brought Forward with the general approbation of the inhabitants of Liverpool. He hoped, therefore, that the House would allow the Bill to go to the Committee upstairs.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that notwithstanding the observations of the hon. Member (Mr. Hardy), the present measure was essentially one of police regulation regarding the licensing system of Liverpool. The great reason why they enacted regulations regarding public-houses, was to protect as far as possible the morality of the people. Now, a police Bill might be very applicable to certain large localities, though not quite suited to the entire kingdom. Considering that the magistrates of Liverpool were desirous of the Bill proceeding, he thought it would be too bad to refuse the promoters an opportunity of establishing their claim for special legislation before a Committee of the House, where it would be equally open to the opponents of the measure to show cause against it. As to the objection of the hon. Member (Mr. Hardy), that the question involved was far too important to be settled by a Committee of five Gentlemen, that objection might be removed by a special Motion to refer the Bill after it had passed the Select Committee to a Committee of the Whole House, as had been done on certain extraordinary occasions. He (Sir George Grey) believed the principle of the measure to be valuable; and should it be found applicable to Liverpool, he thought it would go far to remove objections to the licensing system generally.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he thought a great question arose upon the proposed mode of legislation. A few years ago they had the same thing tried in respect to Manchester

  399
  education. In considering that Bill the great inconvenience was felt of enacting a general principle by means of a local Bill. The same objection precisely applied to the present state of things. He thought that the subject was one which ought to be dealt with generally. He was at a loss to know by what process they could make this a hybrid Bill, by having it referred to a Committee of the Whole House after it had come down from the Committee of five Gentlemen upstairs, as the right hon. Baronet suggested. If the principle of the measure were sound, and the Government were prepared to justify it, the right hon. Baronet ought himself to introduce a general measure on the subject. If they assented to the second reading of the Bill, they would have given a quasi approval to the measure. To a certain degree they would then find their hands tied when they came to discuss the provisions of a general Bill upon what must be admitted to be a difficult subject and one of great interest to the general community. He was therefore disposed to vote against the Motion, because he did not think there was any ground shown in favour of exceptional legislation for Liverpool. The regulation of public-houses was a general principle applicable to the whole country, and he did not see any reason why Liverpool should be legislated for on a principle wholly different from every other part of the kingdom.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary no doubt contemplated introducing a Bill to apply to the whole country. At the same time, he contended that the passing of one general measure for the whole kingdom was a very different thing to the consideration of a Bill only applicable to the peculiar circumstances of Liverpool. Now, there were peculiar circumstances in the condition of Liverpool which would make it an exceedingly hard case for the traders of that town if they refused its demand for exceptional legislation. The magistrates of Liverpool had acted generally for some years past on the principle of open or free licences, and it was their practice to give licences, not on the principle which was usually observed by magistrates elsewhere, of according a certain supply of liquor to a certain amount of population, but they acted on the principle of giving licences with great freedom to all applicants who were judged qualified to conduct the business of publicans with
  400
  respectability. What, then, was the effect of the system adopted by the Liverpool magistrates on the condition of the publicans? On the one hand, they continued under the old burdens in which the trade had been kept. Those who kept the old houses were still obliged to pay the factitious rents and extravagant prices for the goodwill, &c., of the establishments. On the other hand, they did not obtain the advantage accorded by the old system as administered by the magistrates of the country generally. They were, then, exposed to an unlimited amount of competition, but were denied the advantage of the law where it had been altered. Under those circumstances the Committee that sat some years ago on the subject recommended the adoption of a system totally different to that which now prevailed. The recommendations of such Committee were in a great measure embodied in the present Bill. He therefore thought that a fair case had been shown for the second reading.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, he thought that the arguments of the Chancellor of the Exchequer proved rather too much. They went rather to support the views of his right hon. Friend the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) than to afford reasons for proceeding with the present Bill; for if the Committee referred to had recommended alterations in the law as applicable to the entire kingdom, then those alterations should be made co-extensive with the whole population. He owned he felt the gravest objections to private legislation of the kind. In the Manchester education case it was very properly contended that the great principle therein involved ought to be submitted to Parliament in the shape of a Public Bill, and not to be introduced to the House under cover of a Private Bill. The House ultimately confirmed that view. His right hon. Friend had made one very important admission. It seemed now that the Bill was not brought in by the Corporation of Liverpool, but at the recommendation of the publicans of Liverpool. He must say he did not think that an authority on which the House should be asked to adopt exceptional legislation.
  Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 108; Noes 124: Majority 16.
  Words added.
  Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
  Bill put off for six months.

SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  SIR JAMES DUKEmoved that the Bill be now read the second time. The object of the Bill was to shorten the time consumed in the transit between this country and the Continent. He trusted that the House would not, on account of the opposition to the measure, object to the second reading, but would say that the opposition should be heard and determined on by a Committee.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. DODSONsaid, he rose to move, as an Amendment, that the Bill be read a second time that day six months. In so doing he wished to disclaim being actuated by private interest, or hostility to the promoters, the South Eastern Railway Company. The object of the Bill was to take power to make a branch line about two miles long near Folkstone Harbour, the alleged advantage of which was that it would shorten the distance to London three-quarters of a mile in the whole distance of eighty-three miles. The existing arrangements had been deemed sufficient from the formation of the line up to two years ago, when the Bill passed for the formation of the London, Chatham, and Dover Railway. In 1861 the South Eastern Company brought in a Bill, which was opposed by Sir John Bligh on the ground that the projected branch would pass within 100 yards of his house, and separate the house from the entrance lodge; by General Hankey, because the branch would pass within twelve yards of his house, cut through his kitchen garden and offices, and, in fact, render the house uninhabitable; by the Corporation of Folkestone, and by other parties, on the ground that it would destroy the lower road to Sandgate. Lord Radnor, whose property would be traversed by the proposed branch, was also an opponent of that Bill. The Bill passed the House of Commons; but on being taken to the Lords a Select Committee of their Lord ships threw it out, and that without call-
  402
  ing on the opponents to open their case. That Bill the company had revived. The Bill before the House was to construct a branch railway between the same points as those of the Bill of 1861; and it was open to the same objections as the former Bill, except in one respect only—namely, that Lord Radnor, formerly an opponent, having made terms with the company, had withdrawn his opposition. There was an important difference in the present circumstances and those of the Bill of 1861 — that the opponents of the Bill suggested an alternative line, not of greater length, and with the same advantages as that of the promoters; but that suggestion had been rejected by the promoters on the ground that it would entail a larger expense. The promoters had declared, that if defeated, they would renew their application again and again till they wore out the opposition. He asked the House whether, in the absence of any new advantages, they were prepared to allow the opponents of a Bill to be again put to the trouble and expense they were put to in 1861? If so, it would be establishing the principle that the longest purse would win, the game being "beggar my neighbour," and the better plan would be for the parties, instead of submitting their differences to Committees, to place their purses in the scales, and the owner of the purse which kicked the beam to give in.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."
  MR. GILPINcontended that the statement of the hon. Member for Sussex ought to induce the House not to refuse to read the Bill a second time, but specially to refer it to investigation before a Committee. Had the hon. Member investigated the alternative line? In all probability he had not. He (Mr. Gilpin) had, and he was therefore in a position to deny that it was equally good with that of the promoters. If the hon. Member argued, that because a Bill which had passed the Commons had been rejected by the Lords, it ought not to be reintroduced into the Commons, he could understand the logic, but he should entirely dissent from the conclusion. In 1861 the Bill passed the Commons, notwithstanding the opposition of Lord Radnor, the largest landowner whose property was affected by the measure; but that opposition was now withdrawn, and

  403
  to that extent the present circumstances were better than those of 1861.
  MR. MONCKTON MILNESsaid, that this was one of those cases which the House would be called upon some time or other to meet by general legislation. A strong feeling prevailed not only in the country, but in that House, that these unseemly conflicts between Committees and private parties should be terminated, and that it was unjust to permit wealthy companies to come before Parliament year after year with the view of exhausting the patience and the pockets of private individuals opposed to their schemes.
  MR. NORRISremarked that the entire merits of the case were sifted with more than ordinary strictness before a Committee in 1861, when the Bill received the sanction of the House, but was afterwards rejected by the Lords. If, then, there was a conflict at all, it was between the Committees of the two Houses.
  MR. MASSEYsaid, he should be unwilling that any measure which had been deliberately decided upon should be re-introduced when heavy expenses were involved. He must maintain, however, that a Committee of the Commons was quite as competent as a Committee of the Lords to decide upon the merits of the Bill; and as the Commons passed the Bill in 1861 he thought it ought to be again adopted. It was said that landowners were opposed to the Bill. Their case was fully heard by the Commons' Committee in 1861. It was not a case in which a decision had been pronounced by the House on a previous occasion adversely to the promoters; and if the Bill were not now allowed to proceed, the company, and not private landowners, would be the aggrieved parties, because the company were successful in 1861.
  MR. LYGONsaid, that having been on the Committee in 1861, he could bear witness that the Bill was thoroughly investigated. It had been stated that there was a conflict between the Lords and Commons; and it was therefore right that the House should know that the Committee of the Commons was divided in opinion on the subject. The question seemed to him to be really this, whether a railway with large resources was to come again and again to Parliament and wear out the opposition by the enormous expenses.
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENsaid, that he had allowed his name to be placed on the back of the Bill, which he
  404
  would not have done if it had not been a case in which public interests were involved. The largest of the three landowners who opposed in 1861 did not oppose now; indeed, the Bill was not the same as that then before the House; and if the House refused to send it upstairs, the company would be placed in an unfair position.
  COLONEL KNOXsaid, that the company had not made any proposition to conciliate their opponents except in one instance. The Bill proposed to go through the grounds and houses of gentlemen both resident and non-resident; and as he did not think twenty minutes could be saved by three quarters of a mile of railway, he hoped the House would take a more generous view than the hon. Member who had just sat down, and reject the Bill.
  SIR BROOK BRIDGESsaid, that he knew the locality, and he did not wish the House to be misled in regard to the importance of the public interests involved. It was allowed by the supporters of the measure that the distance saved would be only three-quarters of a mile; and they also said that it was impossible to save more than a quarter of an hour; but it was rather difficult to conceive how a quarter of an hour could be saved by three-quarters of a mile. With reference to the private interests involved, they had before them the fact that in all important particulars it was precisely the same proposition that had been before the House on previous occasions, and it destroyed the privacy of two residential proprietors merely for a saving of three-quarters of a mile. It was true that at the end of a long period of agitation one of the largest proprietors had agreed with the company, but he was not a residential proprietor; and was it to be in the power of one large landowner, by thus agreeing with a company, to injure smaller proprietors, unless the interests of the public were really involved? If they were involved, the case would come before the House on a very different footing. The opponents of the measure were put in a very unfair and disadvantageous position on the score of expense. They spent £5,000 in proving their case before a perfectly unexceptionable tribunal; the Bill passed the Committee of that House only by the casting vote of one Member; and it was thrown out of the other House. There fore, the preponderance of authority was against it; and the company ought to have adopted the alternative route, at the larger expense, rather than have involved the par-

  405
  ties in the expense they had been put to and would be put to in again opposing the measure.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, that the facts just mentioned exhibited a feature of private legislation which demanded immediate revision, and illustrated the necessity of that railway tribunal the creation of which he advocated a few nights before. He trusted that the Government measure on the subject would include a remedy by which the expenses of proceedings in regard to Private Bills would be reduced so as to give fair play to the opponents of such a Bill as this when contending against a great company.
  Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 111; Noes 122: Majority 11.
  Words added.
  Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
  Bill put off for six months.

PRIVATE BILL FEES.

  RESOLUTION MOVED.
  MR. R. HODGSONsaid, that he rose to move the Resolution of which he had given notice, on the subject of the fees on private Bills. If, however, it were understood that the Bill to be introduced on the Report of the Committee of last Session were to have a retrospective effect, he was ready to withdraw his Motion. That Bill he thought ought to apply to the measures of this Session, because it was a monstrous injustice that the promoters of Bills should be mulcted of the fees they were called upon to pay. He did not believe that the House generally knew the amount of the fees or the principles on which they were charged. The fees against which he proposed to direct his Resolution were those paid on the different stages of a private Bill as it passed through that House. He believed that the ordinary expenses of an unopposed Bill which did not give authority to raise more than,£50,000 amounted to £100. On the presentation of the petition for the Bill £5 was paid; on the first reading, £15; on the second reading, £15; on the report of the Committee, £15; and on the third reading £15. If the promoters of a private Bill asked power to raise from £50,000 to £100,000, the fees were trebled, though no more trouble was given in passing the Bill. In
  406
  some cases, where, for example, the promoters sought to raise £1,000,000, the charges were more than ten times the amount of fees which they would be required to pay if they asked to raise only £10,000. None of the witnesses examined before the Committee of last Session could explain the principle upon which these exorbitant fees were charged. In 1847, when a charge was introduced, the fees were assessed upon an unintelligible system. The only object seemed to be to secure that in some way or other something like the same amount of fees should be raised. On that account, he presumed, the ad valorem principle was applied to private Bills. The consequence was that not the same amount of fees, but a much larger amount, had been raised since 1847. In one year the amount raised by fees was £220,000, which not only paid the expenses of the establishment, but gave the Chancellor of the Exchequer £170,000; and the year before, when £76,000 was raised, the Chancellor of Exchequer received £16,000. That was a gross injustice to the promoters of Bills. He did not propose to interfere with the fees paid to solicitors and others under Act of Parliament, or by order of the Speaker. He was not a speculator in railways. He was connected with the management of one simply for the reason that it was connected with the neighbourhood wherein he resided. It was in low circumstances when he joined the direction in the hope of improving it. Since that time, and during the last eight years, the shares stood at 120 per cent higher than they did. He wished to explain to the House that it was not from any trade interest in railways that he acted in this matter, but because from his experience he knew that the cost of Private Bills was a crying evil and an injustice which the House ought to abolish. He would therefore conclude by moving his Resolution.
  MR. HADFIELDsaid, he rose to second the Motion. He could not but condemn the pratice of levying enormous costs upon the promoters of Bills which were for the public benefit. The expense was terrible—it was frightful. In 1854, according to Returns for which he moved, the various railway companies had expended £20,000,000 in promoting Acts of Parliament. So, when a gentleman came to this House for the purpose of protecting his property, he had to pay all the expense he incurred even if he gained his case. He

  407
  asked that an end might be put to this state of things. There were other things which ought to be inquired into—the mode in which business was done by counsel. It was high time that some system of taxation should be employed in order to put some limit to their fees, which they often took, although engaged in half a dozen Committees sitting at the same time. He trusted the House would adopt the Resolution, not only for its own sake, but as a means of leading to the adoption of a new system.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That so much of the Table of Fees charged at the House of Commons (under the Standing Order of the House passed in 1852) as multiplies the Fees Payable on the Petition, First, Second, and Third Readings, and Report of Private Bills, according to the money to be raised or expended under the authority of such Bills, be rescinded—the reduction to take effect in respect of Private Bills introduced in the Present Session."
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, there could be no doubt that the question of fees paid by the promoters of Private Bills was one well worthy of consideration; but he very much questioned whether the House would think itself in a condition to bind itself, at that moment, by a positive Resolution to cut down to a certain amount the fees as proposed by the hon. Member. His hon. Friend proposed to cut down the fee fund to the extent probably of one-half. He did not know whether an exact calculation had been made, but he thought he was under the mark when he said that by the remission of fees proposed the fund would be diminished at least a half. It was reasonable, undoubtedly, that persons promoting Private Bills, seeking for something for their own special advantage, and coming to Parliament for privileges, as it were, for themselves, should defray the additional expense incurred by Parliament in meeting their wishes; but undoubtedly it was unjust to ask them to pay more. But that night he proposed to ask the House of Commons to agree to a Committee to inquire into the subject of private legislation, with a view to the diminution of the expense, and undoubtedly the question of fees must come within the scope of that inquiry. He therefore thought it would be premature at that time to commit themselves by a Resolution of the kind; and he thought his hon. Friend would act judiciously if he would not press his Motion, but allow the whole subject to be inquired into by the Committee.
  COLONEL WILSON PATTENsaid, that while he concurred in much that had fallen from his hon. Friend in support of his Resolution, he would suggest that his hon. Friend should accede to the proposal to withdraw his Motion. Having taken an active part to get these fees reduced, he well recollected that one recommendation of the Committee of last Session was, that as the fees were higher than needful, they ought to be reduced; and that Committee also recommended the subject to the attention of a Committee of this House in the next Session of Parliament. As his right hon. Friend had stated that he intended to move for such Committee, it would be premature to pass the Resolution at that moment.
  COLONEL FRENCHsaid, he was of opinion that the whole subject of Private Bill legislation demanded the fullest investigation.
  MR. HODGSONsaid, he would withdraw his Motion on the understanding that the Committee referred to was to be moved for.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

MARRIAGE OF THE PRINCE OF WALES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONSsaid, he wished to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, If the Government are prepared to bring in a Bill for making commercial engagements falling due on the wedding day of the Prince of Wales payable as is by law provided for Christmas Day, so as to enable Her Majesty's subjects to enjoy the day of that auspicious event as a general holiday?
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I am sorry to inform my hon. Friend that the Government have no intention to bring in a Bill for that purpose. Any unnecessary interference with the arrangements of the commerce of the country is a thing to be avoided. Moreover, there is no precedent for such a measure as suggested.

THE ROYAL NAVY—THE "ROYAL OAK" AND THE "ROYAL SOVEREIGN"

  QUESTION.
  MR. LAIRDsaid, he rose to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, The date when the iron-cased ship Royal Oak is expected to be ready for sea; and whether, in order to test the sea-going capabilities of a wood-built vessel cased with heavy armour

  409
  plates, it is the intention of the Admiralty to commission her for service as soon as she is ready; and also, the date when the Royal Sovereign was ordered to be cut down and altered into a cupola ship, and probable time of completion for trial; also, what armament it is proposed she is to carry?
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, the Royal Oak was expected to be out of the hands of the dockyard authorities on the 19th of March, and she would be commissioned immediately for service. The Royal Sovereign was ordered to be cut down on the 3rd of April, 1862, but her armament had not yet been decided upon; neither could be state exactly when she would be ready He trusted, however, that she would be completed by the end of the year.

RAILWAY PROXIES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he wished to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it is not the case that proxy papers for voting in public companies require a sixpenny stamp; whether he is aware that any committee of shareholders seeking a reform in the company are placed at a great disadvantage in comparison with the Directors, in having to pay for large numbers of proxy stamps, while the Directors can charge that expense to the Company; and, considering that the exercise of a franchise is in question, whether the principle of a penny stamp, as now applied to cheques and other instruments, may not be a sufficient amount of taxation to impose upon proxy papers?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, no representations had been made to him as to the inconvenience experienced by the shareholders of railway or other companies in consequence of proxy papers requiring a sixpenny stamp. If inconvenience arose from the practice of the Directors charging the expense of these proxies to the funds of the Company, the proper course to pursue was for the shareholders to prevent them so charging the expense, or by establishing for themselves the right of having proxies without limit at the general expense. He had no information which led him to believe there was any case for a change in the law with respect to the duty on proxies. A short time ago they were liable to the
  410
  same duty as a power of attorney—namely, 30 s.; then the duty was reduced to 2s. 6d., and finally to 6d.; and it was the opinion of those well informed on the subject that that was a low charge considering the nature of the functions, and that nothing was to be gained by an alteration.

SALE OF BEER BILL.

  QUESTION.
  MR. P. W. MARTINsaid, he wished to inquire of the hon. Member for Bradford, Whether it was his intention to reintroduce the Sale of Beer Bill during the present Session?
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that after the declaration of the Home Secretary of his intention to bring in a Bill dealing with the general question of licences, he did not propose to re-introduce his Sale of Beer Bill of last Session until he had seen the right hon. Gentleman's measure.

UNITED STATES — BLOCKADE OF CHARLESTON.—QUESTION.
MR. BENTINCKsaid, he rose to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Government are in possession of any official information on the subject of the reported defeat by the Confederates of the blockading squadron at the mouth of the Charleston river; and, if so, whether that information is of a character to raise the question of the legality of the future blockade of that port?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Her Majesty's Government have no information with regard to that transaction, other than that which has been conveyed by the telegrams which have been received, and are known to everybody. Those telegrams simply state that the blockade was raised on the morning of one day and re-imposed on the succeeding day. [An hon. MEMBER: On the same day.] The same information states the raising of the blockade and its renewal. With regard to the application of the general law of nations to a transaction of that kind I shall abstain from giving any opinion, because the application of that law depends so much upon the circumstances of the case, that till that which has really happened is well known, it would be improper for Her Majesty's Government to commit themselves to any binding opinion as to the effect which those transactions may have.

METROPOLITAN BUILDINGS—FINS BURY CIRCUS.—QUESTION.
CAPTAIN JERVISsaid, he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works, Whether he has received a deputation of the inhabitants of Finsbury Circus to solicit his support against the proposed extension of the Great Eastern Railway; if so, whether he has promised that support; and, in such a case, if he will state what supervision his Department possesses over projects of a similar nature within the metropolis?
MR. COWPERsaid, that a number of gentlemen who were in the habit of walking in Finsbury Circus, and who attached great importance to the preservation of the semi-rural character of that place, had done him the honour to call upon him, with the wish to enlist his sympathies with regard to the grievance which they anticipated was coming upon them. They stated that the Great Eastern Railway Company contemplated placing a station in the centre of Finsbury Circus, which had hitherto been a very quiet spot in the centre of the City of London. They added that it was almost the only place where persons who were obliged to reside in the City could live away from the noise and bustle. He gave them his sympathy, though that was not worth much; it was more, however, than it appeared the hon. and gallant Gentleman himself would be disposed to extend to them. Persons who came forward to represent that the public interests would be injuriously affected by railway enterprise were placed in a critical position by the practice of the House. Before a Private Bill Committee persons whose pecuniary interests were involved, who promoted or opposed a particular scheme, or were willing to spend money in defending particular rights, might all be represented. But those complaining on the part of the public had no means of making their voice heard in a committee-room. The matter was assuming a very grave character just then, when no less than twenty-one Bills affecting the metropolis were before the House. There seemed to be no reason why the railway should take Finsbury Circus, except that they would have to pay less for land there than for other land covered with houses. But if it were once laid down as a principle that railway companies were at liberty to turn open spaces into railway pre-
412
mises, Trafalgar Square, St. James's, and all the other public sites would be seized for those purposes. He was unable to point out to the deputation any way in which the interests of the public could be brought before the Committee; but he hoped that hon. Gentlemen who might hereafter be appointed to serve on that Committee would not consider themselves shut out from remembering what was for the public interests and the public convenience, although in strictness these might not be before them. He also suggested to the deputation that they ought to forward a petition to the House, setting forth their grievances, which would probably be referred to the Committee before which the Bill might be brought.
CAPTAIN JERVIS:—The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the last branch of the question, with regard to the supervision exercised by his Department.
MR. COWPER:—I am unable to tell the hon. and gallant Member anything more than he knows himself. I am not aware of any powers which be is not aware of.

DANISH PAPERS.—QUESTION.
MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALDsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, Why the Danish papers presented to the House on Friday last have not been delivered to hon. Members?
MR. LAYARDsaid, he was not able to answer the question, but he would make inquiry. The papers were printed, and so far as he was aware they had been sent from the Foreign Office.

THE IONIAN ISLANDS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. ROEBUCKsaid, he wished to renew a Question he had put to the noble Lord at the head of the Government the other evening, which the noble Lord said he was not able to answer off-hand—a remarkable answer for him. Presuming that inquiry had since been made, he wished to know, Why it was that any despatches which might have been received from foreign Governments respecting the affairs of Greece had not been laid with the other papers on the table of the House?
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON:—I think the Question put by my hon. and learned Friend, as I recollect it, was whether any despatch had been received from the Aus-

  413
  trian Government on the subject of the cession of the Ionian Islands.
  MR. ROEBUCK:—That was part of the Question.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON:—No such despatch has been received; and no despatch has been received on that subject from any other Government.

PRINCE OF WALES—MESSAGE FROM HER MAJESTY.
Message from Her Majesty brought up, and read by Mr. Speaker (all the Members being uncovered), as follows: —
VICTORIA R.
Her Majesty relies on the liberality and affection of Her faithful Commons, and on the cordial interest which they have manifested in the happy event of the approaching Marriage of the Prince of Wales to the Princess Alexandra of Denmark, that they will be ready to concur in such provision as they may judge necessary to enable Her Majesty to settle an Establishment for the Prince and Princess suited to their rank and dignity. V. R.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, the House have already been informed by the Speech from the Throne of the intended marriage of the Prince of Wales, and in their Address have expressed the sentiments which they entertain on that subject. All, therefore, that it becomes my duty to do on the present occasion is to ask the House to agree to an Address in answer to the Message which you, Sir, have just read, assuring Her Majesty that this House will at the earliest possible time take that Message into consideration, with a view of making such provision for his Royal Highness the Prince of Wales and the Princess of Wales as may be suitable to their high rank and station. I am quite sure that the House will feel pleasure in adopting that course, and I therefore give notice that on Thursday, the earliest order day, it will be my duty to propose a Resolution on that subject. The House will, of course, understand that in agreeing to the Address which I am about to propose there is no pledge implied or expressed as to any particular arrangement. It would be unfitting for me now to go into those details which I shall have occasion to explain to the House on Thursday night. I shall therefore content my-
414
self with inviting the House to do that which has been always usual on similar occasions—namely, to agree to an Address to the following effect:—
"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, to return to Her Majesty the Thanks of this House for Her most gracious Message, and to assure Her Majesty that this House will immediately proceed to the consideration thereof, in such a manner as shall demonstrate their zeal, duty, and affectionate attachment to Her Majesty, and a due regard to the rank and dignity of the Royal family."
MR. DISRAELI: Sir, I am sure the House will agree to this Address with unanimity not only of the voice but of the heart. I am persuaded the House of Commons will seize every occasion of testifying its affectionate loyalty to the Sovereign under whose reign not only has the greatness of the Empire been sustained, but the happiness of the people has been increased. Nor can we ever forget, Sir, that from one, and that the most august, home in this country during the long period of a quarter of a century—a period commensurate with the reign itself—an undeviating influence has been exercised which has refined the taste and elevated the sentiments of the whole community. The country takes a deep interest in the happiness and in the order of the household of the Prince of Wales, and I am sure, Sir, the House will support every reasonable proposition brought forward by Her Majesty's Ministers, the object of which is to realize those results.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY: I quite concur in the Address, but I wish to know whether it is the intention of the Government to place on the table of the House any authentic account of the revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall? I am not aware that there is any Return which shows the amount of income for the past year and the accumulations during the minority of his Royal Highness. I think that such a document is necessary, and I ask for it now in order that the House may have the opportunity of considering it before entering upon this discussion.
MR. W. WILLIAMS: I think that before any Vote is come to on this subject we ought to have a full account of the revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall, and also a statement of the accumulations during the minority of the Prince of Wales.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The statement of the revenues

415
of the Duchy of Cornwall will be laid on the table of the House this evening.
MR. W. WILLIAMS: Will it show the accumulations during the Prince's minority?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The statement is made in the form required by the Act of Parliament. [Several hon. MEMBERS: The accumulations?] The report from the Council of the Duchy would contain whatever further information was needed.
Resolved, Nemine Contradicente,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, to return to Her Majesty the Thanks of this House for Her most gracious Message, and to assure Her Majesty that this House will immediately proceed to the consideration thereof, in such a manner as shall demonstrate their zeal, duty, and affectionate attachment to Her Majesty, and a due regard to the rank and dignity of the Royal Family.
Committee thereupon on Thursday.

ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE.
Motion, That the House at rising do adjourn till To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

COMMERCIAL TREATY WITH ITALY.
MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALDsaid, he rose to call the attention of the House to the question of some late commercial treaties, and especially to the commercial treaty pending between this country and the Kingdom of Italy. He was aware that the opportunity which he had taken of bringing forward the subject of which he had given notice was somewhat unusual, but his sense of the importance and urgency of the question, induced him to avail himself of that method. He was afraid that the terms of his notice might disappoint, in some measure, those who thought he was about to address himself to a much larger question than that which he wished to bring under the attention of the House. But he had no desire to enter into the general question of the late commercial treaties. He had not the slightest intention to refer to the operation of the late French Treaty. On that matter he thought there were Members of the House who had something to unlearn; but he sincerely trusted that in the result the anticipations of the Government with respect to that treaty would be realized. The question he desired to raise was, however, one of importance. No one could deny the important part which commercial treaties had taken
416
in the last few years, nor the great attention they had attracted from all concerned with our trade and manufactures. And, he would add, no body of men had shown themselves more sensible to the value of such treaties than Her Majesty's Government. At the time a commercial treaty was being negotiated between France and the Zollverein, Her Majesty's Government were most anxious to conclude a similar treaty. The treaty between France and the Zollverein, however, was broken off in consequence of opposition on the part of some of the minor German States, and thereupon Her Majesty's Government took no further steps in negotiating the treaty which they were before so anxious to conclude. Last year they entered into a commercial treaty with Belgium, and the tariff had since been more favourable to English interests. The noble Lord at the head of the Government had himself, during the recess, expressed at Southampton his conviction of the importance of negotiating a treaty of commerce between this country and Austria; and if he (Mr. Seymour Fitzgerald) was not mistaken, the noble Earl the Minister for Foreign Affairs, when in that House, had expressed a hope that from circumstances then occurring between this country and Spain considerable alterations might be made in the Spanish tariff in a sense favourable to British commerce and manufactures. There was, then, no question which more certainly occupied the attention of commercial men or attracted the anxiety of those concerned in the manufactures of the country than that of the conclusion of well-considered commercial treaties with other countries of Europe. But exactly in proportion as these commercial treaties were important and the desire existed for their extension, exactly in that proportion it became important to consider the principle on which Her Majesty's Government had acted in concluding these treaties. Her Majesty's Government had, in his opinion, proceeded upon a principle radically wrong; for their principle was to allow the French Government to take the initiative; and if they succeeded, then Her Majesty's Government bestirred themselves, but thought themselves very fortunate if they secured for the British merchant and manufacturer the same tariff which had been just established by France. Any principle more unfortunate could hardly be adopted, because it was clear that the tariff which might be highly advantageous

417
to the French merchant and manufacturer might be quite unsuitable to the circumstances of this country. For instance, France might say that she did not care what duty was levied upon half-manufactured products, provided a light duty was imposed upon her wines and silks; but, on the other hand, it would make a great difference to ns whether our half-manufactured goods were heavily taxed or not, even though the foreign Government were willing to admit duty-free British wines and British silks. The matter had been illustrated in the case of the Belgian treaty. The tariff in that treaty was fixed between the French and the Belgian Governments. It had been found by the manufacturers of this country not only to be disadvantageous to them, but, if he was not mistaken, the adoption of this treaty, instead of placing the British merchant and manufacturer in a more favourable position than before, actually made it worse, inasmuch as increased duties were now charged upon some of their productions. The first complaint he had, then, to make was that Her Majesty's Government had not been sufficiently active in taking the initiative in the negotiation of these commercial treaties with foreign Powers. At the present moment the French Government were doing all they could to negotiate a commercial treaty with Austria. Austria was most anxious to reform her tariff, and nothing could be easier than for Her Majesty's Government to form a treaty with that Power to the great advantage of our manufacturers. The initiative, however, was left with France. A more forcible instance of the imperfect manner in which the Foreign Department performed its duties in this respect could not be adduced than what was passing at that time, when a treaty was pending between this country and Italy. In the course of the last year Signer Marliani, a distinguished member of the Italian Government, and Minister of Commerce, came over here with the intention of negotiating a commercial treaty between Italy and this country, and although he was here for a considerable length of time, it did not appear to have struck the Foreign Office as of the least importance to put the Italian Minister of Commerce into communication with the Board of Trade. The result, he had heard, was that the gentleman returned home without having had any communication with his right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Milner Gibson). Such was the
418
information he had received. But some time afterwards the Foreign Office put itself into communication with the Board of Trade upon the subject, and the Board of Trade sent to the various chambers of commerce throughout the country, stating that a treaty with Italy was pending, and requesting information as to the various productions of the districts to which they belonged, and as to the principles upon which they might think it advisable that the tariff to be adopted should be framed. The result was, a vast amount of information was obtained, and the greatest pains were taken to furnish the Board of Trade with all the necessary details. He was bound to say that the Board of Trade availed themselves of the information, and the chambers of commerce were soon after apprised that the details which they had furnished had been so far considered that the tariff to be appended to the treaty had been draughted. That draught was submitted to the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Office, and in consequence of the exertions of the President of the Board of Trade a perfect commercial treaty with Italy became the subject of consideration. So the matter stood for some time; but at length certain chambers of commerce heard that a commercial treaty with the Kingdom of Italy was on the point of being signed, that it was in no respect founded upon the information which had been obtained by the Board of Trade, and that the treaty, which, however, was not signed, contained a tariff identical with that which had been adopted in the treaty between France and Italy. That circumstance, as might easily be conceived, created great astonishment and regret among those who had an interest in the question and had been consulted, and the consequence was that many of them had thought it their duty to make representations upon the subject to the President of the Board of Trade. This question also was asked, "If we are to have the French tariff, pray inform us what that tariff is." Let the House understand whether or not Her Majesty's Government had finally assented to a treaty embodying the French treaty, the tariff of which they had never seen, and of the provisions of which they were ignorant, having only reason to believe that they were similar to those adopted in the Franco-Belgian treaty. This appeared an exemplification of the objection which he took in the first instance to the course followed by the

419
Government—namely, that of allowing the French Government to precede them, and afterwards being content to take the various stipulations of the French treaty, and make them applicable, as far as they could, to England. He knew he should be met with the answer that the reason that was clone was because England was I not in a position to offer any concessions to other Powers, as she had already given up everything; but it appeared to him that that answer came with a bad grace from those who had given up everything; and, moreover, he did not think it a well-founded answer. They were told that the moral influence of this country swayed the councils of Europe; but if that moral influence were of such great weight in political matters, he was sure, if those who represented the British Government were in their communications with foreign Powers to cultivate the most friendly relations, and were not to write in epigrammatic style, conveying great offence, though the words used might of themselves seem innocent enough, and if they were to prove themselves earnest and eager for the promotion of close commercial intercourse with all foreign nations—he was sure, he repeated, that the, moral influence which was of such advantage in political matters would in commercial matters also secure great advantages to the manufacturing and trading classes of this country. He believed that there was no more important function which the Ambassadors of this country or the diplomatic service generally could perform than by making use of the great ability which had always distinguished that service in negotiating commercial treaties; and it would be of fur more importance to the country that they should devote themselves to that object rather than to writing such despatches ns he had glanced at, so irritating to official persons abroad, and so disappointing to those who read them at home. In confirmation of these observations he would refer to two most important countries with which it was their interest to maintain the most friendly relations. Russia, for example. Why, it was only within the last few weeks the British public were made aware of a correspondence which had taken place between the head of the Foreign Office and one of the chief ministers of Russia, and of the despatches of the noble Earl—despatches conveying, under cover of the most insinuating language, the most insulting and pointed sarcasms
420
against the policy adopted by Russia. Take again their position in regard to Brazil. They might have effected arrangements by which an extensive and advantageous commerce could be carried on with Brazil. How had the Government acted lately in regard to that power? If it were considered important at that moment to effect a treaty with that country, how could they have the face to make the application, or in what way would their overtures be met? He put those questions before the Government because he was confident that the people were alive to the importance of commercial treaties, and would never be content to follow subserviently the footsteps of France in regard to commercial policy. Whilst respecting the rights of France and of all other Powers, towards whom they wished to preserve a friendly spirit, they expected the Government to maintain a bold and an independent policy—to uphold their own tariff while seeking to extend the policy involved as widely as possible. He believed that if that line of conduct were pursued, then the present Government, or any future Government, in obtaining commercial treaties, would confer lasting and enormous benefits on this country.
MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the subject brought forward by the hon. Gentleman was one of great importance and interest to the manufacturing classes of this country; and he was sure he was expressing the feelings of the community which he represented when he thanked the hon. Gentleman for the sentiments to which he had given utterance, especially in connection with the treaty said to be pending between Italy and this country. It was utterly impossible for people interested in manufactures to know their exact position at the present moment in reference to that matter. The statement made by the hon. Gentleman was substantially correct, and the House would not be surprised at the ignorance to which he had referred when he mentioned to them a few facts. In the early part of last year the different chambers of commerce in the north of England and the midland counties, warned by experience of the difficulty of obtaining a treaty of Belgium, waited upon the authorities of the Foreign Office and stated their wish that an intercourse should be kept up between the Government offices and the chambers of commerce in order the better to serve the interests of England in the framing of

421
treaties. Well, the deputations were received in the most frank and agreeable manner by the Foreign Office. They were delighted to find that negotiations were then going on for a treaty with Italy. A circular announcing that fact was issued by the Government authorities last February. The Bradford Chamber of Commerce, among others, replied to that circular, commenting upon that treaty, and showed how it could be improved. A copy of that reply was sent to the Foreign Office and to the Board of Trade; but for a considerable period subsequently they heard not one syllable on the subject of the projected treaty with Italy. Haying heard that Signor Marliani had been sent from Turin to England for the purpose of getting as well as giving information as to how the trade between the two countries could be increased, he (Mr. Forster) went to the Foreign Office with the view of putting him into communication with the gentlemen representing the commercial interests of the north of England. By the Foreign Office, however, he was referred to the Board of Trade; and when he went to the Board of Trade, he was referred back to the Foreign Office. He did not know if Signor Marliani was treated in the same way; but if he was, he could say with confidence that the Italian minister must have left this country just as ignorant as he was when he entered into it, as far as the information he had sought for was concerned. Believing, from the long silence maintained by the Government Departments on the subject of this treaty, that the negotiations had fallen to the ground, it was not surprising his constituents were thunderstruck with the information conveyed to them by the newspapers that a commercial treaty with Italy was now on the point of being signed, and they concluded that one of two things must have happened—either that the Government during the present or the last year had been conducting their negotiations with Italy without obtaining information from those most able to give it, or that they had thought it enough simply to get for this country the treaty which France had obtained for herself. That, however, would not be enough. True, the Italian Government would not be dealing fairly towards us if it put France in a better position than England; and, on the other hand, we could scarcely expect to obtain advantages which had been denied to France. But it was quite possible that
422
a treaty framed by French Ministers would not serve English interests, and that the concessions which suited France might not be of much value to England. He hoped, therefore, to learn from his hon. Friend that Her Majesty's Government had not been remiss in this respect, and that our negotiations had been keeping pace with those conducted by our ally. Before sitting down he felt bound to say that the commercial interests of this country were injured by the want of proper arrangements between the Foreign Office and the Board of Trade. The theory, he understood, was that when the Foreign Office required commercial information, it was to apply to the Board of Trade; but then the former might be so ignorant as not to know when it ought to ask for information. There was a popular notion on the Continent that the end and aim of British policy was to promote trade; but, in reality, that was one of those things which they managed better in France. There the Foreign Office contained a department of trade, and the Ministry of Commerce had a department for foreign affairs. In our own case some arrangement should be made by which the information collected by the Board of Trade in regard to our commercial relations with other nations should be systematically submitted to the Foreign Office. As far as his hon. Friend the Under Secretary was personally concerned, he had done all in his power to meet the wishes of the manufacturers; but unfortunately free trade was not one of the traditions of the Foreign Office. The French treaty did not originate there, and the Department did not seem to be aware of the effect which it was producing on the Continent. Some of the people in this country were presumptuous enough to think that the experience of the noble Earl at the head of the Foreign Office, although it was advantageous in many other respects, was disadvantageous on this subject. That experience was gained when the idea of free trade had not taken possession of this country, and when the notion that free trade principles would in time regulate the commercial dealings between this country and Continental States was regarded as a utopian dream. The noble Lord the Foreign Secretary might rest assured that by upholding the principles of commercial freedom he was furthering the cause of political freedom more effectually than by offering to other Powers gratuitous advice,

423
on matter how appropriate or vigorously expressed. The noble Lord at the head of the Government also ought to be aware that it did not become him, as the protector of British interests, to hand over to France the direction of that free-trade movement which was originated by England, or to follow with faltering footsteps the movements of France or of any foreign Government whatever.
MR. LAYARDsaid, he was rather surprised to hear the complaints which had fallen from the hon. Gentleman opposite, but he was disposed to consider the course taken by the hon. Gentleman as being due to his being so recent a convert to the cause of free trade, and, like all new converts, to his exhibiting greater zeal than discretion. He believed he should be able to remove the grounds of the hon. Gentleman's objections. But first he wished to correct an error into which the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) had fallen in asserting that the Foreign Office had nothing to do with the French treaty. The Foreign Office took up the matter warmly, doing all that depended upon it to promote the conclusion of the treaty, and the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Cobden) had himself acknowledged the hearty and valuable cooperation he received from Earl Cowley, who was joined with him in the negotiations on the subject. When the hon. Member for Rochdale was sent to Paris on that mission, he naturally asked the British Government before going what he was authorized to offer the French Government. If he had gone to Paris with his hands empty, it was not probable that he would have succeeded in obtaining the concessions which the French Government ultimately made to us. Fortunately, however, the hon. Gentleman had much to offer. There were heavy duties on wine and other articles of French produce and on articles of luxury, and even to a certain extent of necessity. In consideration of a reduction in those duties the French Government consented to the various changes in their tariff which had proved very beneficial not only to this country but to France herself. It was necessary to bear in mind that in our domestic legislation we differed from France. We at once gave the whole world the benefit of the concessions which had been made to our ally. France, on the other hand, withheld from others the privileges she had conceded to us, and thus retained in her hands the means of
424
bargaining with other Powers for mutual commercial concessions. When one nation sought any concession from another nation, there were various grounds on which the request might be based. An appeal might be made to the generosity of the other Power, but it was doubtful whether that would have much effect, as Governments are influenced by motives of interest rather than generosity; or an appeal might be made to a treaty which gave the applicant the privileges of the most favoured nation; or, as a friendly State, claims might be put forward to privileges which had been granted to another State. If we had only the latter ground to rely upon, it was above all things desirable, that as we had no concessions to offer in return for the advantages sought, some other Power, which possessed the means of bargaining, should commence the negotiations. That was the reason why France had been allowed to precede us in the instance of the Italian and other treaties. Every concession which was made to her gave us a certain right to claim the same from Powers with which we were in friendly relations. On the other hand, other Governments naturally replied, when we asked them to change their tariff, "If we concede this reduction to you for no equivalent, we shall be expected to treat France and other nations in the same way, and be unable to obtain concessions in return. Although you may have nothing to give us in exchange, France has." If we had taken the initiative, the Italian Government would very naturally have said, "You have nothing to give us in exchange for what we give you; and if we freely concede your demands, we shall be placed in a bad position in making terms with France, with whom we are on the most friendly terms." So far from Her Majesty's Government not having endeavoured to make treaties of commerce with other nations, the fact was that there was scarcely a Power in Europe with whom negotiations had not been opened during the last year or two. Treaties had been concluded with Turkey and Belgium. The treaty with the former was a very important one. The Turkish Government, always adopting a very liberal policy in its commercial relations with other nations, has reduced its export duties to the very lowest scale, and has placed the import duties on a much more favourable footing than they had ever been before. The remarks he had just made applied with peculiar force

425
to the case of the Belgian Trenty. The Belgian Government were asked to make a treaty of commerce with us, as they had done with France, and it was pointed out to them that it would be an unfriendly act, having entered into a treaty with France, to refuse to negotiate one with England. They replied by asking what we could give to them in return, and they suggested that if they gave to us what they had given to France, we should consent to capitalize the Scheldt dues. Now, the capitalization of the Scheldt dues had nothing whatever to do with a treaty of commerce, and our Government at once refused to admit the principle of purchasing a treaty. Again and again we insisted upon the unfriendliness of refusing to us what had been given to France. Eventually that argument, and none other, prevailed, and in the end the Belgian Government made a treaty of commerce with us, abandoning their demand for the capitalization of the Scheldt dues, which formed the subject of a separate negotiation. The hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Seymour Fitzgerald) had been entirely misinformed with respect to the Italian Treaty. Last year the French Government, desiring to place their commercial relations with Italy upon a better footing, proposed a treaty of commerce with that country. The British and Italian Governments were equally desirous that a treaty should be negotiated between Italy and this country. The Italian Government accordingly sent an agent to England, Signor Marliani, who, though a distinguished Senator, was not a member of the Government, to negotiate such a treaty. It was not true, as had been stated, that Signor Marliani had no communication with the Board of Trade or the Foreign Office. On the contrary, he had interviews with his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, while he (Mr. Layard) introduced him to some of our leading commercial men, and furnished him with all the information he required. What, however, was his invariable language when he was requested to discuss the terms of the treaty? He always said that he could not negotiate a treaty with England until he knew what had been dune in Paris, because, he argued, if Italy gave us concessions for which we could give her nothing in return, France, as a friendly Power, would insist upon the same advantages without Italy obtaining the equivalent which she was then trying to procure from the French Government.
426
The negotiations in Paris were not brought to a conclusion last year; and when the recent Ministerial crisis took place in Turin, Signor Marliani was recalled to Italy. The hon. Member for Bradford had stated that the Government had appealed to the chambers of commerce, but had not acted upon their reports or advice. That was true; and the chambers gave them valuable information; but then that information was of no avail under the circumstances, because the Government could do nothing with it till the completion of the treaty between Italy and France, which had just taken place. His hon. Friend opposite expressed surprise at the Government not being yet in possession of the Franco-Italian treaty and tariff; but the treaty had not yet been ratified, and until its ratification it could not be published. His hon. Friend the Member for Bradford might depend on this—that before any treaty should be made with the Italian Government the tariff would be referred to the various chambers of commerce throughout the country, and that the Government would be well pleased to receive reports from them on the subject. While on the subject of Italy, he could assure the House that the Government were fully alive to the great importance of increasing our trade with Italy. Italian trade was growing every day, promoted by liberty and unity, and encouraged by the spirit of enterprise which had recently sprung up in Italy—a proof of which he had just presented to the House in the shape of a report from our Consul General of Naples. During the recess the hon. and learned Member for the King's County (Mr. Hennessy) made, through the newspapers, certain assertions relative to Neapolitan trade which filled him with amazement, and induced the Foreign Office to write to the Consul General at Naples for an explanation. The explanation thus obtained was so important, and so completely refuted the statements of the hon. and learned Member, that he hoped the House would permit him to give a few facts from it. The number of British steamers to Naples had increased between 1859, the last year of the Bourbons, and the end of 1862, from 66 to 119; and the tonnage from 41,675 to 95,292. In regard to sailing vessels, the increase in the same period was from 23,905 tons to 39.678, so that there had been a total increase in tonnage from 65,580 in 1859—the last year of the Bourbons—to 134,970 in 1862. These

427
were authentic documents. [Mr. HENNESSY: Up to what time?] Up to the end of last year. In foreign vessels there was the same enormous increase. The steamers at Naples, from 1859 to 1862, had increased in number from 656 to 1,303, and in tonnage from 192,378 to 442,832. At Gallipoli—the next port in importance to that of Naples—there was an increase during the same period in British ships from 43 to 84, and from 235 to 324 in the ships of other nations, and the increase was equally observable in the estimated value of the cargoes shipped from Gallipoli, the total amount in 1859 being £272,591, and in 1862 £762,432. The number of ships at that port belonging to Great Britain in 1859 represented 4,373 tons, and in 1862 10,504 tons; the estimated value being in 1859 £192,184, and in 1862 £441,472. The increase of the actual trade from Naples during the same period was from £476,821 to £850,708. With regard to Tuscany, the returns of the Board of Trade showed an equally satisfactory result. The trade from Tuscany to Great Britain had increased during the same period from £807,000 to£l,062,081; the colonial trade from £903,061 in 1859 to £1,265,000 in 1862. These figures would, he thought, be regarded as a most complete answer to the assertions of the hon. and learned Member for the King's County (Mr. Hennessy) as to the falling-off in the trade of Italy since the union. But, to return to the subject of our negotiations with foreign countries with respect to commercial treaties, the House was aware that last year the French Government were negotiating a treaty with Prussia and the Zollverein. As soon as that fact became known, the British Government applied to Prussia and the Zollverein to make with them a similar treaty of commerce. The reply, as might have been expected, was precisely the same we had received from Belgium—that negotiations could not be entered into with us until those in progress with France were concluded. "Franco," it was said in effect, "can give us an equivalent. You can give us none. When we have ascertained what France will give us, we shall be ready to give to you, as a friendly nation, what we have given to Franco." Our Government told them that though their tariff might be acceptable to France, it might not be so to us. It had been said that a reference should have been made to the Board of Trade. What our Government really did
428
was this—they accepted the offer of Prussia an the part of the Zollverein to make with us a treaty as favourable as that made with France; but they said that the question was a question of tariff, and that the question of tariff should be discussed before the treaty was negotiated. Prussia consented, and our Government sent to Berlin Mr. Mallett, who had accompanied the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Cobden) to Paris, a most distinguished officer of the Board of Trade, to communicate with the Prussian Government as to the modifications of the French tariff which England would require. Unfortunately, for various reasons, political and others, up to that moment the treaty between the Zollverein and France had not been concluded. The Prussian Government had consented to the treaty, but four of the Southern States of the Zollverein, for political reasons, had refused to do so. Unanimity in the Zollverein was required to enable them to negotiate a treaty, and until that unanimity had been secured, and the treaty with France had been ratified, Prussia could not negotiate with this country. The Zollverein would cease in 1866, and it would then be seen whether it would be renewed on its former basis. That was a matter on which he (Mr. Layard) could not venture to offer an opinion. As regards Austria, it was quite true that at the beginning of last year we beard that the Austrian Government were disposed to make liberal commercial concessions to this country; and we at once proposed a basis. But we were told, however well-disposed the Ministers of the Emperor of Austria were to a liberal commercial policy with this country, it was impossible for the present to negotiate a treaty. There were political as well as social difficulties in the way; the Zollverein, in which she wished to enter, might be broken up, and until this question was settled she could conclude no treaty with us. It was from no want of zeal or willingness on the part of the British Government that no treaty of commerce with Austria had been concluded. It had been asked why had not England insisted on the privileges of what was called the "Intermediate Treaty" being given to England. Now, what was the nature of that Intermediate Treaty? By special arrangement between Austria and the Zollverein States goods which crossed the conterminous frontier of Austria and the Zollverein were subject to a different tariff to those which were imported into Austria or the Zollverein by

429
any other route. Supposing, for instance, Prussia sent goods into Austria across the frontier line which divides Austria from Bavaria, she paid one tariff; but if she sent them round by Gibraltar to Trieste, she paid another and a much higher tariff. That, however, was the result of mutual arrangement founded upon political and other motives, and there was no chance of any other Power obtaining the same privileges. The principles of free trade had not penetrated sufficiently into Europe to produce such a result. It was to be hoped that the time would come when States would recognise the advantage of doing away with such differential tariffs. Then as to Denmark, the British Government had every reason to believe that there was a party in Denmark, political as well as commercial, disposed to enter into a liberal treaty of commerce with this country. The Government lost no time in proposing to the Danish Government to enter into such treaty. But what was the first question with which they were greeted? "What can you give us in return?" The reply of the English Government was that Danish manufactures were admitted into England without duty, and her ships treated as our own ships. So nothing was done. But suppose the Danish Government were to enter into a negotiation with another Power on a liberal basis, we should have a right to come forward and say, "You have treated that Government in a liberal spirit, and we, as a friendly Power, have a right to ask for the same treatment." That argument, no doubt, would have its due weight. The same thing occurred with regard to Spain and Portugal. What they wished for from us was a reduction of the duty on thin wines, and that they had obtained without a treaty of commerce with us—the French treaty gave them that. When the British Government offered them a treaty of commerce, the reply was, as in other eases, "What are you going to give us in return?" At the present moment it was hopeless to expect from either Spain or Portugal any treaty of commerce on a liberal basis. His hon. Friend the Member for Bradford had made some remarks with regard to the advantage which would be derived from a more immediate connection between the Foreign Office and the Board of Trade, and suggested that a commercial department should be instituted at the Foreign Office, and that it should be placed in direct communication with the Board of Trade. His hon. Friend,
430
he was sure, would say this, that the Foreign Office, whilst he (Mr. Layard) had been in it, had ever afforded him all the information in commercial matters that he could reasonably have expected from it. The proposition of a special department of trade at the Foreign Office had been fully considered by him, and he had arrived at the conclusion that the adoption of that plan would not work well, and would besides interfere to some extent with the proper functions of the Board of Trade, and a double set of officers would have to be employed, and an additional expense would be cast upon the country.
MR. W. E. FORSTER: What I suggested was, that the officers at the Foreign Office should be placed in direct and constant communication with the Board of Trade.
MR. LAYARDsaid, the Foreign Office was in constant communication with the Board of Trade, and acted on the opinion of the Board of Trade on commercial matters, just as the Home Office was referred to in matters coming within its immediate cognizance. He believed he had said enough to show that the complaints of the hon. Member opposite were not well founded, and he could assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government were anxious, and had been anxious, to do all in their power to enter into commercial treaties with other Powers upon a liberal footing, and he thought the last charge that could be brought against the Government was that they were not fully alive to the great importance to this country of its vast commercial interests.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that some time ago he had ventured to make some remarks in that House which he thought he might with propriety repeat on that occasion; they conveyed a question and a request. The question was, whether the terms of the French treaty were not such as to abolish the duties upon the articles enumerated — upon the commodities enumerated—under Article 5 of that treaty, in favour of all nations, not in favour of the produce of France and Algeria only? That question he raised in 1860; and although the Lord Chancellor, who was then Attorney General, slated that the operation of that article was in favour only of the produce of France and Algeria, he (Mr. Newdegate) stated that such opinions were controverted; and he now asked the Government to inform the House, whether

431
the interpretation of the treaty then given by the Attorney General was found to be correct, when tested by the negotiations which had been carried on with other countries subsequent to the conclusion of the treaty with France. Now, all that the hon. Gentleman who represented the Foreign Office had stated tended directly to the conclusion that the duties abolished on the commodities enumerated under the 5th article of the treaty with France, were abolished by the operation of that treaty on commodities imported from all the other countries of the world. He would ask the Government to bring the question to a practical test. Let them lay before the House the text of the Belgian treaty, so that hon. Members could compare the provisions of that treaty with the provisions of the French treaty, and see whether the danger which he anticipated in 1860 was, or was not, brought upon this country by the operation of the French treaty. He ventured in 1860 to say that those who negotiated that treaty had placed the Emperor of the French in the position of being the representative of all mankind; and he asked whether the repeated answers received by the British Government, when they attempted to negotiate with other countries, did not show this, that the operation of the French treaty had placed France in this position, that her action governed the action of all other foreign countries with respect to the commerce of England? He was a very humble Member of that House; but if any hon. Member would turn to Hansard, he would see, that supported as he was by the legal opinions of learned Members who sat near him, over and over again in 1860 he urged upon that House, "You are making over to the Government of France the decision of other foreign countries, when you apply to them, or shall apply to them hereafter, for any commercial treaty." It was a grave subject; and he trusted that the Government would, by laying on the table of the House the text of the Belgian treaty, and, by the information at their command, enable the House to judge whether this country was not placed in the position of being bound to follow in the footsteps of France when France was negotiating foreign treaties, owing to this country having nothing to give in exchange, and having rendered herself a suppliant for the same favours as were given to France, who had retained the power of giving something in exchange.
432
Look at what had been stated by the last speaker. We went to Belgium, and they said, "What can you give us in exchange?" Our answer was, "We have nothing to give." And in a commercial sense that was true; then followed a demand for a political concession. Why we could not negotiate at all, except by making some political concession in return for commercial stipulations. The hon. Member for Bradford was inclined to blame the Foreign Office; but, according lo papers laid before them in 1860, Earl Cowley represented to the Government at home that such was the rapidity of the operations of the hon. Member for Rochdale, then at Paris, that the noble Earl was totally unable to follow them, and he could not therefore be responsible for them. Therefore, it was unjust to blame the Foreign Office for the acts of an independent negotiator, who completely outstripped our ambassador. If any one deserved credit for the French treaty, it was the hon. Member for Rochdale; and, on the other hand, if they were bound hand and foot by that treaty, and were therefore incapable of negotiating other treaties, it was the hon. Member for Rochdale who ought to be held responsible.
MR. HENNESSYsaid, his hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State had referred to a subject upon which he had employed himself a little during the recess; but he must appeal from his hon. Friend to the Cabinet Minister who sat close beside him. His hon. Friend stated that the Consul General at Naples had given a return of the trade between England and Naples, from which it appeared that our trade with the Neapolitan provinces since their annexation had been most flourishing. What, however, if the Board of Trade told a totally opposite story? He had in his hand the last Return presented by the Board of Trade, that for the eleven months ending December, 1862, containing the most complete information which it was possible to obtain on the subject; and in every page in which the words "Naples and Sicily" occurred the House would observe a decline in the trade. Page 9, embracing the eleven months ending November, 1862, gave an account of the imports of wine into this country from Naples and Sicily. The figures showed that the value of those imports was £197,000 in 1861, and £183,000 in 1862. Page 13 also indicated a similar falling-off in the wine trade—namely, from

433
£66,000 in 1861 to £38,000 in 1862. Page 25 referred to our linen trade with Naples and Sicily, and it showed that the amount in money value of our linen which they took in 1861 was £66,000, and in 1862 it was only £51,000. The quantity of linen yarn had also fallen off. It should be observed that he was now quoting from every single page in which Naples and Sicily were mentioned. Coming to the iron trade with those provinces, it amounted in 1861 to £88,000, and in 1862 to but £79,000. In the woollen trade a falling-off was likewise exhibited, from £207,000 in 1861 to £161,000 in 1862. Those figures exhausted all the articles specified in the Board of Trade Returns, and pointed out that in all of them there was a decrease. In opposition to the authority of those Returns his hon. Friend had asserted that there was a general increase in our trade, although he had not entered into any details, or told them what was the increase in each particular article. His hon. Friend had also alluded to our maritime intercourse with Naples and Sicily. It was a matter of little importance how many British ships sailed into or out of Naples and Sicily, or how many Neapolitan vessels came to this country; but even in reference to the statistics of shipping there was a difference between the Under Secretary and the Board of Trade. At page 36 of the Returns four tables were given with respect to shipping. From the first of them it appeared that the number of foreign vessels which had entered the ports of the United Kingdom coining from Sicily had declined since 1860 from 141 to 139. The vessels that had cleared had, of course, also declined, the number in 1861 being 187, and 140 in 1862. But the table to which he called particular attention appeared at page 37, where again he found a decline. It gave an account of the number and tonnage of the vessels entered inwards and cleared outwards from various countries during the ten months ending the 31st of October, 1862. Unfortunately, they did not include the whole year, but there was a fulling-off in each case, except in the fourth table, where alone there was a slight increase. What was the moral to be drawn from these facts? The Board of Trade Returns contradicted the Foreign Office, and might be fairly taken as correct. Indeed, where the officials of the Foreign Office were in error, or in want of informa-
434
tion on matters of trade and commerce, they were bound to be guided by the statistics of the Board of Trade. But that was not all. His hon. Friend had not adverted to an important report on the trade and commerce of Italy and the state of Italian finance received by Earl Russell from Mr. West, the Secretary of the Legation at Turin. Our Consul General at Naples was contradicted, not only by our own Board of Trade, but also by the Secretary of our Legation at Turin. That gentleman informed Her Majesty's Government that there was a steady decline in most branches of British commerce with Italy, and that that decline was owing, as might naturally be expected, to this fact, that the taxes of Piedmont were so heavy, her customs duties so cumbrous, for the purpose of keeping up a large army, as to discourage trade. As an illustration of this, Mr. West stated that the occupation of Southern Italy by Piedmontese troops was so expensive that, to use his own words, "it will swallow up the total revenues from all the rest of the annexed provinces put together." Yet they found an organ of the Foreign Office not quoting that report, but quoting a statement not before Parliament from our Consul General at Naples, who was not appointed to his present office without the express sanction and approval of the Piedmontese Government. And that marked the distinction. The Secretary of our Legation at Turin was perfectly independent of the Piedmontese Government, and his statements, like those of the Board of Trade, might be regarded as reliable. Again, what was notoriously the present financial condition of Sardinia? Why, she was now demanding a loan of, he thought, 700,000,000 f. Last year the Piedmontese Finance Minister found that he had a deficit of £17,000,000; and how, he should like to know, could it be expected that the Government of which he was a Member would, under these circumstances, lower the customs duties and meet this country in the free-trade spirit of which so much had that evening been said? The hon. Member for Bradford, addressing his constituents on the subject during the recess, had, if he was not mistaken, told them that our trade with Tuscany, or at all events that port on of it with which they were most intimately concerned, had declined since her annexation to Piedmont had taken place.
MR. W. E. FORSTER: I said the tariff had become higher since the anuexa-

435
tion, but I did not state that the trade had diminished. To do so would be to state that which I do not believe.
MR. HENNESSYsaid, be could show the hon. Member that our trade with Tuscany had also declined, as was natural should be the case if the tariff had bean largely increased. He found that in 1861, for instance—he quoted from the second last Returns, because the last did not give the required class of facts—while our trade with Tuscany had fur three-quarters of the year amounted to £844,000, it had in the corresponding three-quarters of 1862 fallen off to £771,000. Yet, notwithstanding those figures, the hon. Member for Bradford seemed still to be under the impression that that trade had not undergone a decrease. It was not, however, by the Board of Trade alone that evidence of the error under which the hon. Member laboured on the subject was furnished. Earl Russell had sent two gentlemen to institute inquiries on the very question through Sir James Hudson, and there had been a despatch to the noble Lord from our Consul in Tuscany, written early last Session, which went to confirm the view which he (Mr. Hennessy) was endeavouring to lay before the House. He might add that he had been at Leghorn at the close of 1860, when a meeting of the Chamber of Commerce, attended by a great number of British merchants, was held; and upon that occasion a memorial had been forwarded to the Piedmontese Government to the effect that the trade of Leghorn would be destroyed if the Piedmontese tariff were applied to Tuscany. But not only were the duties now higher than those which existed before the annexation, but the Piedmontese system of taxation was antiquated and cumbrous in the extreme. In Tuscany, previous to the annexation, an ad valorem scale of duty prevailed, whereas now it was specific. Last year, with some difficulty, he obtained from Earl Russell a despatch from our Consul at Tuscany on this subject, and it explained the operation of the new tariff on the Bradford trade. It would appear that the trade of Bradford with Tuscany consisted for the most part of a kind of woollen mixed with silk, which commodity, under the old tariff, paid a very slight duty, but which, under the present, being placed in the category of silk, was subjected to so high a charge that he believed the trade in it was extinct. The reason, therefore, was clear why the policy which the hon. Member supported had
436
caused his constituents to suffer. He would simply say, in conclusion, that it was disgraceful to see such a difference prevail between two public Departments as that which seemed to exist between the Foreign Office and the Board of Trade in the case under discussion, the representative of the one Department denying that decline of trade the reality of which his Colleague, a Cabinet Minister, sitting by him, had supplied the means of establishing.
MR. SOMERSET BEAUMONTsaid, it was by no means to be wondered at that after the occurrence of great political changes the financial and commercial results were not precisely the same as those which previously obtained; nor did the statistics quoted by the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down at all convince him of the fact he was so anxious to prove—that the present condition of Italy was worse than it had been before the annexation took place. He could not at all concur with the hon. Gentleman by whom the subject under discussion had been introduced in the various criticisms which he had made on the conduct of the Government in reference to commercial treaties. He found, for instance, that since they came into office they had negotiated treaties with France, Turkey, and Belgium, while the Prime Minister himself had spontaneously, at a meeting in a large commercial town which he had visited during the recess, urged the immense advantage which it would be to this country to have a commercial treaty with Austria. The community, however, to whom the speech was addressed, instead of sending a Member to support the noble Lord, elected one on the question of the narrow or the broad gauge. He might observe that he had not long ago taken part in the proceedings of a chamber of commerce in which the treaty with Belgium was discussed, and that he had not heard a single fault found with its provisions; while, so far as the objection that our Government had never begun negotiations for treaties until France had set the example was concerned, he could only say that it was refuted by the fact that we had made a treaty with Turkey without waiting for any such incentive to action. It must also be borne in mind, in dealing with this question, that foreign countries were not so much frightened at entering into competition with the manufacturers of France as they were with those of England. He should be more

437
disposed to agree with the hon. Gentleman opposite if it could be shown that the Government had been remiss in the promotion of commercial relations between this country and Austria. That was a subject of very great importance, and one which he had brought before his constituents recently. The hon. Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs had, however, stated, what he believed to be perfectly accurate, that Austria was not at present free to consider a commercial treaty with this country. The answer given by the noble Lord at the head of the Government last Session, when he (Mr. S. Beaumont) put a question on the subject, was that till the relations between Austria and the Zollverein were settled we could not expect to get a treaty with Austria. He did not believe that her Majesty's Government could be blamed for not having succeeded in bringing about commercial relations with Austria. That country presented an excellent field for commercial intercourse. There was growing up there, under the exercise of free discussion and liberal institutions, a desire for free trade. They had the assurance of the noble Lord at the head of the Government that the Austrian Ministry were alive to the value of free trade, and he felt confident that at the proper time the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary would show that the Government was not open to the imputation of being dilatory in these matters, and would be able to add another commercial treaty to those which had recently been contracted.
MR. LIDDELLsaid, he thought that the commercial community were greatly indebted to his hon. Friend for calling attention to that important subject. He felt that there could be nothing more unsatisfactory than what had fallen from the lips of the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs. He always believed that free trade never could be conducted by one man or by one nation—it required two or more as parties to the arrangement; and it appeared that in consequence of having given up what the Chancellor of the Exchequer had once called the rags and tatters of protection, of which he at the time thought a better use might have been made, we were now in a position of having no inducements to offer to other States, for greater commercial freedom, and our prospects as to treating with them were absolutely hopeless. He understood that such was the case with regard to Spain and Portugal,
438
for which countries we had made unexampled sacrifices, but the tariffs of which in respect to our ships and to some classes of goods were more restrictive and oppressive than those of any other countries. Austria, we were told, could not, on account of its peculiar position in reference to other German Powers, enter into a commercial treaty with this country; and yet, as had been shown by the hon. Member who had just sat down, in a most able and valuable pamphlet, there existed in that empire a most extensive and most valuable field for our commerce. All that was now left for us to do was to lose no opportunity of laying before those States, our commercial relations with which we wished to extend, the successful results which had attended our own adoption of free-trade principles and practice. He was afraid that our Foreign Office was not sufficiently active in that respect, but he hoped that in future no such opportunities would be neglected.
MR. LEVESON GOWERsaid, he felt bound to protest against any language which would imply that by the reduction of customs duties this country had sacrificed anything whatever. It had been stated by the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs that there were only two ways of approaching foreign Governments on the subject of treaties of commerce, one of which consisted in having something to offer, the other method being to leave matters to their generosity. But both these plans were perfectly useless in our case, because we had nothing more to offer, and in the tone of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down he fancied he detected something like a tone of regret that we had not something like a rag of protection left for the purpose. In any such feeling he could not participate, because he believed that our national prosperity was in a great measure due to our commerce being free and uncrippled by any such restrictions. It was useless to appeal to the generosity of other nations, because he did not believe that our own legislation was ever guided by considerations other than those which at the time were thought best for the interests of England. What this country ought to do was to appeal to the self-interest of other nations, and to point out to them the advantages derivable from free trade. The very fact that we were in possession of those advantages at the same time that we had no means of driving a bargain, was in itself a recommendation of any suggestions which we might offer.
MR. DISRAELI:—Sir, it is, I think, very much to the credit of the Liberal party that we have at last heard from an hon. Gentleman a free-trade speech. I shall not offer any observations in vindication of those rags and shreds of protection of which the House has just been reminded. I think our opinion upon that subject has been expressed in a manner which cannot be mistaken. Our sincerity as to the course of policy which it has been the wisdom of the country to pursue has been proved by as great sacrifices as can be made by public men. But upon the other side of the House—where hon. Members are, or are supposed to be, the advocates of free trade and Parliamentary Reform—I did not expect to have heard this discussion commenced by the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs making a personal and violent attack upon my hon. Friend near me, on the ground that because he advocates the policy of commercial treaties he is showing himself to be a new convert to the principles of free trade. Sir, I never heard that commercial treaties were connected with the abstract principle of a free exchange of commodities between nations. There is nothing very modern, I believe, in the invention of commercial treaties; nor am I aware that the Tory party have ever shown a disrelish to support commercial treaties, if commercial treaties are to be accepted, as we are told by a Member of the Government, as a test of sincerity of belief in the principle of free trade. Why, Sir, commercial treaties, even with France, have been negotiated successfully by Tory Ministers many years before the present commercial treaty with France. There was the commercial treaty of Mr. Pitt, which was only a reproduction of the treaty which Lord Bolingbroke, a Tory Minister, negotiated successfully more than 150 years ago for the interchange of products between England and France on terms much easier than those that at present exist. And why was that treaty negotiated, but not ratified? Why was it defeated? It was defeated through the opposition of the Whig party in this House. Mr. Addison, one of the most distinguished Members that ever sat in this House, and who afterwards was Secretary of State, exerted all his wit and unrivalled powers of humour and composition in ridiculing the arrival of a distinguished foreigner in this country — one Count Tariffe, whose mission was to introduce
440
the habit of free exchange of commodities between two great nations. Those powers of ridicule and humour, supported by the unfortunate prejudices of the country, defeated that treaty. Therefore nothing can be more unfounded than to suppose that because we on this side of the House are in favour of commercial treaties we are in fact at all deserting those principles which have been habitually supported, I may almost say for centuries, by the Tory party. But the hon. Under Secretary of State attacks my hon. Friend, and says, "Because you are a supporter of a commercial treaty I hold you up to public reprobation as only a recent convert to the principles of free trade." Now, Sir, if there can be anything opposed to the abstract principles of free exchange upon which unrestricted competition depends, it is, it must be, those regulations or conventions by which reciprocal advantages are sought in the commercial exchange of nations. You are departing from those principles which you take every opportunity of claiming as your own; you are departing from the ground of pure science and inexorable logic the moment you attempt to negotiate the terms upon which commercial exchange shall take place. Now, in the case of the French treaty we came forward with certain advantages which we proposed to exchange for others. That I thought myself at the time, generally speaking, to be a most wise policy. I thought, and always have thought, that anything which favoured commercial exchange between England and France was a policy which each country ought to favour, but the scheme was entirely contrary to those abstract principles of free exchange which you have always upheld. Nothing, then, can be more inconsistent than to reproach any Gentleman on this side because he supports commercial treaties. I remember, Sir, many years ago, introducing the subject of commercial treaties to this House. It was before the hon. Member for Rochdale, a gentleman who on all subjects shows great capacity, was one of its Members. But having supported in that Motion the system of commercial treaties, as one which I thought would, upon the whole, most promote the increase of the commerce of this country, I remember being attacked out of this House by the hon. Member on that subject. I do not know whether the words were uttered aloud, so that we can find them in the authentic record; but I

441
can say from my own personal experience, that no less a personage than Sir Robert Peel said upon that occasion, "Don't you think we have heard the last of commercial treaties?" Well, Sir, we had not heard the last of commercial treaties. A very considerable commercial treaty was destined to be negotiated years after. So shrewd, so sagacious a statesman as Sir Robert Peel, so cautious in expressing his opinion, in 1844 probably was, then, of the belief that we had heard the last of commercial treaties. Yet we had not heard the last of commercial treaties. A most important commercial treaty was afterwards negotiated, and by whom? By the hon. Gentleman the Member for Rochdale (Mr. Cobden). Now, that is a lesson to all of us. It teaches us this — that whatever the value or the truth of abstract principles, it is in their application—in the wise and necessary application of those principles, that is involved the prosperity of nations. Now, Sir, I think we are very much indebted to my hon. Friend for bringing this subject before us; not that I think the observations he has made to-night, or the interesting debate which has followed, will at all advance in this country the question of commercial treaties. I think we have got into a position in which that is impracticable; but the discussion will at least teach the country the position which upon that subject it really occupies. We have no means of negotiation, and it is most unwise, in my opinion, to hold out generally to the country that the Government have the power of negotiating treaties of commercial advantage. The country has accepted the policy of unrestricted competition. If it be dissatisfied with that policy, let it frankly announce its dissatisfaction. But we cannot have the advantage of a policy of unrestricted competition and at the same time, as regards commerce, enjoy the advantages of exchange under diplomatic arrangement—it is impossible at once to enjoy both. The country now wants to have the double advantage, but warning enough has been given. You have been told often and often by Members of this House that whether it regards commerce, or whether it respects navigation, you were too liberal in parting with the advantages and privileges you possessed; but the principles of unrestricted competition were adopted, and it is now too late to inquire whether you are right or wrong. The policy
442
which you then supported was accepted, and by that policy you must, in my opinion, stand. Why, in navigation alone, I remember how constantly you were told that you were needlessly giving up a thousand points. The constant answer was, "Only make the surrender, only endure the sacrifice, and you will see that your example will inspire others." I am not aware myself of the satisfactory returns to which those sacrifices have tended. They appear to me, as far as I can recall them at this moment, to be very slight and mean. But the policy was adopted after great discussion—after frequent appeals to the country—after great debate in this House, and great political consequences; and that you should now endeavour to combine the commercial advantages which accrue from unrestricted competition with the benefits which can only attend upon diplomatic arrangements, is a monstrous effort, which, depend upon it, must end in failure. It is not now for you to come forward, you who favour free trade and commercial treaties, and find fault with the Government because they cannot accomplish such results. You have yourselves resolved that the means which only can bring about these arrangements should be surrendered at discretion. You gave them up without condition, and it is impossible now to resume the position you have lost. But that is no reason whatever why the Government should attempt to carry on negotiations in this matter in the manner that the present Government does. The Government know very well the position they occupy, and we are painfully conscious of it and; the Government, who are always better instructed than the House of Commons, must be doubly conscious of the difficulty of attempts to negotiate commercial treaties. The fault I find with the Government in pretending to negotiate commercial treaties is that they hold out an idea to the country that by an Italian or Austrian treaty they would create a great interchange. They know that it is impossible they can do it. It would be more dignified, to my mind, to hold aloof. Having adopted a commercial system the principle of which is unrestricted competition, it would be more dignified, and I believe, in the end, more successful, if you held aloof, rather than pretend that you can negotiate these treaties. Every day we hear, "We have had a successful commercial treaty with France: why not with Italy, why not with Austria?" You

443
know very well that you cannot have the same results as with France. You had something to give to France. You had that principle of reciprocity to act with, the principle which you have always despised and always condemned. That led to your success—that led to the results which have been obtained, and you claimed that as a discovery which was accomplished more than a century ago by some of the greatest Statesmen that have ever existed in this country. It is past. The age of commercial treaties is past, because you have no means and no materials for negotiation. All you can do is to exercise that moral influence, of which we hear so much, with foreign countries with which you are placed in communication, to lead them by your own example and your own prosperity. Never mind whether it arose from your present or your old system of commerce—for the old as well as the present system of commerce has equally brought prosperity to this country—from the contemplation of that prosperity the conviction will grow in those countries that with immense resources they are producing small revenues; that they are not raising revenues that bear a due relation to their resources, and you may trust to that to lead to reciprocal exchanges and mutual benefits in commercial transactions. But you will gain that as completely, and perhaps sooner, without the embarrassment of commercial treaties than you would with these conventions. I regret that, through the conduct of the Government and through the extraordinary behaviour of the free trade party in patronizing artificial agreements of exchange, there has arisen in this country the impression that the best and most politic mode of stimulating commerce is to have recourse to that method. That was a good theory twenty years ago, and not only a good theory but a good theory which could be put in beneficial practice. I will not enter into a discussion now—at all times a barren controversy—whether if, twenty years ago, you had followed the principle of commercial exchange you would have derived more advantage than by suddenly adopting the principle of unrestricted competition. You have adopted unresticted competition as the principle of your commercial code. By accident certain articles were excepted, and two years ago you used them as the means of negotiating a treaty of commerce with a great country, with a large population, and with very rich and
444
very valuable resources. You have played all your cards, and to attempt at the present moment—to pretend that you can assist and support the commerce of this country by commercial treaties is a mere delusion. No doubt the Government of this country may make use of its legitimate influence to obtain commercial advantages, but to obtain treaties on commercial and political principles are two different subjects; and my hon. Friend is perfectly right in pointing out how important it is that the Government, when holding out the principle of commercial treaties as one highly advantageous to our allies, should not follow at the same time a general policy which irritates the feelings and offends the pride of foreign Governments. In taking that line my hon. Friend is highly to be commended, and no doubt what he has said will lead to suggestions in the public mind which will be advantageous. At the same time I regret very much that hon. Gentlemen opposite, after so many years, during which they have held with so much tenacity abstract opinions on commercial exchange, should now come forward and be agitating the country with the absolute necessity of making artificial arrangements for stimulating the commerce of the country. The plan which they seem now to foster is one not founded on right principles, and practically cannot be carried into effect; and any commercial treaties which England may now negotiate, and which when they are negotiated must be beneficial to the different countries concerned, no man can deny must be negotiated by political influence, and not by the influence of commercial considerations.
MR. MILNER GIBSON: Sir, I have been appealed to during this debate, and therefore I rise to reply to the questions that have been put to me. Otherwise I should have been very little disposed, after the able speech of my hon. Friend the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, to take part in this discussion. We have had a narrative of the proceedings of the Goernment since the conclusion of the French treaty in reference to making commercial agreements with foreign countries. The debate has been called interesting, and probably is so. But I have been unable to follow many of the speakers, and throughout the discussion I have observed a certain confusion, as if the speakers were thinking of different subjects, and not discussing a particular Motion. There

445
is a remarkable difference between the hon. Gentleman who submitted the Motion, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire. The former reproved the Government for not seizing every opportunity to make commercial bargains with foreign nations. The latter tells us that the age of commercial treaties is past, and that all we can do is to use political influence or pressure, I suppose, to make foreign countries alter their tariffs. We have had an account of the opposition to the French treaty in the time of Mr. Pitt. The French treaty two years ago met a similar opposition at the hands of the right hon. Gentleman, and be appears in those days to have taken up what I understood him to call the former error of the Whigs. But the hon. Gentleman who submitted the Motion entirely approved the last French treaty, and his whole speech was a comment upon the conduct of the Government since that period. With regard to the Belgian treaty, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) asks why the text is not given. I have simply to say that the treaty has been laid on the table, and is to be found in the library, and the hon. Gentleman will there see what it has accomplished. I contend that it has accomplished great benefits for this country. The Belgian treaty contains, first of all, the favoured nation clause, which had no existence before in our relations with Belgium—a most important stipulation, because before the treaty France enjoyed a preference in the Belgian market, and since its conclusion France and England are treated with perfect equality. The second advantage is that we have assimilated the British and Belgian flags. Produce, whether carried by a British or a Belgian ship, is to be admitted for the future upon equal terms, and that is acknowledged by the salt trade of this country to be a great benefit, because heretofore salt imported in English ships was subjected to a differential duty. But the most important result of all is the favoured nation clause, because by putting an end to the system of preference which was given to France in the Belgian market we have reduced the Belgian tariff as against English productions 50 per cent. There were many duties which ranged up to 40 per cent—but, taking an average, the duties upon English textile fabrics imported into Belgium ranged as high as 30 per cent, and they have been reduced to a rate not exceeding
446
15. I think, therefore, we have accomplished through that Belgian treaty important results for the benefit of England. It has been said by the hon. Member for the King's County (Mr. Hennessy) that our trade with Italy has not increased, and that the Board of Trade Returns contradict those which have been supplied by Her Majesty's Consul General at Naples. I have not seen the returns which my hon. Friend quoted as coming from Naples; but I have no doubt that the figures which be quoted are correct, and they show in the particular articles referred to a probable diminution in the trade with Italy, comparing a certain number of months of 1862 with the same months in 1861. But from what I heard fall from my hon. Friend the Under Secretary (Mr. Layard) I think the Consul General's returns were made in the gross, and it may be quite true that particular articles have fallen off in 1862. I laid on the table only this evening the annual Returns made up to the 31st December, 1862, and they are not as yet printed. I dare say it may turn out that the export trade to Italy in 1862 may be less than in 1861. There are many reasons why that should be the case. The high price of cotton and its diminished production must have had a tendency materially to affect the whole export trade of England. But I think it would be only fair to compare 1860 and 1861 with 1857 and 1858, omitting 1859, which was a year of war, and therefore not to be taken into the comparison for the amonnt of trade. Now, the whole value of the British exports to Italy in 1857 was £3,246,261. and in 1858 £3,677.663; but in 1860 it was £4,220,112, and in 1861 £5,333,261. Such is the declared value in those years of British exports to Italy—that is to say, to Sardinia, Tuscany, and the Two Sicilies. I think, therefore, when the hon. Member for the King's County (Mr. Hennessy) looks into the facts of the case, he will find that although the Board of Trade Returns do not quite tally with the statement of my hon. Friend, it is substantially true that the trade with Italy, for the last two years, has shown a tendency to increase and has in fact materially increased. Now, with regard to the Italian treaty, to which my hon. Friend (Mr. S. Fitzgerald) has alluded, as a case in which the Government were not showing the vigilance which they ought in watching our commercial interests, all I can

447
say is, that—as far as my knowledge goes, there having been constant communications between the Foreign Office and the Board of Trade in reference to that treaty—that charge is unfounded. As soon as we found that Italy was about to revise her tariff, and that France was almost forcing from the necessities of the country such a tariff as would be favourable to her interests, Her Majesty's Government set themselves to work, and represented to Italy those reductions which might be made in our interest, and which might well be considered while the tariff was under revision. But there is no doubt that whatever Italy gave to France she would give to England under the operation of the favoured nation clause. It is quite true we have it not in our power to go to different countries and say, "If you make this reduction in your duties, we will make that in ours." We have weeded out of our tariff so many duties that it is not possible for us to make offers of that kind, but I am rather inclined to agree in some observations which fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) as to commercial treaties. I, for one, never held the doctrine that we should wait before making reductions of duties in this country favourable to ourselves, because other countries would not co-operate. I have always held we ought to make those reductions which we consider beneficial. I look upon the French treaty as an exception to the general rule, though I would rather not lay down any general rule or abstract principle, because in this matter, as in all other political questions, exceptions are sure to arise. I do not think tariff treaties in themselves desirable, speaking abstractly, or that any country should shackle itself by engagements with other countries as to the particular mode in which it would raise its own revenue. I think in these matters it must obviously he the interest of this country to act for herself. But because the French treaty has been concluded, and there has been a stipulation for the reduction of duties on the part of France, and concessions of duty on the part of England, it does not follow that England is to run about endeavouring everywhere to make tariff treaties. That policy has never been recommended, nor has it been encouraged by the recent proceedings of the Foreign Office. All that has been done is to ask, where we have not had the
448
favoured nation clause, to get it, and we have never ceased to urge upon other countries the necessity of considering the duties which affect our interests. I do not think the experience we have had since the French treaty is at all discouraging. We cannot expect that foreign countries should change their opinions upon protection all at once. We, in this country, were a long time before we were convinced that protection was a bad thing, and I am not certain that all the Members of this House are as yet convinced that it is. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) is, but I do not know that the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate), for example, is convinced. But, be that as it may, we ought to be indulgent, seeing that strong habits and prejudices are not to be got rid of in a day, and that the course which France has taken in negotiating commercial treaties with other nations is having a great effect in spreading free trade throughout Europe. Whatever reductions are made to France we must strive to get, either in virtue of our moral claims or by the favoured nation clause. I think, then, we have every reason to be satisfied with that commercial policy which has been pursued by this country, and which will gradually bring about in Europe not only the conviction of the soundness of the principle, but the adoption of the practice of free trade.
Motion agreed to.
House at its rising to adjourn till To-morrow at Two of the clock.

POOR LAW—(PATRICK BOURKE).

  PAPERS MOVED FOR.
  LORD JOHN BROWNE:—I feel it my duty to call the attention of the President of the Poor Law Board and the Chief Secretary for Ireland to the removal of a pauper named Patrick Bourke from Leeds to Westport in the county of Mayo, because I believe that the death of this unfortunate old man was undoubtedly hastened, if not caused, by his removal, at the age of seventy-three, during the very worst season of the year, when very insufficiently clothed, and when in a very weak and very delicate state of health; and because I think it right that the Government and the House of Commons should, from time to time, be made aware of the cruel mode in which this most harsh law is frequently

  449
  administered by the petty parish authorities of some districts in England. Patrick Bourke was a native of the Claremorris and not the Westport Union; but that is a matter of small importance, as he left Ireland forty-three years ago, during the whole of which time he stated that he resided in the town of Leeds, in the country districts surrounding it, or in other towns in that immediate neighbourhood. He was by trade a spectacle-maker; and when he was removed, there was brought over with him a box containing a complete set of the tools required for that trade, together with a large number of spectacles, about twenty of them completed and nine or ten of them in different stages of manufacture; the workmanship of the whole of which showed that he was undoubtedly a most excellent workman. As long as; he continued in good health, he said that he never asked for or received a single penny of parochial relief, being well able to support himself by his trade; but at last old age and infirmities began to prey on him, and during the last few years be said that he had on several occasions sought relief in the hospital of the Leeds poorhouse for about a week at a time. Last autumn, however, he had a more serious illness; for, for several months previous to his removal, he was a continuous inmate of the hospital of the Leeds poorhouse. Without any information as to what was to be done with him, Bourke stated that he was, on or about the 30th of December, taken from his sick bed in that hospital, medicine having been given to him on the very evening before his removal, and carried over to the extreme west of Ireland—as a deck passenger in the steamer from Holyhead to Dublin during a terrific storm (by night I believe); on an outside jaunting car for the last ten miles of his journey, also in very bad weather; all this time without any great coat or covering, exposed to the cold, the rain, and the storm, till he was delivered up at the Westport poorhouse, wet through, of course, and as miserable and wretched an object as it is possible to conceive. The porter, who received him, was shocked at his appearance, and asked the removing officer, "How any body of gentlemen (referring to the Leeds Board of Guardians) could send such a weak old man on such a journey in such weather." The removing officer replied, that "he was a paid officer; he had his orders, and he should obey them." Every care was
  450
  taken of the unfortunate man; but the following morning he got diarrhoea, which his weak and exhausted constitution could not withstand; he got weaker day by day, till he died on the twelfth day, when the medical officer of the poorhouse made the following report to the guardians, to the truth of which report he subsequently swore:—
  "I beg to report that Patrick Bourke, aged seventy-three, who was admitted to the hospital on the 1st inst., and labouring under chronic bronchitis, weak heart, and general debility, was removed from Leeds to Westport by the Leeds Board of Guardians in a very inclement season. Immediately after his admission he got severe diarrhoea, under which he sank, notwithstanding the greatest care and attention, and died on the 13th inst. I consider his removal, at such a time and in such a state, injudicious, and calculated to hasten his death."
  Now, Sir, I beg the attention of the House, while I show how the unfortunate man was clothed during this cold, winter journey. He had "a body coat, trousers, and waistcoat, of thin black cloth, well worn, two coloured shirts, but no flannel, no drawers, and no great coat." Is it to be wondered at that he was in his grave in a fortnight's time? It is, however, only fair for me to state that when he was crossing in the steamer, he, by "by giving something to one of the crew," as he said, "was allowed to get into the caboose:" that is the cookhouse on deck; and but for this, he said, he never would have reached Dublin alive. He was not, however, allowed to go below, though the removing officer said he never saw worse weather; that it was enough to kill any man; but he added "there was no place below for the likes of him; he could not be put among respectable people;" so the unfortunate old man was left on deck, to get what shelter he could for himself; or if he could get none, to perish from the cold and the wet. To the last, Bourke never ceased to say that his days had been shortened by his journey. If he had known, he said, what they were going to do with him, he would have left the Leeds poorhouse on the morning of his removal; and if they had left him there for another week, that he would have been again able to earn his bread; but, he said, "they hurled me out without mercy, and shortened my days." The Irish Poor Law Commissioners ordered their Inspector, Dr. Brodie, to hold an inquiry on oath into the circumstances of this case. That inquiry has been held, and the evidence taken down in writing by Dr. Brodie him-

  451
  self, I beg to move, Sir, that Dr. Brodie's report, and the evidence on which it is founded, be printed and circulated amongst the Members of this House. I beg the particular attention of the President of the Poor Law Board to that document. If he finds that it bears out the statements which I have made, I trust he will agree with me that this is not a case which ought to be lightly passed over; but that he will order an inquiry to be held in England, similar to that in Ireland, on oath, with the evidence taken down in writing, and that he will select to conduct that inquiry, some man of high character and strict impartiality, who will understand that he is sent to make a bonâ fide inquiry, and not to obtain a mere legalized form of acquittal. I think it is of the utmost importance that the Irish Poor Law Commissioners should he represented at that inquiry. Unless that is done, I believe the inquiry will he a mockery; and it would be better to have none at all than one at which only one side, and that the accused, shall be represented. Recollect that this is not an isolated case; it is no doubt worse in its details than most of these Irish removals; but there is scarcely an Irish Member of this House, who has not at this moment in his possession some case of undoubted hardship, and of questionable legality; but it is impossible for us in Ireland to ascertain the truth of these cases. In almost every one, the statement of the pauper differs materially from the depositions sent over by the English parochial authorities. In nearly every manufacturing town in the North of England, and in many of the country districts, there are large numbers of labourers, tradesmen, or work-people in the factories, who, though no doubt Irish by birth, have left that country, with all their friends and families, thirty, forty, or fifty years ago, who during the whole of that time had been labouring to increase the wealth of England, have been helping to create those colossal fortunes which have given many an hon. Member his seat in this House, and in the other House too, but who, when they are at last overtaken by old age or infirmity, or disabled by accident, are, as Bourke described it, "hurled out without mercy." The English pride themselves on being a humane and just people, but I ask is this humanity or justice? Is it impossible to get the
  452
  English Members, who form so large a majority of the votes in this House that we are absolutely at their mercy, to agree to some modification of this barbarous law? Is it unreasonable of us to ask that a man should not be sent back to Ireland after he has left it for over thirty years; that no person should be sent as a deck passenger in the winter season; that persons over the age of sixty (say) should not be removed during the three or six worst months of the winter season; and that all persons, no matter what their age or sex, shall be properly and sufficiently clothed for the journey, and not sent over as Bourke was? Sir, I must now leave this case in the hands of the President of the Poor Law Board for the present. I trust he will not consider it as an attack on him and his Department which he is bound to repel, but rather as a case which it concerns his honour and his credit to have thoroughly and impartially investigated, and I earnestly hope that it will induce him to consider whether it is not possible to procure some change in the Law of Irish Poor Removals, which will prevent the recurrence of such a melancholy case as that which I have felt it my duty to bring before the House of Commons on this occasion. The noble Lord concluded by moving for a Copy—
  "Of the Report of Dr. Brodie on the removal of a pauper, named Patrick Bourke, from Leeds to Westport, in the county of Mayo, together with the evidence on which that Report is grounded."
  MR. C. P. VILLIERSsaid, he did not complain of the noble Lord bringing forward this case, though he had already told the noble Lord that he had had not received any official communication on the matter. He had had a communication, however, that morning from the guardians of the Leeds Union, simply because they had observed a statement made in The Times newspaper and the noble Lord's notice in the Parliamentary Votes. And if the noble Lord would give him a correct statement of the facts of the case, he would officially communicate with the guardians of the union; and if their explanation seemed to require it, a formal inquiry should be instituted with the view of eliciting the truth. He did not collect, from what the noble Lord had said, on what authority he made his statement. The noble Lord had referred to the evidence of the medical man, but had not

  453
  stated that he held the depositions in his hands or had any authority for his statements.
  LORD JOHN BROWNEsaid, that he stated that the medical officer's report was sworn to; and, with respect to bringing the matter forward, he had given eight days' notice of his intention to do so.
  MR. C. P. VILLIERSsaid, that with the communication on the subject from the Leeds Board of Guardians there were enclosed depositions of the removal officer who had acted in the case, who was himself an Irishman, from the master of the workhouse, and the medical officer. These communications, however, were not in consequence of any letter from the Poor Law Board, but had been forwarded to him in consequence of the noble Lord's notice. The guardians expressed their readiness to submit to further inquiry, and to meet by sworn testimony any further statements that might be made to support the charge against them. It appeared that, from a desire to act humanely, the Leeds guardians employed an Irishman, and a person who knew the Irish in Leeds, to remove any natives of Ireland whom they resolved to send to their own country, and the first of the depositions was made by that individual, whose name was John O'Rourke. It was as follows:—
  "I am removal officer for Irish paupers for the township of Leeds. On the 30th of December, 1862, Patrick Bourke was taken in a cab at 9a.m., under a justice's order of removal, to the railway station, to meet the 10·30 a.m. train to Holyhend, en route to Ireland. He did not complain of diarrhoea or bronchitis, and appeared as well as any of his age could. I took his ticket and travelled with him third class. I paid 1s. for a berth, in addition to deck passage, in the cook's department, near a good fire, and he was under cover all night. He had during the voyage bread and butter, and tea, more than sufficient, and as frequently as he asked for it, and I paid for the same, and during the passage I visited him at least half a dozen times. On arriving at Dublin he was taken by rail to Westport, previous to which he had a good breakfast, for which I paid 9d. He had on the journey, from Dublin to Westport, twice bread and cheese and part of a shank of ham with me, which I took for that purpose. After the completion of the journey by rail to Castlebar we had to travel about eight miles by car to Westport, during which time he was covered with an oilskin coat, which I borrowed of the carman to cover him, and from this place he had only to walk about half a mile to the workhouse. During the journey be appeared to be in good health and spirits, and on his arrival at the workhouse he told the master that he had been well treated by the Leeds guardians while in their workhouse, and also by the removal officer while on the journey. The pauper had
  454
  with him a box, containing about two or more dozen pairs of spectacles. One pair on the journey he sold for Is.; this and the remainder were left in his possession."
  The deposition of Mr. Henry Douglas, master of the workhouse, was as follows:—
  "I am master of the Leeds workhouse. Patrick Bourke was admitted on the 5th of May, 1862, on the order of a relieving officer. He does not appear in the medical book, except to be supplied with tobacco. On the 9th of May his name appears in the 'prescription book' to be supplied with medicine of an aperient nature. For several months previous to his removal Patrick Bourke appeared to be in good health and spirits. During the time he was an inmate of the workhouse, I was not aware that he was subject to bronchitis or diarrhcea. He left the workhouse between nine and ten o'clock on the 30th of December, 1862, with the removal officer, previous to which he rose with the other inmates to partake of breakfast at half past seven, and thanked me for the treatment he had received while an inmate of the workhouse, and bade me good morning, and from his manner I thought he was pleased at the prospect of returning to his native country."
  Then came the deposition of the medical officer, Mr. Thomas Land—
  "I, Thomas Land, medical officer to the Leeds workhouse, do hereby certify that I have carefully looked over the medical books, and find that Patrick Bourke was ordered aperient medicine on the 9th of May, 1862, and a cough mixture on the 10th of November, 1862, since which time I have not seen him professionally. Had he been taken ill at any other time, my attention would have been directed to him."
  He might observe, that under the existing law guardians removing a pauper to Ireland might act as the board at Leeds had done, or adopt the alternative of sending a person in charge of the pauper removed only as fur as the union of the port where he landed; but such was the desire of the Leeds Board of Guardians to carry out these removals in the most considerate manner possible that they uniformly sent the removal officer to the plate where the pauper had claimed to be taken. In this case it appeared that the man himself wanted to go back. He swore to the place of his proper destination, and the guardians sent him there. They said that they had never heard of his alleged illness until the case was brought under public notice by the noble Lord. With respect to what the noble Lord had said of the law being odious or inhuman, he begged distinctly to deny that it deserved that character. It was an amended law, proposed by himself as President of the Poor Law Board two years ago. Anything that could be alleged as savouring of inhumanity in the old law was removed by the existing Act. There

  455
  were defects in the old law, and they were brought under public notice by the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. Maguire) in such a manner as arrested the attention of Parliament, and was principally instrumental in bringing about a change. The law was now a humane one. A long residence in a particular parish was no longer required to protect a poor Irish man or woman from removal. Residence in one union for a space of three years relieved them from all liability to removal. But for that change in the law, not thousands but perhaps tens of thousands of Irish would have been removable from the distressed districts in Lancashire and Yorkshire during the present winter. Those people were now irremovable, owing to the law which the noble Lord called an inhuman one. Of course, those intrusted to administer the law may have erred, or neglected their duty. That was not his fault. It the noble Lord could bring forward a well-substantiated case of abuse, he should be glad to get the evil redressed. He promised him a full inquiry; but as far as the case yet had gone he did not think the statements made to the noble Lord were borne out by the weight of evidence.
  MR. BAINESsaid, it was not only the duty of Irish Members, but also of English Members, to insist that reasonable and humane care should be taken in the removal of Irish paupers, and of all paupers. In this case, from the evidence which had been furnished to him, and which had been read by his right hon. Friend the President of the Poor Law Board, as well as from his own knowledge of the Poor Law Guardians of Leeds, he was convinced that there had been no known or intentional neglect, but, on the contrary, every care that could be reasonably required. There was certainly a remarkable conflict between the evidence furnished to the noble Lord (Lord John Browne) and that supplied to him; but he asked the House to look at the very complete case made out in refutation of the charge. The two points of importance in the case were—First, was the pauper removed when known to be in such a state of health as to make his removal dangerous or improper; and, secondly, was there anything in the mode of removal calculated to injure his health? On the first point, the master of the Leeds workhouse gave both positive and negative evidence: he said, "For several months previous to his removal Patrick Bourke
  456
  appeared to be in good health and spirits: he was not aware that he was subject to bronchitis or diarrhoea." Now, this was in absolute contradiction to the statement made by the noble Lord, that the pauper had been for several months a continuous inmate of the hospital, and that he was taken from his bed in the hospital to be removed to Ireland. The removal officer stated, that "during the journey Bourke appeared to be in good health and spirits:" and the medical officer of the Leeds workhouse stated that the pauper had only had medicine twice, on the first occasion within four days after his admission in May last, and the second time, a cough mixture, nearly two months before he was removed; and he added—"since which time I have not seen him professionally: had he been taken ill at any other time, my attention would have been directed to him." Now, that was strong evidence that the man was not known to be in a state of health which made his removal improper. On the second point the evidence seemed completely to negative the imputation of want of care or undue exposure. The pauper was taken in a cab to the railway, and travelled in the same conveyance as the removal officer himself, and was under cover during the whole journey and voyage till he came to Castlebar. It had been said that he was exposed on the deck of the steamer in crossing the Channel; but so far was this from being true that he had a berth, paid for by the removal officer, in the cook's department, under cover all night, near a fire, and with plenty of food. As to food, it was deposed that he had on the steamer, "bread and butter and tea more than sufficient;" that he had breakfasted at Dublin, and that he shared with the removal officer twice of bread, cheese, and ham on the Irish railway. He (Mr. Baines) thought it might be questioned whether cheese and ham were very suitable food if the man was subject to diarrhoea. But it was not known that he had such a complaint, and the pauper had the same fare as the officer. Then for the last few miles the man was conveyed, from Castlebar to Westport, on an outside car; but this was, he supposed, the only mode of conveyance in that part of the country, and the officer borrowed an oilskin coat for the pauper from the driver of the car. He was conveyed to the workhouse at Westport, and the officer deposed that the pauper had "appeared in good health and spirits" during the journey, and that on his arrival

  457
  he told the master he had been well treated both In the workhouse at Leeds and on the journey. This narrative seemed completely to negative the charge of inhumanity of any kind or at any stage. When the President of the Poor Law Board mentioned that the removal officer was an Irishman, there was an expression of something like derision; but he hoped no Irish Member joined in that derision. To him it seemed that the employment of an Irishman for that service was some guarantee of fellow feeling towards the pauper. It was alleged that the weather on the 30th of December was very inclement; but they would all remember that the weather at that time was singularly mild. He had thought it his duty to make these few remarks as Member for the borough of Leeds, and he declared his strong conviction that the treatment of paupers at Leeds was decidedly humane and liberal. He would only, in conclusion, invite and challenge the fullest investigation into the case.
  MR. H. A. HERBERTsaid, the statements which had been so triumphantly referred to by his right hon. Friend might or might not be well founded, but they were worth just as much as the statements of any other persons that were charged with a breach of the law. He had no wish to controvert those statements; but what Irish Members had a right to complain of was, that when any of these acts of injustice were alleged, whether truly or untruly, and a primâ facie case was made out, Irish boards of guardians possessed no power of obtaining an inquiry or of getting anything like justice. When the 24 & 25 Vict., c. 75, 76, were passed, the Irish Poor Law Commissioners directed Irish boards of guardians to bring under their notice any cases of alleged breach of these Acts, and sent a form of questions to be put to the pauper. In a case which had come under his notice a long statement was accordingly sent to the Commissioners, with the sworn depositions of the pauper, and the Commissioners sent down their own inspector to inquire. But the end of that elaborate investigation was, that the Commissioners wrote back remarking that the depositions were entirely at variance with the statement of the clerk of the English union, and that their power of inquiry did not extend beyond Ireland. What was asked for now was, that somebody on the part of the Irish Poor Law
  458
  Board should be present at the examination at Leeds in order to see fair play. That was not the only case of irregularity in the removal of paupers from England. In the report of the Poor Law Commissioners for 1862 there was a grave complaint of habitual breach of the law in this respect, and a large number of instances, with full details, were given. The Poor Law Board did not deny those allegations, but was obliged to own that in many of the cases adverted to irregularities had occurred. In referring to the subject the Secretary to the Board said that in the event of such misconduct being repeated it would be necessary to consider whether a penalty should not be imposed on offenders. He hoped, therefore, that some means would be taken to compel the removing authorities to observe the law.
  SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, he thought the noble Lord deserved the thanks of the country for bringing this case forward. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Poor Law Board was personally to blame in the matter, as he was of a humane and kindly disposition. He would not go into questions of ham, cheese, or oilskin coats; but could say, from his own experience, that paupers were frequently removed who were utterly unfit for a journey. Perhaps no Member of the House saw more of the Irish poor than he did, and cases were constantly occurring within his knowledge that satisfied him of the truth of what he was now saying. People came to him who had been discharged from hospitals, or who, if not discharged from hospitals, were in a state of disease, and who said they could not apply to the Poor Law authorities, as, if they did, they would be removed to Ireland. The question was one of humanity that addressed itself to the feelings of every man in that House, and he thought that something ought to be done, either by a change in the law or by the interference of the guardians to prevent a recurrence of such cases of cruelty and hardship. In his opinion what was required was a comprehensive regulation, prohibiting the removal of any one without the certificate of a competent officer that he or she was in such a state of health as to be fit for removal.
  MR. MAGUIREsaid, he was glad to see the manner in which the English Members of the House had received the statements that were made on this subject.

  459
  He wished, however, to warn the President of the Poor Law Board not to place implicit credence in the statements of those who were accused of violations of the law. He hoped the present case would be inquired into; and, whatever the result of it might he, he was satisfied the English Members would never consent to such irregularities. The law in its amended form was, on the whole, humane, giving to the Irish poor in this country rights which they never possessed before. He was convinced, that if strictly and fairly carried out, it would to a certain extent mitigate the harshness of any removal to Ireland.
  MR. HENNESSYsaid, he doubled whether the law, even in its present form, deserved the eulogiums of the hon. Member for Dungarvan. In Ireland there was no power of removing English paupers to England, whereas there was here a power of transferring Irish paupers to Ireland.
  MR. ROEBUCK: Are there any English paupers in Ireland?
  MR. HENNESSY:—Yes, and political paupers too. He wished to know whether the Irish Government had made any inquiry into the seventy-three cases of irregularity and breaches of the law mentioned by a previous speaker. The Irish Commissioners said that their jurisdiction did not extend beyond Ireland. What steps then had the Irish Government taken in this matter?
  LORD CLAUD HAMILTONsaid, he trusted that the publicity given to the case would render it impossible but that on immediate and a searching inquiry should take place, with the view of remedying any evils that might exist, and preventing a repetition of such evils. He could not but express his astonishment at the warmth of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Poor Law Board, because the right hon. Gentleman was greatly mistaken if he supposed that any portion of the House underrated the importance of those alterations in the Pool Law which he was so instrumental in effecting. He (Lord Claud Hamilton), however, thought that in many instances the law was not carried out. He was of opinion that the House had heard enough to be convinced that there was wanted some system by which the Irish Poor Law Commissioners could make their complaints in such a way as to ensure an inquiry into them. At present it appeared they could only write letters on the sub-
  460
  ject, having no jurisdiction beyond their own country.
  SIR ROBERT PEELstated, that when a complaint was made by a board of guardians in Ireland, an Inspector was instructed to inquire into the matter. He reported to the Poor Law Commissioners in Dublin, who, in turn, reported to the Chief Secretary's office. A communication was then made to the Home Secretary, by whom the case was transferred to the President of the Poor Law Board. Such was the course followed in the seventy-three cases referred to by the hon. and learned member for the King's County. These cases were now under the consideration of the English Board, and he had no doubt that justice would be done. He was glad that the case of Patrick Bourke had been brought before the House; because, if there had been any irregularity or violation of the law, it would, no doubt, he remedied by the full inquiry promised by the President of the Poor Law Board.
  Motion agreed to.
  Copy ordered,
  "Of the Report of Dr. Brodie on the removal of a pauper, named Patrick Bourke, from Leeds to Westport, in the county of Mayo, together with the evidence on which that Report is grounded." [Parl. P. 75.]

PRISON MINISTERS BILL.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he rose to move for leave to introduce a Bill to amend the law relating to the religious instruction of prisoners in the county and borough prisons in England and Scotland. His Motion was intended to redeem a pledge which he gave last Session on the occasion of the discussion of a Bill introduced by the hon. and learned Member for the King's County (Mr. Hennessy), when he expressed the opinion that the law was in a state which required some alteration, in justice to that large body of prisoners who were not members of the Established Church. He would state what the law was which he proposed to alter. The Bill related only to what were termed borough and county prisons, not to convict prisons which were under the immediate charge of Government, and where the prisoners were under sentence of penal servitude. County prisons were regulated by the Act of 4 Geo. IV., c. 64, and borough prisons by 2 & 3 Vict., c. 56. The law of Scot-

  461
  land was more recent—23 & 24 Vict., c. 105, but it contained provisions of the same diameter as those in the English Law. The 4 Geo. IV., c. 64, s. 28, required the justices in quarter sessions to nominate for each prison within their jurisdiction a clergyman of the Church of England as chaplain, and empowered them to award him a salary proportioned to the number of prisoners which the prison was calculated to receive, and payable out of the rate applicable to the maintenance of the prison. The general duties of the chaplain were de-fined to be, the performance of the morning and evening services of the Church of England on Sundays, Christmas days, and Good Fridays, and the frequent visiting every room and cell occupied by prisoners, for the purpose of directing such books to be distributed and read, and such lessons to be taught, as he may deem proper for the religious and moral instruction of the prisoners. It is, however, provided that—
  "If any prisoner shall be of a religious persuasion different from that of the Established Church, a minister of such persuasion, at the special request of such prisoner, shall be allowed to visit him or her at proper and reasonable times, under such restrictions imposed by the visiting justices as shall guard against the introduction of improper persons, and as shall prevent improper communications."
  But although, at the special request of any such prisoner, a minister of the church or persuasion to which he belongs is allowed to attend, that in no way modifies the right or duty of the chaplain to visit and minister to prisoners of all persuasions. There was one modification, only applicable to prisoners under sentence of death. In this case, if the prisoner makes a request to be attended by a minister of his own persuasion, the chaplain is not to attend him, it being felt unseemly to have controversial discussions going on in presence of a prisoner, and within a few hours of his execution. That is the law at present with regard to the borough and county prisons in England, and in its main features it is the same in Scotland. The Bill was not confined to any religious class or denomination, but its application would chiefly refer to Roman Catholic prisoners, for the reason that there were but comparatively few prisoners belonging to any Protestant dissenting denomination, while in some prisons there was a large number of Roman Catholics. Since these Acts were passed, intercourse between all
  462
  parts of the United Kingdom had become much more frequent, and in many large towns of Great Britain the Irish formed a considerable part of the working population, and unfortunately contributed largely to the crime of the district. A Return had had been moved for with reference to this subject by his noble Friend the Member for Arundel, which extended to May, 1862, from which he found that the whole number of Roman Catholics in county and borough prisons in Great Britain was at that time 3,371, exclusive of convict prisons, which contained about 1,400. With regard to convict prisons, arrangements had been made for the payment of Roman Catholic priests, under direction of the Secretary of State out of funds granted by Parliament for the purpose; but with regard to those 3,371 Roman Catholics in the county and borough prisons no provision had been made by the existing law. The distribution of those prisoners was very unequal. There were of Roman Catholic prisoners 67 in Birmingham, 94 in Stafford, 141 in Kirkdale, 124 in Wandsworth, 183 in the House of Correction, Westminster; 207 in Manchester, 147 in Salford, and 485 in Liverpool, being more than one-half of the prisoners in that goal. In Glasgow and Edinburgh there was also a very large number of Roman Catholic prisoners. There was no provision by law for the religious instruction of these prisoners by ministers of their own faith, except the special Request clause, and the return showed that comparatively few made the request. This fact had been used as an argument against any further provision being made, but the class of persons who are found in our gaols are not likely to appreciate religious instruction. It would, no doubt, be the same with other denominations; the chaplain of the Established Church would have little to do if he had only to attend to those who made special request for his attendance. That fact constituted an additional obligation on the Legislature to see that means of religious instruction were placed within their reach. The provisions of the Bill were not compulsory, but permissive. It had been frequently stated by visiting justices that the special request clause tied their hands, and he proposed to remove all doubt on the subject by giving power to the local authorities (that is, justices in counties, visiting justices in boroughs, and in Scotland those who had the control of prisons).

  463
  where the number of prisoners not belonging to the Established Church was so large as in their judgment to render it expedient, to appoint a minister whose special duty it should be to attend to the religious instruction of the prisoners of that denomination; and, if they should think fit, that they should pay a reasonable sum to any such minister as remuneration for his services, the sum to be charged on the same fund as the salaries of the other officers. There would be cases in which the numbers were not so large as to require a special appointment to be made, and in such cases it was proposed that the justices might permit a minister, without any special request, to attend the prisoners of any particular denomination, if they thought fit. A register of prisoners would be kept showing the religious persuasion of each, and that register would be open to the inspection of any minister appointed or permitted under this Bill to visit the gaols. He proposed to limit the statutable obligation imposed on the chaplains belonging to the Established Church to visit prisoners, so that that obligation should not extent to prisoners who were attended by ministers of other denominations. He ought perhaps to mention that by the law as it now existed in Ireland ample provision was made for the object which he was seeking to secure in England. In Ireland the law required that a chaplain, of the Established Church should be appointed for every gaol, and it was in the power of the grand jury to provide for the appointment of a Presbyterian or a Roman Catholic chaplain, according as either denomination was most numerous in particular parts of the country. the effect of that law, although only an empowering statute as regarded the appointment of chaplains of the two last denominations, had been that in almost all the prisons of Ireland chaplains of one or other of those religious bodies had been appointed. He might also refer to the practice adopted in the military prisons, where that was done which he proposed to do with respect to civil prisons—namely, to divide the Protestant and the Unman Catholic prisoners into two classes, and to allow a Roman Catholic priest to attend to the latter. He knew the strong feeling entertained on the matter, and the jealousy which existed in regard to granting additional privileges to Roman Catholic priests. But, looking to the
  464
  large number of Roman Catholics in the prisons, he thought some attempt ought to be made to remedy what was undoubtedly a serious grievance. It was a remarkable fact that in all Ireland, where the Roman Catholic prisoners were under the care of chaplains of their own persuasion, the total number of such prisoners in the county and borough gaols was about 1,000 less than the corresponding class in England, in May last, the date of the Returns to which he had referred. As both countries were under the same constitution, and had the same Established Church, he could not see why there should be any difference in principle between the law of England and Ireland on the subject. He trusted that the Bill would be allowed to be introduced. He proposed to fix the second reading for that day fortnight, and he earnestly hoped that it would be discussed in a spirit of Christian charity, without any attacks upon the religious belief of any portion of our fellow subjects, but with a simple desire to do by others who differed from us in creed that which we would wish to be done towards ourselves under similar circumstances. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving for leave to bring in the Bill.
  MAJOR HAMILTONsaid, that he had understood the right hon. Baronet to have said that under the Bill justices of the peace in Scotland could order the payment of the chaplains who might be appointed. Now, it was well known that the only source from which the money could come for such purposes in Scotland was the county, and the money of the county could be obtained only through the Commissioners of Supply.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, he would ask the Home Secretary how he could reconcile it to himself to afford direct and compulsory privileges to Roman Catholic chaplains, when the Constitution of 1688 emphatically declared that the Roman Catholic religion should not be encouraged. The measure came before the House bearing the distinct lineaments of the Roman Catholic priesthood, and be objected to conferring further privileges or giving any additional money to support an imperium in imperio so hostile to civil and political liberty. At present Roman Catholic prisoners could obtain the ministrations of priests of their own Church if they desired it, and the Bill was therefore unnecessary. During the recess the right

  465
  hon. Baronet had actually furnished those priests with keys to admit them to the cells of prisoners. Was that consistent with the civil and religious freedom of those so-called Roman Catholic prisoners who did not desire to see their priests? Why, the very acts which brought these men within the walls of a prison were directly taught in the books of Roman Catholic writers. The Returns obtained on the Motion of the noble Lord who represented Arundel (Lord Edward Howard) during the last Session clearly showed that not one-tenth of the prisoners avowing themselves to be Catholics ever sent for the priest at all. On the second reading of the Bill he would adduce evidence as to the doctrines and discipline of the Roman Catholic Church.
  MR. MAGUIREsaid, he wished to thank the Government for having introduced the Bill. At the same time, he would point out what he regarded as a weak point in it—the discretion left to the magistrates, who, in many instances, might be the members of a bigoted board. There was no reason why twenty Roman Catholic prisoners, if their names were on the registry, should not have the advantage of the ministration of a clergyman of their own Church, as well as if their number happened to be 50 or 100. It was, he thought, but right to add, that if there were as large a number of Roman Catholic prisoners in the gaols in England as the right hon. Baronet had stated, the fact was to be accounted for by the circumstance that it was the poorest classes among the Irish people who found their way to Liverpool and the other large English towns, and that the law with respect to removability operated with extreme harshness in their case.
  SIR GEORGE BOWYERsuggested that the number of Roman Catholic prisoners in a gaol should simply affect the amount of salary to be paid, adding that he felt assured he was merely speaking the sentiments of the clergymen of that Church, when he said they were perfectly ready to minister to the wants of every prisoner in every gaol in England without one farthing of remuneration. The regulations, he added, which prevented a Roman Catholic priest from visiting a prisoner unless at his own request operated most harshly; those who were hardened in crime, and who needed his ministration most, being the very persons who never made such a
  466
  request. In illustration of the justice of the statement he might allude to a case which had been mentioned to him by a highly-respected clergyman — the Rev. Canon Oakley—in which the father and mother of a prisoner had begged of him to afford spiritual aid to a son of theirs, who was in gaol, but who had not asked for his services, and whom, in consequence, he was prevented by the prison regulations from visiting. Moreover, an Irishman did not understand the question, "Do you wish to see a minister of your own persuasion?" He supposed, when the word "minister" was used, that a Protestant minister was implied; and thus many difficulties arose from prison authorities speaking to prisoners in a language they did not understand.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he was glad the hon. Members for Dungarvan and Dundalk had expressed their satisfaction with the Bill as far as it went, and it was only natural that they should do so. By the admission of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State it was not asked for by the prisoners, and it would be extremely distasteful to the whole body of justices. It was then a concession to Roman Catholic priests—in fact, an invasion of the civil and religious freedom of the prisoners. He believed that the Bill would be received by the country as a political concession on the part of the Government which they would lament; and he trusted that on the second reading the House would prevent the forcing into the cells of the unwilling prisoners the representatives of a priesthood whose success in moral instruction was illustrated by the enormous preponderance of Roman Catholic prisoners in our gaols. He would not attempt the discourtesy of dividing the House now; but he must enter his protest against the Bill in the name of the Roman Catholic prisoners, who had manifested their distaste for the ministrations intended for them, and also, by their acquiescence in the teaching of the clergy of the Established Church, had shown, so far as they were competent to judge of their own moral requirements, that their condition in England was far preferable to that which the right hon. Gentleman thought more desirable in Ireland. He knew not how the Bill was recommended to the right hon. Gentleman except as a matter of political necessity; and he trusted that on the second reading, if there was a political pressure on one side, hon.

  467
  Members would show there was a pressure on the other.
  MR. HENNESSYsaid, he thanked the Government for having fulfilled the promise which they made last Session, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) for having suggested the measure, precedents for which were to be found in the action of the Earl of Derby, when Lord Stanley, with regard to the colonies, and in the warrant of the Secretary for War under that noble Earl's Government with respect to military prisons.
  MR. SERJEANT PIGOTTsaid, that the Bill involved a great principle—namely, that where there was a small congregation of Roman Catholics there a priest was to be provided and to be paid by the country. If that were the principle, why was it not to be extended to villages and towns as well as prisons? He believed this was the principle involved, and the result would be that the Protestant Church must make up its mind speedily to divide the revenues of the Church with the Roman Catholics.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that in answer to a question which had been asked by an hon. Member he had to state that with regard to the source from which the cost was to come in Scotland, it was proposed that where there was no special fund it should come out of the funds applicable to the expenses of the prison. In reply to the hon. and learned Member for Reading (Mr. Serjeant Pigott), he also had to remark that the case of persons in prison was entirely different from that of the free inhabitants of towns and villages.
  COLONEL STUARTsaid, he wished to ask that the second reading of the Bill should not be taken in so short a period as a fortnight.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that the Bill was printed, and would, he hoped, be circulated on the following day. He would fix the second reading for that day fortnight; but if further time was generally desired for the consideration of the measure, he should not object to give it.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill for the amendment of the Law relating to the Religious Instruction of Prisoners in County and Borough Prisons in England and Scotland, ordered to be brought in by Sir GEORGE GREY and Mr. BRUCE.
  Bill presented, and read 1°. [Bill 24.]

PRIVATE BILL LEGISLATION.

  SELECT COMMITTEE APPOINTED.
  MR. MILNER GIBSONmoved for a Select Committee, "to inquire into the present system of legislation with regard to undertakings requiring the authority of Private Acts of Parliament, and whether any improvements can be made therein."
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, that although he thought the House had already before it sufficient information to enable it to legislate upon this subject, he should not oppose the appointment of this Committee. At the same time, be hoped that it would not follow the course pursued in 1846, 1853, and 1858, but would consider whether the time had not arrived when the House ought to delegate its functions in this respect to some permanent tribunal to be constituted to exercise them.
  Motion agreed to.
  Select Committee appointed,
  "To inquire into the present system of legislation with regard to undertakings requiring the authority of Private Acts of Parliament, and whether any improvements can be made therein."
  MR. HADFIELDsaid, he would move that it be an instruction to the Committee to relieve parties resisting the taking away from them of property by Private Bills from the House fees, shorthand-writers' expenses, and other costs.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee to consider the justice and propriety of exempting parties who shall appear before any Committee to resist the taking of property belonging to them, under powers proposed to be taken under a Private Bill, or for Clauses respecting the same, from the payment of fees, or the expense of shorthand-writers' notes, or other House fees."
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, it was not usual to instruct a Committee to do that which it could do without such an instruction. Of course, the whole question would be considered by the Committee, and that of fees was within the scope of the inquiry. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would not press his addition.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  And on Friday February 20, Committee nominated, as follow:—
  MR. MILNER GIBSON, Mr. LOWE, Colonel WILSON PATTEN, Mr. ADAIR, Mr. WHALLEY, Mr, RICHARD HODGSON, Lord STANLEY, Mr. EDWARD PLEYDELL BOUVERIE, Mr. WALPOLE, Mr. MASSEY, Mr. PULLER, Mr. HASSARD, Mr. PAULL, Mr. CHARLES FORSTER, and Mr. LIDDELL.
  House adjourned at half after Twelve o'clock.

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE. — Standing Orders Committee on Private Bills appointed.

STANDING ORDERS COMMITTEE ON PRIVATE BILLS.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY, in the absence of Lord REDESDALE, moved the re-appointment of the Standing Orders Committee.
Motion agreed to.
Then the Lords following, together with the Chairman of Committees, were named of the Committee: —

Ld. President

L. Saye and Sele

D. Somerset

L. Colville of Culross

M. Winchester

L. Ponsonby

M. Bath

L. Wycombe

M. Ailesbury

L. Sondes

L. Steward

L. Foley

E. Airlie

L. Dinevor

E. Hardwicke

L. Wodehouse

E. Carnarvon

L. Sheffield

E. Romney

L Colchester

E. Chichester

L. Silchester

E. Powis

L. De Tabley

E. Verulam

L. Wynford

E. Beauchamp

L. Portman

E. De Grey

L. Stanley of Alderley

E Stradbroke

L. Aveland

E. Amherst

L. Belper

L. Chamberlain

L. Ebury

V. Eversley

L. Churston

L. Camoys

L. Egerton

BRAZIL—DISPUTE WITH THE BRAZILIAN GOVERNMENT.

  EXPLANATION.
  EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, when I was absent from the House last evening, having been detained by public business elsewhere, some remarks were made by the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby) with regard to some events that have recently occurred in Brazil. The papers relating to that subject will shortly be laid on the table, and I do not think it of any use calling attention to the matter without going into the details of it. At the same time, as so much has been said founded upon an ex parte statement which has come from Brazil, I will take the liberty of informing your Lordships what is the general outline of the case. In the beginning of the year 1861 there was a rumour that some sailors had been washed ashore near the Rio Grande do Sul. Our Consul made inquiries, and found not only that bodies had been washed ashore, but also that there had been a wreck; and on further inquiries he found that many articles, apparently taken from a wreck, being entirely dry, and not having been exposed to the action of sea-water, were in the possession of persons residing along the coast. Upon further inquiry the Consul heard that ten bodies had been washed ashore; but he was induced rather to doubt the truth of that statement. When he asked to have the bodies produced, only four out of the ten were forthcoming, and with regard to the six, it was declared that they could not be found; but as it was said that all the bodies which came on shore had been buried
  368
  in the sand of the sea-shore, the Consul thought that the excuses made to him were rather improbable. It was strange, that if all the bodies had been buried as described, six of them could not be found. Rumours were circulated, too, that persons who had landed from the Prince of Wales, which was the name of the vessel, had been strangled or otherwise murdered. These rumours excited a considerable degree of attention. The Consul asked that an inquest might be held on the bodies; but an inquest was prevented by persons apparently possessed of official authority, who were present with a strong armed escort. The six bodies were not produced until many months after, when they were entirely decomposed, and of course it was impossible to trace any marks upon them. It was a mere matter of probability only that these persons had been murdered, but it was at the same time a matter of certainty that the local authorities had prevented an inquiry being made into the facts and had not produced the six bodies. Upon this a demand was made on the Brazilian Government for reparation; and in the January following I wrote to our Minister desiring that a full inquiry should be made into the facts of the case. We got nothing but answers of the most evasive kind from the Brazilian Government. The Consul thought it was not fit—our Minister and Her Majesty's Government also thought that it was not fit—that such an occurrence should pass by unnoticed and without something being done to prevent a repetition of it at a future time. Another difficulty shortly after arose. Two officers and a chaplain belonging to Her Majesty's ship Forte were returning from a walk in the country, and on one of them approaching a Brazilian sentinel and asking him in Spanish what road they should take, he immediately struck him with the butt end of his musket. His two companions then came up; the sentinel called the guard, and the three Englishmen were taken off to the guardhouse. They immediately wrote down their names as officers of one of Her Majesty's ships, and also wrote a letter to the commander of their ship. That letter never was delivered; and next morning they were marched to Rio and placed in a very filthy gaol. At eleven o'clock next day they were liberated. This appeared to be a deliberate insult to officers of Her Majesty's service, and the case was one which it was thought required some reparation. Every device was resorted to by the Brazilian authorities to avoid this. It was first said

  369
  that the officers had attacked the sentinel, then that they were drunk, and that they had not given their names; all of which statements were contrary to the facts. The correspondence began in June 1861, and it was not until October, 1862, that Her Majesty's Government felt called on to take some course to obtain reparation. There were only two courses which it appeared to me could be taken. One was to demand ample reparation from the Brazilian Government and to enforce that reparation; the other was to withdraw our ships from the Brazilian waters, and to declare to our merchantmen that they could expect no protection against similar treatment; and that if any of the crows of our merchant ships were murdered, we did not intend to resent it. That course it was impossible for Her Majesty's Government to pursue. Our Minister, therefore, did demand a moderate reparation from the Brazilian Government. He was instructed, that if instead of making immediate reparation, the Brazilian Government proposed arbitration, he should refer it home for decision before accepting it. But he found that nothing could be done. No proposal for arbitration was made, and then he had recourse to those measures of reprisals which have been complained of. I certainly cannot see anything to be objected to in this course, for it cannot be contended that when British ships are plundered and British officers insulted that we are not to make demands for reparation.
  THE EARL OF DERBY:—My Lords, it is quite true that yesterday in the absence of the noble Earl I did ask when these papers would be produced, and I certainly did express a hope that they would dissipate an impression likely to be caused by the perusal of the papers published by the Brazilian Government, that our representative at Rio had acted in a manner which could not meet with the approval of Her Majesty's Government. I must say that the noble Earl has this evening taken a very inconvenient and unusual course, in taking, while merely promising that the papers shall be forthcoming, the opportunity of making an ex parte statement with regard to a certain portion of these transactions. This certainly is a course I never knew taken by any Minister of the Crown before. If the noble Earl had contented himself with saying that the Brazilian papers did not give the whole correspondence, and that when the papers he intended to lay on the table were pe-
  370
  rused we should be in a better position to form a just judgment on the transaction, it would have been quite sufficient in this stage of the business; but he has not only made a partial statement, but he has, I think, omitted from it altogether certain circumstances that appear to me to be material. I will not enter into a discussion of the merits of the case, for I have only seen the correspondence published by the Brazilian Government. There are many difficulties in the matter, and many conflicting statements, which probably will be cleared up. I will only say, that in reference to the case of the officers there is a considerable conflict of evidence. It may be that these officers have been grieviously insulted, or that they were in plain clothes and were treated with a want of consideration which would not have been shown to them had they been in uniform or if their rank had been known. In the other case, however, the noble Earl really lays down doctrines which he will find it difficult to maintain. Here is the case of a ship wrecked upon a part of the coast which is nearly uninhabited—certain bodies are found of persons who had been washed on shore from shipwreck, or who, having reached the shore alive, were subsequently murdered. It is a suspicion—nothing more—we have nothing before us to show us how far it is supported, and on those facts a demand is made on the Brazilian Government, by which they are made pecuniarily responsible for the wreck, and are required to pay the whole value of the ship and cargo. If such a circumstance had occurred in England, the only claim which could have been made against our Government would have been for neglecting to put the law effectually into operation for the discovery of the offenders. We have no other claim of reparation against the Brazilian Government. But even if the claim were well founded, he did not see how they could be made answerable for the value of a ship and cargo which was clearly lost by stress of weather, and not by any act of the Brazilian Government. I am afraid that even in this highly civilized country there may be some remote parts in which the practice of wrecking still prevails, and Her Majesty's Government would certainly be very much astonished if they were suddenly called upon to pay the value of any ship which might be wrecked on those parts of the coast, and might fall into the hands of such persons; and if in support of a demand of

  371
  this sort a certain number of British ships had been seized, matters would have been brought to such a point, that if the question had been between two powerful Governments, it would have been difficult to avoid hostilities. That is a part of the case with which the noble Earl has not dealt. It requires consideration, and I hope the papers to be laid before us by Her Majesty's Government will put a more satisfactory complexion on it than it assumes in the papers already published.
  EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, if the noble Earl had contented himself with asking when these papers would be ready, I should not have said a word on the subject. My intention was to place the papers on the table without saying a word. But when the noble Earl came down to this House—I happening to be absent—and on imperfect information expresses a strong opinion that Her Majesty's representative at Rio had committed an act of injustice, it was time for me to take some notice of it. It little adds to the noble Earl's authority that he has not gone into the particulars of the cases he spoke of. With respect to the noble Earl's view of the law of nations, I doubt whether he will find any authorities to support him. It was the opinion of the Queen's Advocate, to whom I referred the matter, that if a wreck is plundered, and if the Government does not take sufficient and proper means to bring the offenders to justice, the Government that has been guilty of that neglect are liable to the demand to make good the loss that has been incurred by that neglect. We did not claim the full value of the cargo from the Brazilian Government, but we stated what the owners had demanded. We asked that it should be fairly and fully inquired into by a commission appointed by both sides, and that any items might be struck out which appeared excessive. On an occasion when an Austrian ship was wrecked on the coast of Ireland, and afterwards plundered, every means was taken to bring the offenders to justice; and, though Lord Palmerston, who was Secretary for Foreign Affairs at the time, said that the Government were not strictly liable for the damage done, still his sense of justice induced him to recommend the payment of a sum of money as compensation for the injury. And that I think is a course which any civilized country should adopt.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: I can quite understand that the noble Viscount's sense
  372
  of justice and good feeling might induce him to adopt the course stated by the noble Earl; but if a demand had been made by the Austrian Minister, supported by an armed force, I venture to think the noble Viscount would not have been disposed to comply with it.

HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS THE PRINCE OF WALES — MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN.

  ESTABLISHMENT FOR THE PRINCE AND PRINCESS OF WALES.
  MESSAGE from THE QUEEN delivered by The LORD PRESIDENT, and read by The LORD CHANCELLOR, as follows:—
  "VICTORIA R.
  "Her Majesty relies on the Loyalty and Affection of the House of Lords, and on the cordial Interest which they have manifested in the happy Event of the approaching Marriage of The Prince of Wales to The Princess Alexandra of Denmark, that they will be ready to concur in such Provision as may be judged necessary to enable Her Majesty to settle an Establishment for the Prince and Princess suited to their Rank and Dignity."
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, in accordance with the precedents on such occasions, I rise to move an Address to the Queen in answer to the Message which Her Majesty has been graciously pleased to communicate to your Lordships respecting the intended marriage of the Prince of Wales with the Princess Alexandra of Denmark. Her Majesty was graciously pleased in the Speech from the Throne to intimate that intended alliance. the reception which that passage in the Speech met with from your Lordships and the cheers with which the observations of the Mover and Seconder, and those of the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby) and other Peers, referring to that passage, were received, manifested how heartily your Lordships joined with Her Majesty in the satisfaction that She must derive from an event which in Her judgment and that of Her lamented Consort will be calculated to promote the happiness of the Prince of Wales. No doubt your Lordships were anxious on that occasion to pay a just tribute to the personal character of His Royal Highness and that of the illustrious Princess to whom he is

  373
  about to ally himself in marriage; but you also felt that this is an event not only interesting to the Royal Family, but likely to contribute much to the welfare of the people at large. Your Lordships embodied that sentiment in an Address unanimously adopted. I have, therefore, no difficulty whatever in asking you to agree to a Resolution which, even in the absence of those feelings to which I have just alluded, would, on constitutional grounds, commend itself to the Legislature of a country with monarchical institutions such as exist among us. My Lords, I beg to move—
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, to return to Her Majesty the Thanks of this House for Her most gracious Message, and to assure Her Majesty that this House will immediately proceed to the Consideration thereof, in such a Manner as shall demonstrate their Zeal, Duty, and affectionate Attachment to Her Majesty and a due Regard to the Rank and Dignity of the Royal Family.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, if this was a question on which there could possibly have arisen a difference of opinion, I should have thought, whatever may have been the precedents, it would have been more convenient for the noble Earl to have given notice that he would move that the House should take Her Majesty's Gracious Message into consideration on some future day—which is the course, I understand, that has been taken by the other House of Parliament; but this question is one on which, whether the attendance of Peers was large or small, no difference of opinion could arise; and therefore I cheerfully concur in the Motion, and second it, if the noble Earl thinks it will be more complimentary to Her Majesty, that it should be adopted without further delay. As the noble Earl has truly stated, we have already offered our congratulations to Her Majesty on this auspicious event; for, in answer to Her Majesty's Speech from the Throne, we have taken occasion to express, both on public grounds and private, our loyal satisfaction at the approaching marriage of the Prince of Wales. The present Address is in pursuance—a fulfilment, in point of fact—of expectations which Parliament held out that we were willing to take every step in our power to give effect to the desire expressed by Her Majesty. The question, as far as it is one of Supply, more properly belongs to the other House of Parliament in the first instance; and if I am rightly informed of the proposition which is to be made to that House, I quite
  374
  concur with the Government in thinking that the reasonableness and moderation of the proposition is such as that neither in that House nor in this can any exception be taken to it on financial or other grounds. It is of the utmost importance to this country that a person in the position of the Prince of Wales should be supplied with an income sufficient to keep up a becoming dignity without involving him in the danger or necessity of incurring debts. We know that the incurring of debts by former heirs to the Throne led to very unpleasant feelings between the Crown and the people. If I am rightly informed, the provision about to be proposed for the Prince of Wales will enable him to accomplish the former object without involving him in the danger to which I have just referred. I am sure that His Royal Highness, having before him the example of careful, prudent, and economical management set by his illustrious parents, will carefully avoid in the management of his Household both extremes—either a parsimony unworthy his station, or, on the other hand, an extravagance which could only lead to embarrassment. My Lords, I feel much pleasure in seconding the Motion, and am confident you will unanimously concur in the Address proposed by the noble Earl.
  EARL GRANVILLEexplained that the course which he asked their Lordships to follow on the occasion and that taken by the House of Commons were both in accordance with precedent.
  Motion agreed to, Nemine Dissentiente; The said Address to be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

ITALY—AFFAIRS OF ROME.

  OBSERVATIONS. QUESTION.
  THE MARQUESS OF NORMANBYthen rose to call the attention of this House to the Correspondence recently presented on the Affairs of Rome; and to ask Her Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs for some Explanation of certain Passages contained therein, referring to the Policy of Her Majesty's Government on this Subject in the year 1849? The noble Marquess said, that the words in the recently presented papers to which he intended to direct their Lordships' attention were not many. In one of the despatches contained in the Correspondence, dated the- 15th of November

  375
  last, it was stated that the acquiescence expressed by our Government in 1849 in respect of the occupation of Rome by the French did not imply approbation. Now, that assertion was in direct contradiction of a statement of M. Drouyn de Lhuys, who, as would be admitted by every one who had ever had any dealings with him, possessed qualifications in respect of memory which made him a most accurate chronicler of events. During the last recess his noble Friend the Foreign Secretary had thought it right to enter into communication with two Foreign Governments on two most important points, and he did so in a manner to render difficult questions still more difficult. He (the Marquess of Normanby) would first of all refer to a despatch of the noble Earl, dated the 25th of October, to the attaché from Turin, to be read by him to the Cardinal Secretary of State at Rome. The proposal in that despatch was neither more nor less than that it was his (Earl Russell's) good will and pleasure that the Pope should abandon his territory, give up his friends, and seek safety in flight. That was a most extraordinary course for any Minister to propose or even to think of. But that was not all, for within a week after the French Government had declared that the national honour was involved in this question, the noble Earl addressed himself to the French Government, telling them Her Majesty's Government were of opinion the time had come when the French occupation of Rome should cease. When making a communication to an attaché to be communicated to the Pope, certainly his noble Friend was of course perfectly at liberty to adopt with safety any tone which he thought consistent with propriety and with the dignity of the country; but the moment chosen by the noble Earl was a most inopportune one to aggravate a Government like that of France, our nearest neighbour; and if such a course of proceeding were persevered in, such a state of feeling would be produced that we might find ourselves—to use a phrase adopted on a previous occasion —"drifting into a war" before we were aware of it. He would now briefly refer to the circumstances under which the French occupation of Rome took place. These circumstances did not arise under the Government of the President, but some weeks previous to the election of December 1848. When the news reached France that the first constitutional
  376
  Minister of the Pope had been assassinated on the steps of the National Assembly, and that the Assembly had continued its order of the day without taking any notice of the event, so strong was the feeling of the French people that General Cavaignac, a sincere Republican, who was then at the head of affairs, thought it was necessary to send a brigade of 3,000 men to Rome. He (Lord Normanby) had thought it his duty to dissuade the Government of the General from carrying into effect that intention at that moment; but so strong was the feeling in France, even then, to support the Pope, that the Foreign Minister, Mr. Bastiele, also a sincere Republican, had told him that the decision had cost the General a million of votes. A very few days after this the President was elected and the Republic proclaimed. On the 5th of January, 1849, he (the Marquess of Normanby) received a despatch from Lord Palmerston, from which this was an extract—
  "In regard to the present position of the Pope I have to observe that no doubt it is obviously desirable that a person, who in his spiritual capacity has great and extensive influence over the internal affairs of most countries in Europe, should be in such a position of independence as not to be liable to be used by any one European Power as a political instrument for the annoyance of any other Power; and in this view it is much to be wished that the Pope should be Sovereign of a territory of his own."
  Now, there was nothing in this despatch to confirm his noble Friend's statement, that acquiescence did not then imply approbation. Lord Palmerston, it was true, always explained that he thought the restoration of the Pope would be followed by the restoration of constitutional Government; but in the state of things which then existed that was utterly impossible. Lord Palmerston was told by him over and over again that after the dreadful failure of constitutional Government three or four months before no Minister in France could venture to make such a proposal. Afterwards, when a request was made to the French Government, on the part of the Pope, that they would attend a conference at Gaeta of the other Catholic Powers for the purpose of arranging for the Pope's restoration, Lord Palmerston wrote—
  "Although Great Britain has not so direct an interest as France has in the ecclesiastical and political questions which arise out of the present relations between the Pope and the people of the Roman States, the British Government nevertheless cannot view these matters with indifference. Great Britain is indeed a Protestant State, but Her Majesty has many millions of Catholic sub-

  377
  jects; and the British Government must therefore be desirous, with a view to British interests, that the Pope should be placed in such a temporal position as to be able to act with entire independence in the exercise of his spiritual functions.… Her Majesty's Government have learnt with much pleasure that France has been included in the invitation addressed by the Pope to some of the Catholic Powers, and Her Majesty's Government hope, that if there is to be a concert among any of the Powers of Europe in regard to these affairs, the French Government will not decline the invitation to be a party thereto."
  This despatch was dated March 9, 1849; and how his noble Friend could reconcile such a declaration as it contained with the statement that acquiescence did not mean approbation he could not understand. In his communications with Lord Palmerston he had always expressed a wish that there should be no direct interference by the French Government. The next occasion on which it became his duty to inquire whether Her Majesty's Government wished that this interference should go on was just after April 17, when the French Assembly had voted for the departure of the expedition. On that occasion he wrote to Lord Palmerston suggesting that then was the time to decide upon this point; that he did not venture to express dissent from French interference, because Lord Palmerston in no one of his despatches implied that he objected to it; that he did not well see how the French could have avoided it; but, that after having for several years endeavoured to prevent the passage of a French soldier across the frontier, he regretted that France should now be about to break the spell. The answer of Lord Palmerston was that there was a good deal of truth in all this; that if the French troops crossed the frontier, we did not know when they would return; but, at the same time, we could not object to this interference; and that if the Pope was not restored by the French, he would be restored by the Austrians. On no one of these occasions was there anything to show that the acquiescence of Her Majesty's Government was not approbation. Again, when a Mr. Macarthy came to England upon a secret mission from the Triumvirs of Rome, he was instructed to say—
  EARL GREY: I rise to order. Is the noble Marquess quoting from papers which have been presented to Parliament?
  THE MARQUESS OF NORMANBY: No.
  EARL GREY: Is the noble Marquess reading from despatches which he had received in his official position as Ambassador?
  THE MARQUESS OF NORMANBYsaid, he would explain.
  EARL GREY: Then I think that your Lordships ought not to listen to quotations from despatches which have not been laid before Parliament, these quotations being made by a noble Lord formerly a servant of the Crown, and being made without the authority of the Crown.
  THE MARQUESS OF NORMANBYsaid, his noble Friend had misunderstood him; he was not about to road anything, but merely to repeat what he had heard from that gentleman at the time, but he did not desire to do or to say anything that was irregular; and if there was any objection in point of form to these references, he could bring in aid plenty of other authorities. Thus, on the 20th of July, Lord Lansdowne, then the leader of this House, made in this House a speech which entirely confirmed the accuracy of the account which he had given of the matter. Lord Lansdowne said —
  "I quite agree with my noble Friend Lord Brougham in the distinction drawn by him as to the peculiar character of the Papal Sovereignty, which made the Pope's authority the object of special consideration; but this is no new idea; the same opinion is expressed in Lord Palmerston's despatch to Lord Normanby. The sovereignty of the Pope has a peculiar character. As temporal Sovereign he is only a Sovereign of the fourth or fifth order, but as spiritual Sovereign he occupies the very first rank. The authority which he possesses, the influence which he exercises over every country in Europe, indeed over the whole world, has nowhere any equal. There are, therefore, on this account special reasons for the interference of other States. The Catholic nations are therefore peculiarly called upon to take care that the head of their religion shall not be perverted into the instrument of the temporal ambition of any one. There is no country where there are Catholic subjects which is not profoundly interested that the Pope should be able to exercise his spiritual authority without having to encounter any obstacle attacking that spiritual authority." [3 Hansard, cvii. 707.]
  This was the opinion of Lord Lansdowne, expressed by him in 1849 as leader of this House, with respect to the French occupation. He never expected at this interval to hear, after all the proofs he had read to their Lordships, that the Government of that day in their acquiescence did not imply approbation. But as to the question itself, he would call the attention of his noble Friend to another subject which was raised not by one connected with the country, but one who had great authority on Roman questions—he meant M. Farini, present Prime Minister of Italy. He had on former occasions referred to the per-

  379
  sonal character of M. Farini freely in reference to his conduct as Piedmontese Commissioner in Modena; but as an historian he believed he stood very much above all the revolutionary scribblers of the day. M. Farini published a book in 1852 which was translated by Mr. Gladstone. He knew his noble Friend was not very ready to acquire any information from hostile sources, but he could not object to the authority be now adduced. He had tried to get hold of Mr. Gladstone's book, but he had not been able to do so; he could not therefore give M. Farini the benefit of Mr. Gladstone's English, but the following was a faithful translation of the original:—
  "A distinguished Italian writer not long ago advised the Pope to throw off the weight of the temporal power, but he did not at the same time tell him that so long as the existing constitution of the Papacy is in being it is out of his power to do so. There was the non possumus of the Pope; for himself the Pope can make a sacrifice, not for his successors."
  Again—
  "It is said that the temporal power is in its last agony, and that opinion condemns it; but in my opinion many successive generations will descend to their tombs before the Papal sovereignty perishes."
  Again—
  "I hold it is difficult that Italy, at her good pleasure, with everything in her favour, should become an entirely independent nation, but that it is almost impossible that at her good pleasure she should, I will not say destroy, but even forcibly diminish the power of the Pope."
  These were the opinions of a person who had been two or three times Minister of Victor Emmanuel, and who was at this moment Minister of Turin.
  He was very much struck, as every one must be who read them, with the inaccuracy as to fact of his noble Friend's despatches. In the despatches addressed to Mr. Odo Russell there was a constant allegation of successive facts, all bearing on the state of things which was shown not to be correctly founded by the distinct disclaimer of Mr. Odo Russell of the truth of the reports referred to. A few words upon the style of these despatches, which was extraordinary as the purport. On what possible authority did his noble Friend state?—
  "The name of religion has been used as a justification of civil war. We see conflicts of unusual atrocity take place under the pretence of being necessary to vindicate the temporal authority of the Pope."
  He (the Marquess of Normanby) said that
  380
  the whole of the assertions in this paragraph were utterly groundless. The name of religion had never been so used—no contests had been carried on to vindicate the temporal power. Those contests had been the uprising of whole populations, to vindicate their attachment to their native Sovereign, against the usurpation of the invader. Here, then, was a grandiloquent outburst of his noble Friend, to which he should make no exception, but to change two words, and say "Naples" for "Rome," and "Victor Emmanuel" for "the Pope." He (the Marquess of Normanby) would say, with more truth, "Must Naples be the seat of a perpetual foreign occupation? Must brigandage for ever ravage the fertile fields of Southern Italy? God forbid such a calamity! God forbid that Victor Emmanuel should be the instrument of encouraging his countrymen eternally to mutual hatred and sanguinary civil war!" He thought his noble Friend might occupy himself with something that concerned him more than the present spiritual authority of the Pope over the Roman Catholics of Italy and Europe. There were no symptoms of its decay in the meeting of all the most distinguished Prelates of that faith at Rome last year. It was well known that at such a juncture there were always found hired informers, who showed great anxiety to furnish information to parties which it was supposed would be most agreeable for them to receive. But of all instances of this kind he never saw two such simple victims of mystification as the noble Lord opposite and Mr. Odo Russell. He spoke of Mr. Odo Russell with great respect and regard, but he could not say that his late campaign was very brilliant, or added much to the value of his public services. There were, according to Mr. Odo Russell, only 500 brigands in all the Neapolitan territories, and it was not said how many of them had been shot in cold blood, besides those burnt out or destroyed in the villages which had been sacked. Can there be anything more absurd than the gossip with which he entertained General Montebello, stating that the national outbreak which for two years has pervaded the whole Neapolitan territory was produced by individuals going singly to the frontier, where arms and red trousers were sent in "herring barrels" to meet them? How many of these imaginary warriors in red trowsers, with German or Spanish names, were found amongst the thousands who were shot in cold blood

  381
  hundreds of miles from the Roman frontier? His noble Friend, in his despatch to Lord Cowley of the 15th of November, 1862, said—
  "The only new argument brought forward by M. Drouyn de Lhuys consists in a reference to the events of 1848 and 1849, and the acquiescence of Her Majesty's Government in the French occupation of Rome at that time. But acquiescence did not imply approbation, still less would approbation then imply approbation now. Your Excellency rightly argued that the whole state of Italy has altered since that time; the state of Lombardy, Modena, Parma, Tuscany, Romagna, Umbria, the Marches, and the kingdom of the two Sicilies has altered; in short, everything has changed, except the French occupation of Rome."
  He joined issue with that statement of his noble Friend. King Charles Albert during the revolution of 1848 held Lombardy, but after being defeated by the Austrians he was pelted and hissed out of Milan. Tuscany at that period was a republic. At that time the hands of the revolutionary dial pointed to a different hour in the various Italian States, some being more and others less advanced on that unceasing cycle from destruction to reaction and from reaction back again to destruction, which had been witnessed of late years. On the 3rd of February, 1852, Lord John Russell spoke thus in the House of Commons—
  "Four years ago we wore astonished with news of insurrections in most of the capitals of Europe, and of a general, or something very like a general, establishment of the most democratic constitutions. I heard hon. Members in this House express their great joy at the establishment of these constitutions; but I could not participate in their joy or praises of what had occurred. I said I looked upon these events with mixed feelings—glad if they should turn out to be events which promoted the liberty and freedom of the nations of Europe, but being by no means confident as to that result. We have now seen four years pass over, and we have witnessed in almost all the countries where these democratic constitutions had been established absolute power put in their place. For instance, in that little country of Tuscany, in which I lived for several months under the benignant rule of a most mild and enlightened Government, we have seen that country overturned by democracy; we have seen the Grand Duke driven from his dominions by the party who seeks what is called Italian unity; and we have afterwards seen that democratic Government suppressed, and the Grand Duke restored to absolute power." [3 Hansard, cxix. 102.]
  He should like to ask the noble Earl what was the meaning of the most extraordinary public document in which it was stated that the Admiralty had been directed to communicate with Admiral Martin with the view to the placing of a ship of our fleet at the disposal of the Pope? It was
  382
  most desirable that their Lordships should know the precise circumstances under which that letter was written, in connection with Garibaldi's threatened advance upon Rome. On the opening night of the present Session his noble Friend was reported to have said —
  "But I confess that to see two countries, to which such great recollections belong as Greece and Italy, rising again into freedom, independence, and happiness, is a great pleasure to me; and it would, I think, be a great glory to the Government of Great Britain to have contributed to such a result."
  Now, where, in all that peninsula, were freedom, independence, and happiness now to be seen? Were not the Italian Government at that very moment plunged in financial ruin, and struggling to extricate themselves by means of an enormous loan? In a paper supposed to act under the inspiration of Her Majesty's Government, The Observer, of last Sunday, there was a letter signed by a prisoner taken at Aspromonte, in which it was stated that nearly 100 Garibaldians were now immured in prison at Palmero, almost in a state of nudity and with chains of 18lb. weight attached to their feet. Condemned to death for being found under the banner of Garibaldi, the sentence of these men had been commuted to the galleys. No wonder if upon this that Government organ, The Observer, remarked—"What shall we say or think of the Government of a country which thus rewards the best and bravest of its citizens?" Without adopting literally such a definition of these men, when the eternal rules of right and wrong had been set at nought systematically by the Piedmontese Government, it was not surprising that those whom that Government had two years ago hailed as Patriot Liberators were now for pursuing the same course by the same Ministers thrown into dungeons and loaded with chains. It must, he thought, also be some drawback to his noble Friend's perfect satisfaction with the result of his Italian policy that he had been unable to relieve the unparalleled sufferings of an English gentleman (Mr. Bishop) now confined in an Italian prison. Within the last week a statement, often before made, and he believed never contradicted—made, too, on the authority of a Parliamentary Commission appointed fit Turin—had been repeated in the French Chambers, that within the last two years 7,000 persons had been shot by Piedmontese troops in the Neapolitan territories. Certainly, if his (the Mar-

  383
  quess of Normanby's) policy had contributed to one iota of that bloodshed, he should not have looked back to his policy with those feelings of satisfaction which Her Majesty's Government seemed to entertain. He had formerly called attention to these matters, because everything which was likely to displease the Piedmontese Government had until lately been omitted from the papers, and because there was no other way of laying the facts before the world; but there was no longer this state of things existing. Whenever the noble Earl should cease to exercise the functions of Foreign Minister, there would be found among his despatches of the last three or four years so many contradictory expositions of policy that it would be marvellously difficult to know how to reconcile them. They were all intrinsically of the same value, but there was one which should not be forgotten—that in which the noble Earl laid down the principle that the King of Sardinia must recollect that his occupation of territory was merely provisional and no territorial changes should be final without the assent of the Powers of Europe. He purposely abstained from saying anything upon the present state of Italy, but he trusted the time would come when non-intervention, which had been so perverted by the noble Earl, would become a reality and an admitted truth.
  EARL RUSSELL:—My Lords, it is certainly somewhat difficult to collect the exact object which my noble Friend has in view. I had understood that his main object was to show that my statement—"that although we acquiesced in the military occupation of Rome in 1848, that acquiescence did not imply approbation"—was unfounded. The notice of my noble Friend made me look into the papers of 1849, and I find such abundant evidence that I was quite right in what I stated that I should weary your Lordships if I attempted to go through a quarter of the documents. But my noble Friend diversified his argument with many—I will not say invectives, but many observations, against the policy which I as the organ of the Government thought it my duty to pursue, and with many criticisms on the Italian Government. With regard to the criticism on the Italian Government, I should say that while it was a question whether that Government would form an established Power in Europe I thought it was incumbent on us, who took a more favourable view of that question, to refute
  384
  unfounded stories and rumours which were collected from all the absolutist newspapers in Europe, and to set the Italian Government right before this and the other House of Parliament. But the time for that is gone by. The King of Italy has been recognised by Her Majesty, by the Emperor of the French, by the Emperor of Russia, by the King of Prussia, and by the King of Portugal—in short, with the exception of Austria (who has taken her own course and has her own views in reference to this subject), and with the exception of Spain, the King of Italy has been recognised by all the Powers of Europe. Italy, therefore, is now a State of 22,000,000 inhabitants, increasing in commerce, increasing in wealth, enjoying free institutions, and having a Parliament and a press by which the conduct of her Government may be criticised with the utmost freedom. I consequently hold that it would be quite out of place for me now to defend that Government, or to enter upon a discussion of what was right or wrong in dealing with a treasonable conspiracy, or a tumult, in a particular town. I leave that to the Opposition at Turin, and to the Government who have to meet that Opposition. I do not think that we, in this House, need trouble ourselves with the details of the internal Government of Italy. My noble Friend talks of Piedmontese troops, of a Piedmoutese army, and of Piedmontese occupation. It is an entire misnomer. Not more than—if quite as much as—40 per cent of the Italian army consists of Piedmontese. It consists of soldiers and officers from Tuscany, from Romagna, from the Neapolitan Provinces, and from Sicily. It is truly an Italian army. Italy has realized that which was so long an object of aspiration to her poets and an object of ambition to her statesmen—a position of independence, and she is as much to be respected and treated as an independent State as any established Power in Europe. With regard to the observations which the noble Marquess made frequently in the course of his speech as to advice which I gave from time to time, whether to the Government of France or whether to the Government of the Pope, I have been misled perhaps by the dictum of my noble Friend. Looking through the correspondence of 1849, I find an opinion which my noble Friend gave to Lord Palmerston in these words—

  385
  "If England gives advice consistent with her disinterested desire for the progress of rational liberty, then, if her advice is taken, she has the credit and the satisfaction of having acted up to her principles; and if it is disregarded, it is consistent with her known habits of non-interference to consider that she retires from the affair without discredit."
  I have been misled, perhaps, by my noble Friend's authority. I thought it was a canon of British diplomacy, and now that I, as a humble pupil, have endeavoured to follow that direction, my noble Friend comes down and scolds me for being such a pupil, and for giving advice favourable to rational liberty. Then my noble Friend says Lord Palmerston gave an opinion in favour of the Pope being an independent Power. I need not now revert to the different circumstances at the present time; but there does run through the speech of my noble Friend, and, looking at his despatches, there runs through his conduct as Ambassador, a want of perception of the main difference, which Lord Palmerston constantly kept in view; and though it was constantly kept in view by Lord Palmerston, and though Lord Palmerston tried to impress it in the clearest language upon my noble Friend, he seems never to have appreciated that distinction. The distinction is this. Lord Palmerston said it would be very advisable that the Powers should meet and give advice to the Pope and the Roman people—that they should endeavour to induce the Pope to give large reforms and grant a representative Constitution, and that they should advise the people to believe in those promises and to submit to authority. Lord Palmerston said it would be an excellent thing if it could be accomplished in that way; but he said, if that were to be carried into effect by arms, such an intervention, which was bad in principle, would be sure to produce great evils in practice. My noble Friend quoted from the despatch of Lord Palmerston of the 5th of January, 1849, and in the same despalch Lord Palmerston wrote—
  "On the other hand, if it be admitted as a general principle that questions and differences between the people and the Sovereign of each State should be left to be settled by those parties without the interference of any foreign armed force, it is not easy to sec, in the peculiar position of the Pope with regard to his subjects, what should make the Roman States an exception to this general rule."
  Therefore, in the same despatch, Lord Palmerston publicly protested against that intervention, which he properly called "the
  386
  interference of an armed force." Again, on the 12th of June, Lord Palmerston wrote—
  "I have to state that Her Majesty's Government very much regret that a combination of circumstances should have rendered it necessary, in the opinion of the French Government, to order the commander of their expedition to force an entrance into Rome,"
  Both these are extracts from papers which have been presented to Parliament.
  THE MARQUESS OF NORMANBY:— My recollection has only been refreshed by such despatches as have been presented to Parliament. I have no access to other documents.
  EARL RUSSELL: Those despatches which I have now quoted have been presented to Parliament, but I shall be happy to give the whole, or extracts from the despatches which I quote, and which have not been presented to Parliament, In a, despatch of July 3, 1849, Lord Palmerston writes to the noble Marquess—
  "But in a matter so difficult, and at the same time so important, failure as well as success must be provided for; and her Majesty's Government, therefore, are desirous of knowing what are the views of the French Government as to the course which they contemplate pursuing in the event of such an arrangement as that above mentioned being refused either by the Pope or by the Romans, or by both. It is evident that either of these three contingencies would create a state of things pregnant with results of general and European importance; and Her Majesty's Government would be glad to be informed what are the views which the French Government have formed to themselves thereupon. Her Majesty's Government are not at present in a condition to express any formed opinion on these matters, beyond observing that a prolonged occupation of the city or territory of Rome by the troops of any foreign Power would be, with regard both to its principle and its consequences, a thing much to be deprecated, and greatly to be avoided."
  Your Lordships will allow, I think, that when I said acquiescence did not imply approbation, I was not misrepresenting my noble Friend's opinions on this point. About the same time my noble Friend (Viscount Palmerston), in answering a question put to him by Mr. Roebuck in the House of Commons on the 22nd June, stated that the House would see by the papers that had been produced that Her Majesty's Government had from the outset deprecated any armed intervention by foreign Powers in the internal affairs of the Roman Slates; that they had declined to be parties to the negotiations carried on at that time, and therefore could not speak from certain knowledge as to what had been the course of those negotiations. My

  387
  noble Friend opposite says there was very little difference between our policy and that of the French Government. We only thought a certain thing ought to be done by negotiation instead of an armed interference; but, instead of that being a slight difference, it is the whole essence of the question at issue. If my noble Friend will excuse me for reading another despatch, I will just read a short extract from one written by Lord Palmerston to Lord Ponsonby at Vienna, dated July 13, 1849. My noble Friend there says—
  "A restoration of the Pope to his former unlimited authority by the force of foreign arms, setting aside the injustice of such a measure in point of principle, could only he looked upon as a temporary arrangement. The grievances and abuses which would accompany such a restoration would now be far more forcibly felt by the Roman people than they were at a time when the Romans considered such abuses as their natural inheritance, and when they never had known a better slate of things with which to compare them; but now that the Romans have been for many months free from the evils of' their former Government, a return to those evils would produce infinitely greater discontent than that which has up to this time existed. It is evident, therefore, that in such a case tranquillity would last only as long as the presence of a sufficient foreign force kept down the discontents of the people, and that whenever that foreign force was removed renewed disturbances would break out; and such a state of things would not be productive of that tranquillity which the Austrian Government must naturally wish to see established in Italy."
  My noble Friend there foretells most clearly the consequences which a foreign occupation would produce, and he points out, that when that foreign force was removed, renewed disturbances would break out, and the tranquillity of Italy would be as much unassured as ever. This is the result of my search into the opinions of my noble Friend at the head of the Government on this point. It certainly shows, that so far from approving of that military occupation, he foresaw the evils that would flow from it; and now, at the end of thirteen or fourteen years, we find that exactly that state of circumstances has arisen which he so sagaciously foretold. My belief is, and it is confirmed by the perusal of these despatches, that the military occupation of Rome was a measure repugnant to the feelings of the Emperor of the French. I believe the Emperor entered into it most unwillingly, and unhappily he has never since seen the time when that occupation could be brought to an end with safety to the Pope or with the favourable opinion of his own people. On the 19th of August
  388
  the noble Marquess opposite then described to Lord Palmerston the opinion of the then President of the Republic as to the occupation—
  "The President, as he was the last to assent to the expedition to Rome, has been the most constant and energetic in his determination that the restoration effected by his means should not be one of pure clerical despotism."
  The reforms which the President expected to result from this occupation were:— 1. A General Amnesty, 2. The Code Napoleon. 3. Liberal Administration. 4. Secularization of Power. Let us see, then, how far these measures have been carried out by the occupation. And here I will say, notwithstanding the observations which my noble Friend opposite has made on this point, that I consider that as a Member of the English Parliament, setting aside any official capacity, I have a perfect right to criticise and to blame the act of any foreign Government which I think inconsistent with the general principles of international law, or liable to produce general evils. It certainly is my opinion that the military occupation of Rome, being, as every one allows, an act contrary to the general principles of international law, has been a misfortune to France, whose generous efforts in favour of Italy have thus been rendered liable to misconstruction. But what were the first consequences of that occupation? Did the reforms take place which my noble Friend says were looked forward to from this occupation, and for which the President of the Republic was so anxious? In the same year a despatch was communicated to this Government, which gives a pretty good answer to that question. It has never been included in any of the documents laid before Parliament; but I do not think there can be any mischief in reading it now. It is a despatch from the French Minister of Foreign Affairs, M. de Tocqueville, to M. de la Cour, his minister at Vienna. M. de Tocqueville says—
  "The complete re-establishment of the abuses which had been most decried under the old régime; wholesale destitution; the placing under suspicion of all public functionaries, whose conduct during the continuance of the Republican Government is submitted to an odious inquisition; the disgrace or exile of men who, while refusing to acknowledge the revolutionary power, have manifested liberal sentiments; in some provinces measures of terror which seem to belong to other times—such are the chief acts which have inaugurated the restoration of the Pontifical Government; and everything indicated that this

  389
  Government, left to itself, or rather to the fatal influences which dominate it, would go still farther in this deplorable direction. As for the reforms so often promised, they are limited as yet to vague declarations, the significance of which each fresh explanation tends to lessen."
  I must say that this correspondence confirmed me in one opinion, which I had long entertained—namely, that the Papal Government is conducted on principles totally different from those of other civilized Governments which prevail in our day. The Government of the Pope is founded on this principle—and the present Pope, benevolent as he is, has acted on it—that the Government is strictly a paternal one; that its subjects are to be treated as if they were children; that nothing is to be taught different from what orthodox Catholic doctrine would sanction; and that with regard to discussion in the press, none ought to be allowed which tends to create doubt in men's minds. Then, with regard to the punishment of crime, it is conducted on the principle that the object of criminal justice is not so much to punish persons guilty of murder and other atrocious crimes as to bring them to a state of repentance and reformation. Expectations of the amendment and reformation of the worst of criminals are indulged in by the Government of Rome, though no other Government would expect much in that way from men who had committed half a dozen murders and perhaps twenty other crimes of an aggravated character. A Roman Catholic Gentleman, a Member of the other House of Parliament, has published an account of his travels through Rome, in which he states that nothing can be more benevolent than the conduct of the Pope. He says that his Holiness went from one hospital to another doing various nets of kindness to the patients, whom he treated as his children. This may be; but the administration of criminal justice is so bad under the Papal Government as to be unparalleled by that of any other country in enlightened Europe. If you look to any of the great countries of Europe—if you look to France or Austria—you will find that they act on a totally different principle; on the principle that their subjects must be left to follow their own religious convictions, and that in the ordinary business of life they must be left to regulate their own fate. It is therefore, I believe, quite impossible that the Government of the Pope can ever be assimilated to those of the other coun-
  390
  tries of Europe; the subjects of the Pope are justified in complaining that they are ill-governed; and to maintain such a Government by force is only to give up the Roman people for all time to bad institutions such as those from which they at present suffer. Here are a considerable population who are ill-governed, who are kept in darkness; and when they wish for freedom, it is not a just action, it is not a politic action, to keep them by the force of another Power from the accomplishment of their desires. My noble Friend has said a great deal of the wishes of the Italian people; but the Italian people have made a Government for themselves; and if the Roman people were allowed to join them, there is nothing they would like so well as to join the rest of Italy, and to enjoy the strong Government which the rest of Italy enjoys. My noble Friend, in speaking of these matters, referred to one or two instances of what he considered cruel conduct on the part of the Italian Government. One was the case of Mr. Bishop. Now, there is no matter in which I have taken more pains than in that of endeavouring to have justice done to Mr. Bishop. He was fairly tried, and he was condemned to what was thought to be a cruel punishment. That, however, was the sentence of a duly constituted tribunal; but the mercy of the King has interposed so far that that portion of the sentence by which Mr. Bishop was condemned to hard labour has been remitted. He is now confined in a fortress where he is able to exercise. The tribunal before which he was tried was, I believe, a perfectly legal one. It is not for me to say whether the conclusion arrived at was one in accordance with Italian law; but it is in accordance with the custom prevailing all over Europe that persons found guilty of conspiracy in the crime of high treason should suffer for it. I may observe, that the present state of Italy is, after all, the state which was desired three centuries ago by the most acute and able of her political leaders. It is the state which was predicted over and over again by French Ambassadors at Rome. I hope the notice of my noble Friend has been attracted to a book or pamphlet lately published in France called The Temporal Government Judged by French Diplomacy, in which are to be found the opinions of French Ambassadors, from the 17th century down, to the Roman Government. In 1814 or 1815 the French

  391
  Ambassador told his Government that the dissatisfaction excited by the Papal Government would necessarily create a desire for Italian unity, but that Italians could do nothing of themselves; that they only spoke and wrote and complained; but he added, that if ever a great Power came to their assistance, the yoke which they all detested would be thrown off. We have seen the realization of these prophecies in part; we have seen Italy become an Independent State, except for the foreign occupation of Rome. I believe that foreign occupation will cease as soon as the French people see that they are not doing justice to the Italians by continuing it, and I believe the Emperor will be the first to hail that opinion of the French people; and then I hope—though my noble Friend may think me wrong—that the Pope may take refuge in Malta, or in Spain or Austria, or any other place where he may think he would be most independent. With reference to the offer which my noble Friend condemns, I will remind him that the Pope sent for Mr. Odo Russell. For what reason he did so on that occasion I cannot tell; but he did send for Mr. Odo Russell, and spoke to him at great length on the state of Italy and on the progress of Garibaldi, and his apprehension that that progress might be carried still farther. He then asked Mr. Russell pointedly whether, in case he should take refuge in British territory, he would be hospitably received. My noble Friend thinks I was wrong in giving an answer to that question; but, my Lords, considering the venerable character of the Pope—considering that he is impelled by his conscience not to give those reforms which he is asked for, I cannot think I was wrong in offering him an asylum in British territory, where he would be perfectly safe and free from all disturbance and danger. I know the Pope expressed himself in terms of grateful acknowledgment for the proffered hospitality of England while stating that it was not his intention to accept it at the present moment. In conclusion, my Lords, I have only to reiterate my opinion that it would be for the benefit of the Italians and of Europe if Rome should become the capital of Italy and cease to be the ground of foreign occupation.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH:— My Lords, I do not think that any practical advantage can be gained by referring to transactions which took place thirteen
  392
  or fourteen years ago; and upon this occasion I only wish, in regard to a very recent occurrence, to express the very great satisfaction with which I have observed the conduct of the Administration—the really Italian Administration—which has of late been appointed by the King of Italy, in declining at present to enter into any negotiations with respect to what is called the Roman Question. In adopting that course, they are acting with a true sense of the dignity of the country they represent. They justly appreciate its interests, and they are almost for the first time showing that firm independence of feeling on which alone Italy must rely for the respect of foreign nations and for that consideration which she ought to enjoy. I see that in one of the French Chambers it has been declared that at Turin they no longer talk of Rome. But is it because they no longer talk that they no longer think? The people of Italy generally think the more of Rome because they speak of it so little; but instead of endeavouring by negotiation with the Emperor of the French to effect their object, they determine to obtain its ultimate accomplishment by giving a thoroughly good government to their country and by making her strong in arms. I am convinced that if the Italian Government—and I see with satisfaction that the Italian Parliament have shown from the first an aptitude for the adoption of Parliamentary government which has not been exhibited by the possessors of other recent constitutions—I am convinced that if the Italian Government determine by every means in their power, by reforming and perfecting their institutions, to establish throughout Italy a strong constitutional system, if they succeed in inspiring every Italian with gratitude to the government for benefits received, and if the Italian people are prepared to stand by them in every effort they may be required to make for the preservation of Italian independence, if they show in the very confines of that mediaeval despotism which exists in Rome a steady adherence to a really good government, even on the very side of the hill from which the bandit looks down—I say it will be impossible in the presence of that contrast for all Europe not to combine in admitting the Italians to Rome. I was glad to hear the noble Earl (Earl Russell) state—and I entirely agree with him upon the point—that its impossible to believe that a man of sense and judgment like the present Emperor

  393
  of the French can, in his own mind, have any hesitation as to the course which it is most for the interest of France to pursue in this case. He may not feel himself strong enough at home to do that which he thinks right, but he must have a desire to consummate and complete the great work which he commenced—to do that which more than anything he has yet achieved will in distant ages tend to his honour and immortality—namely, to establish in the South of Europe a new great State, which, in the natural exercise of its independence, will more than any event which has taken place for more than a century conduce to the future peace and tranquillity of Europe. This is my conviction; and we must not forget that it is a matter of the very highest importance, nut only to every Roman Catholic State, but to every State which has Roman Catholic subjects, that the Pope should be restored to real independence. This is the universal object of all Italy. I cannot consider that the present position of the Pope is one that conduces to the respect of the Roman Catholic world. I cannot think it conduces to the free and legitimate exercise of that valuable authority which he possesses over a very large portion of Christian Europe. The time will come when this occupation of Rome by France will cease. It is contrary to the interests of France herself; it is contrary to the interests of Europe; and that which may now for a time be postponed by what is called Roman Catholic feeling in France will at no distant period be called for by the universal feeling of the whole body of Roman Catholics throughout Europe. I look forward to the time when the Pope, restored to real independence, may exercise his authority in the Vatican while the Parliament of free Italy conducts its deliberations in the Capitol.
  THE MARQUESS OF NORMANBYmade a brief reply, which was inaudible.
  House adjourned at half past Seven o'clock, to Thursday next, half past Ten o'clock.