Sitting of 14 July 1863

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—British Columbia Boundaries (Lords) * [Bill 187]; Colonial Letters Patent (Lords) * [Bill 237]; Expiring Laws Continuance * [Bill 238];

749
Indemnity *; Land Tax Commissioners' Names* [Bill 239]; Petty Offences * [Bill 240].
Second Reading—Turnpike Trusts Arrangements * [Bill 227]; Turnpike Acts Continuance, &c. * [Bill 228].
Committee—Union Relief Aid Acts Continuance [Bill 199]; Fortifications (Provision for Expenses) * [Bill 213].
Report—Fortifications (Provision for Expenses) * [Bill 213]; Union Relief Aid Acts Continuance [Bill 236]; Holyhead Harbour Committee * [No. 445].
Third Reading—India Stock * [Bill 212], and passed.

UNION RELIEF AID ACTS CONTINUANCE BILL— [BILL 199].—COMMITTEE.
Order for Committee read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
MR. C. P. VILLIERS MR. C. P. VILLIERS moved that the House go into Committee on the Bill.
MR. CHILDERSsaid, he rose to move the Resolution of which he had given notice, to the effect that it was desirable that any monies raised under the Bill by way of loan on the security of the rates in the distressed manufacturing districts should be applicable to assisted emigration to such colonies as might be willing to co-operate in carrying it out. While approving of what the Government had done to relieve the distress in Lancashire, he thought that other measures should be taken. He thought, that even if the war in America should speedily come to an end, and supplies of cotton be obtained from the Southern States, four or five years must elapse before there would be a return to anything like the former state of prosperity in Lancashire. He was therefore of opinion that emigration should be encouraged. His proposal was, that instead of restricting the amount of the rates to be applied to purposes of emigration in the distressed unions to one-half of the average amount of the three previous years, as authorized by law, the guardians should be empowered to apply such portions of the money raised on the security of the rates as they should think fit to the same purpose. He wished to dispel some misunderstanding which existed as to the objects he had in view. He wished to state distinctly that he did not in any way propose to obstruct the progress of the Bill, because he approved generally of the course which the Government had taken on the subject. He did not advocate what was called indiscriminate emigration because he believed nothing
750
could be more injurious than to attempt to relieve the distress by any rash scheme of emigration. Neither did he propose that any grant of public money should be given for that purpose. He approved of what the Government had done for the relief of the distress; and although he did not think the Bill which they had lately passed would produce all the effects lately anticipated, yet, as Lancashire wished, he thought the Government did right in introducing it. But he did not think the measures which had been taken sufficient, and he thought that other measures should be taken which would have the direct effect of relieving the distress, and indirectly would be beneficial to the Empire and the manufacturing districts. According to the best authorities, we might expect, during the coming winter, that from 400,000 to 500,000 persons in the manufacturing districts would be in a state of considerable distress. This fact should be borne in mind, that there had been a steady inflow of something like 35,000 persons every year into the manufacturing districts seeking employment there, and now that a check had come upon the trade in those districts, they had not only to provide for the persons already thrown out of employment, but also for the stoppage of that emigration from one district into another—that emigration being essentially necessary for the prosperity not only of the manufacturing but of the agricultural districts. Of course, that inflow had ceased, and where had those people gone? His impression was that a very large proportion of them had crowded last year into the large towns, and where the main cause of the extraordinary increase of crime, at which they were so justly alarmed, and which had led to the appointment of the Committee of which he had been a member to inquire into the cause. That being the state of things, he was of opinion that the measures taken by the Government would not meet the danger to the whole community caused by the stoppage of the emigration into the manufacturing districts to which he referred, unless the Government encouraged the emigration of a certain number of persons to places which were capable of receiving them. It had been stated that in 1847 the emigration was so large and wholesale that it produced in its results very disastrous consequences, and therefore that they ought not at present to encourage emigration for fear of a recurrence of those evils. It was a curious fact that the emigration from 1852 up to

751
1858 was very much larger than the emigration which took place during the whole year of the distress caused by the failure of the potato crop in Ireland. This country was capable of carrying on a much larger emigration than the indiscriminate emigration which had taken place in years past. In the years 1846, 1847, and 1848 respectively 129,000, 258,000, and 248,000 persons emigrated from this country owing to the distress that then prevailed in Ireland. In 1849, 299,000 persons emigrated; in 1850, 280,000; in 1851 the number increased to 335,000; in 1852 it reached 368,000; in 1853, 329,000; and in 1854, 323,000. Thus it appeared that during those years there was a steady and, he believed, very advantageous emigration carried on simultaneously with abundance of employment and great prosperity in the country. In 1860 the numbers fell to 158,000, in 1861 to 91,000; and in 1862 the numbers rose to 121,000. These figures showed, that considering the emigration of former years, a larger emigration might go on with safety and with advantage both to those who went and those who remained behind. It had been contended on a former occasion that there were already Acts of Parliament in operation which enabled Poor Law guardians to assist emigration. By the 4 & 5 Will. IV., c. 76, s. 62, the ratepayers of a parish might borrow and spend on or in aid of emigration "of poor persons having settlements" not above half the average rate for the three preceding years. By the 12 & 13 Vict., c. 103, s. 20, guardians of unions were enabled to borrow for the emigration of the above to the extent of £10 a head, without the consent of the ratepayers, if the guardians of the parish consented. By the 11 & 12 Vict., c. 110, s. 5, unions could procure or assist in procuring the emigration of irremovable poor; and orphan and deserted children might be assisted to emigrate by the parish or union. The Legislature had, therefore, already sanctioned the principle that the poor rates might be applied towards emigration. The provisions of the Acts which he had cited were, however, inapplicable to the present moment. His proposal, as he had said, was, that instead of restricting the amount of the rates to be applied to purposes of emigration in the distressed unions to one-half of the average amount of the three previous years, as authorized by law, the guardians should be empowered
752
to apply such portions of the money raised on the security of the rates as they should think fit for the same purpose, subject to the consent of the individual parishes. That was a permissive power, and the guardians need not make use of it unless they chose. The emigration he wished to assist would only be to those Colonies which were willing to cooperate in carrying it out. He might be told that the class of persons whose emigration he wished to assist could not be taken away suddenly to the Colonies and to a totally different climate without faring worse than if they remained at home; but such arguments, which would have been well-founded twenty years ago, were inapplicable to the present state of things. The Colonies then were almost exclusively agricultural and pastoral. The most important of the southern Colonies was Victoria, the population of which in 1861 was 540,000 souls. The population engaged in manufactures, mining, and other pursuits, irrespective of agricultural and pastoral callings, was 79,000; so that if 20,000 or 30,000 were added to the population of the Colony, they would be absorbed by other industries, even if none were fitted for agricultural and pastoral life. Then it was said that people ought not to be sent from hot rooms to endure the rigours of a colonial climate. But the winters of their southern Colonies were much warmer than those of this country, and the climate was very mild and strengthening to weak constitutions. The passage-money of emigrants was £14, but from £16 to £18 per head might be put down as the total expense. He did not wish the House to give any encouragement to emigration, except to those Colonies which were also prepared to assist it, and no colony would assist emigrants unless it was for its advantage to receive them. One colony had sent home £5,000 to encourage emigration; another £10,000, and a third £5,000. The colony of Victoria had received from 70,000 to 80,000 emigrants in one year, with no palpable reduction in the rate of wages. New South Wales, Queensland, and South Australia were also ready to receive large numbers, and the Governments of those Colonies knew the importance of providing depots for the comfortable reception of the emigrants on their arrival. But then he was told that the real difficulty was that the operatives in the distressed districts did not want to emigrate. An hon. Member had said that

753
everybody wanted everybody else to emigrate. [Mr. COBDEN: Hear, hear!] He would tell those who held that language that those who did not wish anybody else to emigrate were the employers of labour. It was, however, a misconception to suppose that there was an unwillingness to emigrate in the manufacturing districts. He had obtained a statement from the Emigration Board of the number of emigrants from this country during the first six months of the present year. In 1862, as he had stated, the number was 121,000. The first six months of 1863 had, however, reached the amount for the whole of the previous year—namely, 121,000. [An hon. MEMBER: Where did they go to?] The English and Scotch emigrants in 1862 were 47,000, and in the first half of the present year 36,000, or at the rate of 72,000 a year. The emigration to America that year was greatly in excess of last year; but was it not to their interest that the stream of emigration should be diverted from a foreign country to their own Colonies, where wages were higher, and where the emigrants would become consumers of British manufactures—not to the extent of a few shillings a year, as in America, but of £10, £12, or £14? To show the desire of the factory classes to emigrate, he would give the result of the inquiries of Mr. Knight, who was sent into the manufacturing districts by a society with which he was connected as acting emigration agent to Victoria. Mr. Knight, in a letter dated Manchester, May 6, 1863, said—
"The siege of my office by persons clamorous to emigrate continues unabated. There are thousands of eligible people connected with and affected by the manufacture of cotton who are most anxious to emigrate; they are not merely spinners, weavers, dyers, and the like, but carters, labourers, carpenters, bricklayers, engineers, smiths, strikers, &c., and a large number of tidy-looking domestic servants. I have selected many of these people, who are either in receipt of relief or in very great distress. There is no need to fear that in the present or larger drafts from the manufacturing districts we shall be likely to swamp the Colony with useless hands. Prior to going into the mills a very considerable number of factory operatives were engaged in outdoor work, and it will be no great effort for these people to fall back upon their former pursuits, most of which are quite congenial with colonial life. The operatives in several districts are forming emigration societies, and are collecting small weekly subscriptions."
In a subsequent letter, dated July 1, 1863, Mr. Knight said—
"I was sufficiently long in Manchester and the adjacent districts to ascertain the feeling of the
754
unemployed operatives on the subject of emigration, and from what I saw and heard I have no hesitation in declaring that the majority of the persons out of work by reason of the cotton famine would rather emigrate to any part of the globe than remain in their present abject, hopeless, and dependent condition. 'Pray do something to get us out of this,' was the kind of appeal made to me every hour of the day—an appeal which I could only respond to to the extent of about one-half per cent of the applicants. On the third day, finding the applications were exceedingly numerous, I had my name taken down and a notice put up 'that I could not provide passages for any further number of people;' but, notwithstanding this, the place was constantly crowded, the passages and staircase being continually full of people. On many occasions the portion of the street opposite to the office was crowded, and we had frequently to call in the aid of a police-constable to keep the place from being blocked up. This rush of applicants continued unabated for a month, and during the last fortnight I was obliged to keep a man in the lobby to assure the people that my lists were full, and to adopt other means of getting rid of the numerous applicants. In the course of a month not less than 12,000 persons applied to me for passages to Australia. Had I taken a prominent office and publicly announced my object, and had I been furnished with means and an adequate staff to do the work, I firmly believe that I could have booked 1,000 names per day, and continued at that rate for many months."
Mr. Knight appended a note from the Glossop Spinners and Minders' Society, in which he was assured that the whole of that body and their fellow-operatives were desirous of emigrating. It also appeared that emigration societies had been formed in Gloucester, Nottingham, and Manchester for the purpose of assisting emigration. The colonial Governments in some cases offered land, and in other cases made advances to the emigrants, but in one shape or another those colonial Governments would assist emigration in the next year to the extent of from £200,000 to £300,000, if it were met by a corresponding outlay by or on behalf of the emigrants. Many of these factory operatives were suited to the Colonies, and they only required aid from local contributions. He only proposed to give the local authorities power to apply the principle laid down in the Poor Law Act, and he believed that the Amendment he proposed would do much to supplement the excellent measures which the Government had brought in for the relief of distressed districts.
MR. MARSHsaid, he rose to second the Amendment. In proof of the rapid increase of the Southern Colonies, he might state that the population of Queensland, which had been separated from New South

755
Wales, was 16,000 four years ago, but was then 45,000, the emigrants having come chiefly from the United Kingdom. The great objection to the proposal was that the people were not generally fit for the work of emigrants. He could say from his own experience, particularly with reference to people from the north of England, that they did not want people with specialities, but people who had good common sense and who would work. Persons made very good shepherds who had not been brought up to that calling in the mother country. In the days of convict labour it was well known that there was no better shepherd than a London pickpocket. The sort of persons who were not wanted in a Colony were those having a certain amount of education without capital. That class were starving in the Colony. Wages were high at Brisbane, and any decent family going into the interor might expect to receive £100 a year if they could make themselves useful. An old shepherd of his used to say it was the best place in the world for women, because there were no shops there. As a rule, it was better to let emigration find its own level; but the present was an exceptional case, and as the proposed was a permissive clause he would vote for it.
Amendment proposed,
To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that any monies raised under this Bill by way of loan on the security of the rates in the distressed manufacturing districts, should be applicable to assisted emigration to such colonies as may be willing to co-operate in carrying it out,"—(Mr. Childers,)
—instead thereof.
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he would also support the Amendment as an exceptional measure. A portion of the rates would be most usefully employed in assisting the emigration of women under due regulations. There was in England an enormous disproportion of the sexes, which was increasing every day, and which was the cause of much vice and demoralization.
COLONEL WILSON PATTENsaid, he was certain that every one who assisted in the relief of distress in the manufacturing districts would feel deeply
756
indebted to the hon. Member, and would receive any suggestions for the relief of the distress, with a wish to adopt any measures that might be useful and practicable. The House would, however, go beyond its functions if it undertook to recommend the guardians to apply the money raised for the maintenance of the distressed operatives in assisting emigration. The Central Relief Committee had considered the question of emigration. They had a very large population to maintain, and it was the duty of the authorities to deal equally by all in the distribution of the sums raised, by subscriptions, loans, or rates. It was a mistake to suppose that the Central Relief Committee were opposed to emigration. Individually he had, perhaps, according to his means, contributed as much as any one in that House towards emigration; but he believed that a great disappointment awaited the Lancashire operatives if they rushed headlong into emigration. The owners of property in the distressed districts were mortgaging that property, and raising money on the security of the rates, and he trusted that the House would not give an opinion as to the application of that money. He thought he might undertake to say that all parties in Lancashire were deeply impressed with the duty that might be imposed on them next winter, and every effort, he believed, would be made by every class of society to meet that distress. Under those circumstances, the House would act judiciously to trust a little to the good sense and judgment of the guardians to apply the money which the House might empower them to raise for the relief of the distressed districts.
MR. FERRANDsaid, it was evident from the appearance of the House that his hon. Friend had no chance of carrying his Resolution. It was his (Mr. Ferrand's) belief that the employers of labour in Lancashire and the cotton districts were making common cause with the Government in discountenancing any attempt to promote emigration. After the repeal of the Corn Laws 2,500,000 of the population had emigrated, because they found that free trade did not enable them to earn the same wages as they had before. If the manufacturers were to have protection accorded to them, it was their duty to consider what would be the condition of the factory operatives during the next winter. It appeared from statements made in that House, that all but £460,000 out of the

757
£1,500,000 of aggregate subscriptions at the disposal of the Central Committee had been spent upon the distressed operatives of Lancashire, and adding to that sum the £200,000 which was to be granted under the Bill, that would give £660,000 to be expended among the distressed factory population of Lancashire; but if it were true, as had been stated by the hon. Member for Pontefract, that there would be that year between 400,000 and 500,000 factory operatives unemployed in Lancashire, the whole of the money placed at the disposal of the different relief Committees for the relief of the distressed operatives would only give 30 s. a head. Would the President of the Poor Law Board permit him to make a suggestion? There were 30,000 able-bodied men now out of employment in Lancashire. In the agricultural districts, on the contrary, sufficient hands could not be got either for the hay or corn harvest. Could not the Central Relief Committee send a large body of these men into the rural districts? They would all be able to make hay, and many were accustomed to farm labour. He was told by an hon. Friend yesterday, that in his district the hay seeds were dropping on the grass because hands could not be got for the hay harvest. He came up from Yorkshire yesterday, and saw fields that ought to have been cut a week or ten days ago. If the hot weather continued, the grain would want cutting very soon, and many thousand hands would be wanted in the agricultural districts. The farmers would be willing to give these operatives 2s. or 3s. a day, and by this means they could accumulate a sum of money which would keep them and their families for a long time.
MR. BAGWELLsaid, he was quite ready to admit that every exertion ought to be made with a view to alleviate the distress existing in Lancashire, and two Bills to effect that object had been introduced, one of which had passed. But, without wishing to introduce an Irish element into the debate, he could not refrain from contrasting the eagerness with which measures for the relief and emigration of the distressed districts in England were discussed with the apathy of the House and the Government in regard to the distressed districts in Ireland. A few days ago he had given the Secretary for Ireland a letter from The Times relative to the distress in Connaught. He had since heard nothing from the right hon. Gentleman, and he supposed that no
758
notice would be taken of the matter. It was too much to expect the Irish people to remain loyal when they witnessed the unfairness which was practised towards them.
MR. HIBBERTsaid, he sympathized with the views expressed by the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Ferrand); but he thought that no stimulus should be given to emigration, because some regard ought to be felt for the ratepayers left behind. Emigration ought to be left to be carried out in the ordinary way. It certainly did not, he thought, call for a Resolution of the House to be passed in order that it might be promoted. The existing law was quite sufficient, if the guardians really wished to encourage emigration.
MR. ADDERLEYsaid, that it might not be desirable to adopt the Amendment, and he thought that his hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract would be more likely to attain his end by withdrawing than by persevering with his Resolution, It would then be open to him to move the insertion of a clause enabling the guardians to apply any portion of the money raised by loan towards emigration. The sums voted by the colonial Parliaments, and placed in the hands of the Emigration Commissioners, were not, he believed, exhausted; but difficulties were, he understood, raised to the acceptance of the money in Lancashire.
MR. C. P. VILLIERSasked, why the sense of the House should not be taken now on the Amendment, instead of raising another discussion in Committee. He thought his hon. Friend was a little discouraged by those on whom he had relied to support his Motion. He (Mr. C. P. Villiers) had waited to hear the arguments in favour of the Resolution, and must confess himself disappointed. He thought his hon. Friend was going to tell them that the guardians had applied for the power he would confer upon them, or that memorials were presented from the operatives, to enable the guardians to apply the money raised in the manner proposed to enable them to emigrate, but his hon. Friend did not say that such was the fact. His hon. Friend merely said that emigration was going on in a manner that was quite unprecedented, and that during the first six months of the year it exceeded what had occurred during the whole of some previous years.
MR. CHILDERS: I said the emigration of the first six months of this year

759
exceeded 1862; but I did not apply the observation to previous years.
MR. C. P. VILLIERSsaid, the fact was, that the total numbers that emigrated in 1862 were 121,214; and during the first six months of this year 121,765 persons emigrated, which confirmed exactly what his hon. Friend had said. But that was an extraordinary argument to use for giving extraordinary means to assist emigration. He was astonished that his hon. Friend did not tell the House what he had told many Members individually, of the very large funds now available in the Colonies for emigration. His hon. Friend had, indeed, stated at a public meeting at the Mansion House, that no less than a quarter of a million was now available in one of the Colonies for the purposes of emigration; but not one word had they heard that day from his hon. Friend of that large sum. He had expected, moreover, that at least on this occasion the hon. Member would have been supported by those who usually acted with him in colonial matters; but the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Marsh) had given him as little encouragement as he had ever heard. The hon. Member, who, from long residence there, was well acquainted with the Australian colonies, stated—what every rational colonist would state—that they should be extremely careful as to the persons sent out; that such persons should be restricted in various respects, and that above alt they should be careful not to send out men without some capital, or with habits unsuited to the life in new countries; and, indeed, he referred to men with the unsettled habits of those who in former times had been transported, as being more successful than those with the habits of operatives. But, by the Motion of the hon. Member (Mr. Childers), the guardians would have to send out men who were unfortunately destitute, and who had no means of maintenance from week to week. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Childers) had underrated the means which the guardians already possessed, when they chose to exercise it, for sending out emigrants. For the purpose of removing those who were called the irremovable poor, they could charge the common fund of a union to any extent they pleased. The duty of the guardians was to relieve the destitute as well as they could, looking to the interests of both the poor, and the ratepayers. Why, for that purpose, should they be asked to send them to Victoria, if there were other places which would suit them better? There
760
were other parts of the world to which the emigrants preferred to go. If reference was made to the Returns, it would be found that an overwhelming majority of the emigrants from this country went to the United States. Were they, then, to be told, that when a man could go for £5 to a country where he was certain of being immediately employed, and where the manners and customs of the country were analogous to those of England—were the guardians to be told, as the hon. Member for Pomfret proposed that they should be told, not to assist emigrants to that country, but only to send them to Victoria? In the five months ending with May last, the total number of emigrants was 97,558, and of that number 66,946 went to the United States. [Mr. FERRAND: Yes, Federal recruits.] How did the hon. Member know that? It was all very well to say so, and to circulate rumours to that effect. Could he state it as a fact? It was like a good many other statements similarly made which were not facts at all. Were they, then, to tell the guardians, who could send people where they wanted to go for £5, to send them when it would cost £20, because the hon. Member said he could give £10 of that sum? That was not showing much regard for the poor man, whatever it might be for the Colony. That emigrants really wished to go to the United States, was shown again by the returns for June. In that month 24,405 emigrants left this country, and of that number 16,275 went to the United States, If this were the case, why should the guardians he compelled to send the emigrants to where they did not wish to go, and that too at a greater cost? And let it he observed, that this was a proposition to legislate afresh on this subject, and that it was a question of assisting people to leave this country on account of a dearth of employment at home. His hon. Friend proposed that the guardians should only send the operatives to countries that assisted emigration. But suppose parties in the United States should promise these persons labour at good wages, and say that they would pay £1 a head towards the expense of sending them out, that would come within the terms of the Resolution of his hon. Friend. [Mr. CHILDERS: No; my Resolution only refers to emigration to British Colonies.] Well, many of these persons, if they were sent to the North American Colonies, which the hon. Member's Resolution would not preclude, might, as they al-

761
ways had done, find their way down to the eastern cities of the United States. It was certain, that if the guardians had only to consider the interest of the unions, as well as that of the poor people who had suddenly become destitute, they would assist them to go to the United States; and it was for the House to consider whether they would legislate especially to promote that object. It might be that some persons, whose interests were in the Colonies, might think that England's misery was Melbourne's opportunity; but, for his own part, he could not see any occasion to direct the guardians as to the mode in which they should apply their funds for the relief of distress. The hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Ferrand), on whose support he believed the hon. Member for Pomfret relied, told them that there was plenty of work in the country—that there was a great harvest to gather in, and that the operatives might go and gather in that harvest, and go back to their homes with money to keep them through the winter. He (Mr. C. P. Villiers) believed there was a good deal of sense and truth in that; but the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ferrand) would excuse him if he expressed the astonishment he felt at hearing those views from him. He said there was plenty of work in the country. [Mr. FERRAND: For the next two months.] Just so, and therefore the people might earn money to help them to get over the winter. Now, he (Mr. C. P. Villiers) thought, if there was employment in the country, they would do wrong to stimulate emigration. The Motion of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Childers) was a plan to assist and favour emigration, for which, according to the hon. Member for Devonport, there was no occasion at present. He (Mr. C. P. Villiers) thought it right to call the attention of the House to one circumstance. The hon. Member for Pomfret referred to Lancashire, and said there were there a great number of cotton operatives who wanted the means of living, and who might now receive assistance to go to the Colonies. He (Mr. C. P. Villiers) did not wish to dispute the authority of the hon. Member as to the want of emigrants in the Colonies; but he went that morning himself to the Board of Emigration to ascertain under what restrictions people were sent out to the Colonies. The funds of that Board were supplied by the Colony, under certain restrictions imposed by it, as to the people who should be sent out; and he found that under those restrictions the
762
cotton operatives were absolutely excluded from the assistance of the Board. The colonists, therefore, did not, it was clear, want the people that the guardians would desire to send out. They must not be above forty, they must not have more than two children; and they must have been occupied either as agriculturists or mechanics. That was most especially the rule as regarded the colony of Victoria. He did not mean to say that others had gone out who had not succeeded, but the question now was whether the Government should interfere to direct the guardians to send their poor out there, and he contended that the Government should be very careful in what it did in this matter. It was bound, not only to be careful as to whom it sent, but a responsibility would attach to it as to what became of those people after they arrived there. He should be sorry to send out poor people, for instance, to Queensland. He had seen letters from people who had gone out there, even with some means, and they believed that they had been grossly deceived. There was hardly sufficient capital to employ them, and they had no means of realizing fortune for themselves. And it must be remembered, that when working men went to very young Colonies, or new countries unless they found, employment, they went to the very bottom of society, almost, in fact, returned again to savage life. He said, then, there would be great want of humanity in sending people out to new countries unless they were sure to get employment. At present the guardians had a discretion as to sending out emigrants to a much larger extent than the House imagined; and yet, since the distress had commenced, he never heard of more than one instance of their exercising that discretion. The hon. Member (Mr. Childers) spoke of a continual flow of labour from the agricultural into the manufacturing districts, which when trade was good found employment for them; and beseemed to think that that drain on the agricultural districts was immediately followed by a flow of population into those districts from some unexplained source. There was no question that there had been most extraordinary prosperity in the manufacturing districts of late years, and a great draft had been made on the agricultural districts for labour. He believed that draft had caused great inconvenience in the agricultural districts into which there was not that flow as the hon. Member imagined; and that, owing to the scarcity of labour, difficulty

763
was felt even in getting in the harvest. Surely that was not the argument for sending the people away. The people might, at this moment, be redundant in the manufacturing districts, but the Colonies that the hon. Member represented, wanted the agriculturists and mechanics in preference to the operatives. His deliberate opinion was that they had not got one man too many in the country, and he did not think it would be wise to legislate in order to hasten emigration. Let the people have easy access to all the information which the Government possesses respecting all our Colonies, but leave it to themselves to decide whether they would go or stay, or where they would go.
MR. HENLEYsaid, that every one must have been struck by the difference in the tone and manner of the President of the Poor Law Board from that of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Lancashire (Colonel W. Patten). His hon. and gallant Friend said, that he, as a Lancashire man, was thankful for every suggestion for relieving the distress that threatened the manufacturing districts next winter. The right hon. Gentleman, on the other hand, had talked of "England's distress being Melbourne's opportunity;" but he (Mr. Henley) would ask the House, seeing how liberally that Colony had come forward for the relief of the distressed operatives, whether that was a decent observation. He believed that it was proposed to obtain, under the Bill, an advance of £200,000 from the Exchequer Loan Commissioners at a low rate of interest to mitigate the coming pressure. He did not understand, however, whether any part of the sum of £200,000 might be applied towards the purpose of emigration if the guardians thought fit. The right hon. Gentleman said it was the duty of the Government to see what became of the people who emigrated to the Colonies; but he did not appear to extend his paternal care to those who were supposed to go out as Federal soldiers. The right hon. Gentleman, however, said it was better to send the distressed operatives to the United States than to the British Colonies, although they might be shot within six months after they got there. He could not help fearing that the pressure in the manufacturing districts would be far heavier next winter than last year. The operatives could not look for so much assistance out of their own borders, and he could wish that the local authorities should be able to
764
apply the money borrowed under this Bill, some in one way and some in another, as different Boards might see fit. He very much regretted that the right hon. Gentleman had met the Amendment in the sort of spirit he had shown. That was not the way to get through the difficulty, nor was it very gracious to cast motives on those who were helping us. One thing was certain, that every man who was assisted to emigrate would relieve the funds during the coming winter.
MR. C. P. VILLIERSsaid, that the guardians could apply the money raised under the Bill to any purpose to which they could apply the rates.
MR. COBDEN: Sir, the right hon. Gentleman has attributed a little impatience to my right hon. Friend at the head of the Poor Law Department, in the manner in which he met this Motion. Now, I must say, so far as those Members are concerned who are connected with Lancashire, that we have only to offer to the right hon. Gentleman our most unfeigned thanks for the patience and solicitude which he has shown in this great trial. And if he has shown a little impatience now, he is very wrong in doing so as a Cabinet Minister; because a Cabinet Minister ought never to allow himself to show any impatience; but if he has shown a little impatience, I am not surprised. I confess myself to be a little intolerant on this subject—not as to emigration, because emigration, when properly organized—say on such a plan as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester (Mr. Bazley), who sent out the capital to the Colony along with emigrants—is a very good thing—but I am rather intolerant when I hear hon. Gentlemen in this House, and some gentlemen out of it, interpose the question of emigration as a panacea for everything, and thus obstruct us in our endeavours to carry out what is the only practical way of meeting this great emergency. Now, the Motion of the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Childers) is as impracticable, as utterly uncalled for, as anything that has ever been brought before us. He says, that those means now about to be raised should be "applicable to assisted emigration to such Colonies as may be willing to co-operate in carrying it out." Well, but to obtain that co-operation from the Colonies to which the hon. Gentleman refers, it would require that we should send out to Australia. There is not a shilling in hand. I have been to the emigration office. I have inquired at that department,

765
from which alone the hon. Gentleman can get his information, and I find that they have not a farthing in hand to assist this emigration. If we are to obtain the cooperation of Australia or of New Zealand—for the hon. Gentleman's Motion does not apply to Canada, or the nearer Colonies—if we are to have the co-operation of the Legislatures of the Colonies to which he refers, we must wait six months before we can get their decision. I ask, if that is a practical plan to bring before us, when we have only a week or two to carry out this measure? [An hon. MEMBER: Which is limited to six months.] And which, as my hon. Friend says, is limited to six months. From some of the Colonies, emigration grants had been made; but if the money were here in the hands of the emigration agents, it would be useless to factory operatives, because the Emigration Office is bound down in the administration of these funds to certain rules, which preclude the acceptance of factory hands. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Villiers) has referred to the conditions on which assisted passages to the Colonies are granted. I have been to the office also, and I have got the document corrected to the latest period, setting forth the conditions on which grants are made. The paper is from the Queensland Government Emigration Office. It sets forth the terms upon which they propose to assist emigrants to that Colony—and the same rules apply to all the Colonies more or less. Now, what class of people do the Colonial Government wish to have? Here is the description—
"The class of persons alone eligible are domestic servants, farm labourers, vine dressers, labourers, and mechanics. By 'labourers' is to be understood those whose labour has been connected in some way with the land, such as gardeners, road makers, miners, quarrymen, &c. By 'mechanics,' not ' skilled,' such as machinists, engineers, painters, printers, compositors, &c., but blacksmiths, bricklayers, masons, sawyers, carpenters, wheelwrights, shipbuilders, &c."
The factory operative or cotton-spinner and weaver is expressly excluded by the terms of this order. Therefore, for us to wait for the possible co-operation of Australia for some six months, when we have their own conditions already made public, would be a waste of time, and the proposition to do so, can hardly be regarded as worthy the attention of the House. The hon. Member for Pontefract alluded to some voluntary extra subscriptions, sent over in addition to the regular sums raised by
766
the Legislature of the Colonies, to bring out emigrants. It is true, there have been subscriptions to assist the cotton operatives to emigrate, but it has been a very small amount. The hon. Gentleman says that Mr. Knight, an agent for the body under whose direction these funds were administered, went down with the power to assist 300 operatives to emigrate. Only think of 300! Why it is a mere drop in the ocean, Mr. Knight, the hon. Gentleman says, went to Manchester, and he tells me that I am quite wrong in saying that the people are not willing to emigrate, for that that gentleman had 8,000 or 10,000 applications from persons desirous of being sent out by him. Well, in the first place, Manchester is not the cotton manufacturing district. Manchester is a city, a great mercantile centre, a metropolis. It is not even one of the distressed unions in the ordinary sense. There has never been a deputation from Manchester to my right hon. Friend asking for his interference. It is a great centre of capitalists—a centre of great mercantile operations. Its ratepayers are owners of houses, offices, shops, and warehouses, and people who have not been so severely injured by the position of the cotton industry as have the ratepayers in other parts. But now let my hon. Friend go to Hyde, or Stalybridge, or Ashton-under-Lyne, or any of the other places where the distress is really and fully felt. He will there find grouped around the mills a number of comfortable brick cottages. He may go down the streets and find that the people of the towns are nearly all operatives. Their houses bear very much the appearance of the houses of the lower middle class resident in other parts of the kingdom. Each family has been in the habit of bringing home on the Saturday night on an average 30 s.; some of them £2, or £3, or even £4. Let him go into their houses and ask them do they wish to emigrate? They will tell him no. They are the people who are not willing to emigrate; but they are quite willing to see others emigrate if they find an opportunity for it. The chairman of the Warrington Board of Guardians wrote to me a letter on this subject, in which he says that in that union, being anxious to use the funds at their disposal to assist all such poor as were desirous to emigrate, they obtained very glowing circulars from the Emigration Office, and spread them through the union. They further advertised that they were willing to as-

767
sist parties to emigrate, and they had not a single application. There are, no doubt, agricultural labourers who would be willing to emigrate; but the persons who are connected with the cotton manufacture are not willing to go. I confess to a little intolerance as to the manner in which this subject is brought forward, because there is in it a mixture of ignorance and prejudice which does not much conciliate my kind regards. I have seen the question of emigration dragged into discussion by parties who have a monomaniacal hatred of the manufacturing capitalist class. Of these it cannot be denied that the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Ferrand) may be taken as a representative. I have seen similar doctrines to his in The Times from Dorsetshire, and uttered at Carlisle by a Church dignitary. I have known the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ferrand) for twenty years always pursuing the same course; the consistent supporter of the Corn Laws, and ever professing to be the friend and representative of the working class. He comes now as the representative of the operatives. Now, I do not attribute motives; but when I see people actuated by hatred of a class—in this case the capitalist class—I am compelled to take it into account in forming a judgment of his conduct. I do not think I do the hon. Gentleman injustice when I say he would like to transport the whole of the masters. Not being able to do that, I think he is willing to deport the operatives in order that he might spite and anger the masters. I hope I am not too uncharitable. As the hon. Gentleman has dealt pretty largely with aspersions and motives, it is natural that he should get an infinitesimal dose of his own medicine in return. Another gentleman out of doors, the Dean of Carlisle (Dean Close), has written a letter, attributing the vilest motives to the manufacturers, saying that they are keeping their factories open as a sham and a delusion, merely to prevent the people from emigrating. Unless the character of the millowners and manufacturers of Carlisle has changed since I used to know them, about twenty years since, I think there is not a more benevolent body of men anywhere, and men who less deserve the character which the rev. gentleman gives to them. But if these gentlemen merely confined themselves to aspersions and attributing motives, without attempting to set up plans of their own which I think would be injurious to the working people, I should not take notice of them. Look at
768
Dean Close. He has been an ardent promoter of emigration in Carlisle. I will not attribute bad motives to him as he has to me. I believe him to be sincere in his desire to benefit the people. But does he go to work in the right way? Does he act with proper forethought? Does he take due precautions? I would introduce him as an illustration of a class of persons who are willing to send people away to the antipodes without taking those precautions which they ought to take, in order to provide for those poor people when they get there. Now, take a description of the rev. gentleman's conduct, in his own words. There has been an entertainment to emigrants in Carlisle. Dean Close attended. He was speaking in favour of emigration, and narrated what he had himself done. It seems that he has been sending some emigrants to Queensland. I am not going to say a word against Queensland or any other Colony. I have the honour of knowing Sir George Bowen, Governor of Queensland. I think him the right man in the right place. He is an able and enlightened administrator, and I think the colony will benefit materially by his wisdom and capacity. But it is the youngest Colony we have, with the smallest population; and I can easily conceive, however great its growth in the future may he, that it is not a Colony which would be most favourable for emigration without capital. Now, I will read what Dean Close said in his speech to emigrants, another batch of whom were going out. He said that—
"It had been a subject of some little compunction to him in sending out the party to Queensland, because he knew no one there to whose care he could commit them. But mark how Providence had watched over their interests. He had just this moment received a note from a lady friend of his who happened to see his letter in The Times, and she stated she was very much interested in Queensland, because she had a son at Brisbane, the capital, where the emigrants were going to; and who should this son be but Captain Pitt, an officer in the army, and aide-de-camp to the Governor? Letters had been sent out to the captain on the subject, and he (the Dean) had not the slightest doubt that they would find some one there to meet them when they reached the shore, and that every attention would be paid to them. From a newspaper be had received, he learnt that there was an abundance of labour there to reward their industry, and he confidently expected to hear of them doing well."
Now I would ask, ought any one to take upon himself the responsibility of sending out emigrants without making any preparation for receiving them? Yet that is what

769
this rev. gentleman did. He made no provision for receiving the emigrants, and there was no preparation except what turned up accidentally. In his case there seems to have turned up Captain Pitt, on the staff of the Governor. Well, any one doing that may think himself charitable; but I maintain that such proceedings are reprehensible, and, I had almost said, criminal. Now, my advice to the working classes is this:—that they should take even more precautions to know what is to become of them a year after they have landed in a foreign country or in a Colony, than they should to know what is to become of them for a year if they should stay at home, and not by any means to trust themselves in an emigrant ship or with any company unless with due precaution, and until they have ascertained, after careful calculation, what is to become of them, and how they are to be provided for when they have got to their destination. With such a provision, I should have no objection to any one emigrating. The more that emigrate, with the certainty of doing better in the Colonies or elsewhere than here, the better it will ultimately be for themselves and those they have left behind them; but I must protest against the question of emigration, and against a wholesale system of deportation being mixed up with this question. I am sorry it should have been intruded upon us, and that I should have occasion to say a word in regard to it.
SIR BALDWIN LEIGHTONremarked that emigration under proper management would be good for all parties. He, for one, would certainly like to see a large emigration of Lancashire lasses many of whom would soon find themselves in improved circumstances as the wives of Australian settlers. The hon. and gallant Member for Lancashire (Colonel W. Patten) had stated that he had assisted a great number of persons to emigrate, and that fact showed that there were people in Lancashire who were willing to emigrate. He thought the millowners had acted tolerably fair—he did not say in every case—towards the operatives, and there was no very great fault to be found with them; but it had been quite clear throughout that the millowners were anxious to keep all their hands around the mills, and they had declared that when trade revived there would not be a man too many. He had thought it was the duty of official persons to promote emigration to British Colonies rather than to foreign countries,
770
and he was therefore sorry to hear the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Poor Law Board throw cold water on emigration to British Colonies, and hold out the United States as the best place for emigrants. It would be much better, if the operatives were sent out at all, that they should go to Victoria, instead of the United States.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: In view of the House giving its judgment upon the Motion of my hon. Friend, I venture to offer a very few remarks on the subject. First of all, I will refer to what has just fallen from my hon. Friend opposite, who has given his opinion that it is very much better to emigrate to the Colonies than to the United States. My right hon. Friend has given his opinion that the United States, speaking generally and without reference to the circumstances of the particular moment, offer very great advantages to emigrants from this country. Those are opinions which may very fairly be given on the one side and the other without reproach; but it is one thing to give those opinions in debate, and another thing for the House of Commons to come in, and by legislation take the responsibility of directing the choice of those who are about to separate themselves from their country and to select another country. In my opinion, no heavier responsibility than that could be undertaken by the Legislature. When my right hon. Friend gave that very strong opinion of the eligibility of the United States as a destination for emigrants, he was at any rate borne out by a very long experience, because during the last thirty years several millions of people have emigrated from this country, in the exercise of their own private judgment and free choice as to the country they were to select in lieu of that they were leaving, and the vast majority of those emigrants had selected the United States. I do not give that opinion in the sense of desiring that we should endeavour, by means devised here, to direct the stream of emigration to the United States. My right hon. Friend used it, and I think justly so, as an argument against the proposal that we should interfere to direct the stream of emigration by artificial means to another quarter, and that is the real question before us.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) has put a question, to which I shall endeavour very briefly to afford an answer. He has already heard from my right hon. Friend

771
that the monies that will be made available from a public source under the Bill now before the House will be available for all purposes that are legal under the provisions of the present law, and therefore the whole question is, what are the provisions of the present law, and what powers are enjoyed by the local authorities in regard to monies raised for Poor Law purposes being applied to the purposes of emigration? By the original Poor Law Act it appears that the owners or ratepayers of any parish or vestry may direct that any sum not exceeding half the average of the yearly rate for preceding years may be borrowed for defraying the expenses of emigration of the second poor; and by the 11 & 12 Vict., c. 110, the guardians may, with the consent of the Poor Law Board, assist in the emigration of the irremovable poor of the parish, and they may charge the cost upon the common fund. Now, I apprehend that between the second poor and irremovable poor I am correct in stating that a very large proportion of the poor may, if it is thought fit locally, thus be made the objects of aid from that source for the purpose of emigrating. These are provisions which were adopted at periods eminently favourable to arriving at just decisions, and when the whole principles applicable to the treatment of our poor were under consideration, and consequently when a very calm and impartial review of the various considerations bearing upon that treatment could be entertained; and I must say I have much greater confidence in provisions adopted in that manner than in any provisions that might be suggested under the pressure of a particular emergency, and which might not have undergone equally careful consideration. Therefore, it would be a great mistake to suppose that the Legislature of this country has treated emigration with indifference. The circumstances of the country twenty or thirty years ago, when, unhappily, the labour market was more overstocked than is happily now the case, did press very much upon the minds of benevolent persons and upon Parliament the consideration of the question whether there ought to be a wholesale public assistance given to emigration; and I may say, especially when it is considered how severe and pressing was the case of Ireland, and how plausible were the arguments for emigration after the potato famine, that these provisions do convey the deliberate decision of the Legislature,
772
that it was not desirable to give this wholesale assistance, and they defined the point up to which they thought that assistance might be given. Well, now, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract invites us at this crisis to lay down a new principle. I ask, is this a time to lay down a new principle? Is the labour market of this country, generally speaking, overstocked? Is there a very great pressure of population on the means of subsistence? Is the standard of wages going upwards or downwards? Why, Sir, we live in a period when, on the contrary, with heartfelt satisfaction we see that as a general rule in most parts of the country the command of the labouring man over the necessaries and comforts of life is progressively increasing, because the labour market is not overstocked, and the demand is continually gaining on the supply. There conies a momentary difficulty, but is that a reason for departing from the principles which had been already laid down? I think there has been no case made out for departing from those principles and taking a stride in advance as to legislative interference in respect of emigration. There is immense force in what has been stated by my hon. Friend (Mr. Cobden), that the class of operatives who are to emigrate under this provision is not the class likely to find employment in the Colonies. It appears that in April last the Duke of Newcastle addressed a circular to the Colonies upon the question how far it was likely those countries would afford employment to emigrants of this class. The only answer that has been received has come from the Colonies of British North America, and that was to the effect that they could hold out no hope except for agricultural labourers or females suited for domestic service. My right hon. Friend is also entitled to say that this is a Bill the operation of which is confined to six months, and that period would elapse before those arrangements which would be necessary in order to give effect to the principle of my hon. Friend could be made with the Legislatures of distant Colonies. But I say, that if we are to have any further intervention of Parliamentary authority in this matter, it is most important to consider what test, what rule we are to establish, with a view to direct the choice of a place of destination for the emigrants. A Colonial Government may be able and disposed to offer assistance for emigration, but that may not be a Colony to which a person should emigrate. It may cost £20 to go

773
to Australia, and the Australian Government may be ready to give £5 or £10; but after that contribution has been received, it may cost the guardians more to send the person to Australia than to send him to British North America and pay the whole expense. I hold, therefore, that the criterion adopted by my hon. Friend is not a legitimate criterion, and tends to mix up together, in an inconvenient manner, the interests of particular Colonies, and the interest of the persons whom he wants to send from our shores. Nothing could be more remote from the intention of my right hon. Friend or of the Government than to cast an imputation upon the Colonies with which my hon. Friend is connected, and which has shown a spirit of sympathy for the prevailing distress, not in the slightest degree deadened by absence or distance, and manifested by contributions as munificent as any that proceeded from other parts of Europe. But he would not say that we should pay them back by inserting in this law a bad provision. If we were prepared to go beyond the basis defined by the present law, and that circumstances warranted it and required it, it would be our duty to make it clear in our legislation that the interests of the persons emigrating were combined with the interests of the ratepayers, and were to be the determining condition in the selection of the Colony. At this period there is no case for reconsidering those principles, and therefore I must express a hope that the House will put a negative on the Motion of my hon. Friend.
MR. DODSONsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had contended that the passing of the Resolution would, in fact, be an interference with the natural course of emigration; but if that assertion were well founded, it might easily be corrected in Committee.
MR. CHILDERSsaid, he should yield to the evident desire of the House and withdraw the Motion. He should, however, in Committee embody it as a separate clause.
MR. HORNBYcomplained that the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Ferrand) lost no opportunity of coming down to that House and insulting the employers of manufacturing labour. There was no foundation whatever for those charges, which were most offensive to the feelings of the manufacturers.
MR. FERRANDdeclared, that he only made such statements as he was justified
774
in making on the authority of the factory operatives themselves. He had in his possession letters that would support everything he had said, and he was ready to stand by what he said either in the House or out of it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Main Question put, and agreed to.
Bill considered in Committee.
Clause 1 (Extension of the Union Relief Aid Acts to Michaelmas and Christmas next.)
MR. POTTER MR. POTTER moved, at the end of the clause, to add the following proviso:—
"Provided always that the sections 3 and 5 of the said Act shall be construed and read as if the words "one shilling and sixpence," had been there inserted in lieu of the words "three shillings."
MR. C. P. VILLIERSsaid, he must oppose the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. C. P. VILLIERSsaid, he would move a proviso, to substitute "six shillings" for "five shillings," in section 4 of the Act of last Session.
MR. TOLLEMACHEsaid, that there was no security that the rates would be economically expended unless the standard were raised to 6s. 6d. instead of 6s. His object was to narrow the application of the Act, so as to make it the last resource and the last resource only.
MR. C. P. VILLIERSsaid, he must admit that the rate in aid was a temptation to people to keep up the rates. He would therefore yield the point, and accept the amendment.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 2 and 3 were also agreed to.
New Clause empowering the Guardians to borrow £200,000.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he wished to ask at what rate of interest the £200,000 would be borrowed.
MR. C. P. VILLIERSsaid, it would be probably at the rate of interest charged for money advanced for public works. As the law stood, the rate was in the discretion of the Public Works Commissioners. The Commissioners could not make an advance to any union without communicating with the Poor Law Board.
Clause agreed to.
MR. CHILDERSsaid, he would then propose to add a clause embodying the provisions with respect to emigration in

775
accordance with the intimation he had previously given.
MR. C. P. VILLIERSsaid, he would suggest that the hon. Member should postpone his Motion to the Report.
MR. CHILDERSsaid, he would accede to the request of the right hon. Gentleman.
Preamble agreed to.
House resumed.
Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 236.]

CIVIL SERVANTS IN THE NORTH WESTERN PROVINCES OF INDIA.

  QUESTION.
  MR. VANSITTARTsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, whether there is not considerable stagnation in the promotion of Civil Servants in the North Western Provinces; and whether such stagnation may not probably arise from a disregard of the Rules laid down in the Resolution of the Governor General in Council of the 21st October 1856, and of the understanding then entertained that the civilians of the North Western Provinces would be eligible for the superior appointments in the Punjab and Oude?
  SIR CHARLES WOODreplied that he had not been able to discover that the Civil Servants in the North Western Provinces had any reason to complain, although he must admit that promotion had been less rapid than they might have expected. The matter was one, however, in which the Home Government of India did not interfere. The promotions took place solely under the direction of the Indian authorities.

NAVAL OFFICERS ON FOREIGN STATIONS.—QUESTION.
LORD NAASsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether orders will be issued to Naval Officers on Foreign Stations forbidding them to attack the Ports or Ships of Friendly Powers without a declaration of war or distinct instructions from the Home Government? He put this question with special reference to the case of bombardment which had been brought under the notice of the House the other night.
LORD CLARENCE PAGET, in reply said, general orders were issued to Naval Officers on Foreign Stations to the effect that they were not justified in having recourse to any measures of violence without the sanction of the Senior Naval Officer commanding the station. He had, however, to state,
776
with regard to the particular case referred to, the affair of Tringanu, that the Commander-in-Chief of the East India station, which included the Straits, had received instructions on no account to enter into hostilities, without the sanction of the Viceroy of India or the Governor of Bombay, except in the case where British life was involved. The most stringent instructions might be said to have been given to all Naval Officers on the Eastern station not to commit any act of hostility without the proper declaration of war, or such sanction as he had just stated.

SANITARY CONDITION OF THE INDIAN ARMY.—QUESTION.
MR. CONINGHAMsaid, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for India Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to act upon the recommendations of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the sanitary condition of the Army in India, and at once to introduce remedial measures for the prevention of disease in hot or unhealthy climates, so as promptly to check the mortality by which, "besides deaths from natural causes, sixty head per thousand of our troops annually perish in India"?
SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, that the attention of the Government of India had for some time past been directed to the subject, and several improvements had been effected in the sanitary condition of the Army. The Report of the Commission, however, had brought to light a rate of mortality which, before its publication, no one believed to exist. The attention of the Indian Government should be directed to the Report, and he had no doubt that measures would be taken to carry the recommendations of the Commission as far as possible into effect.

THE CHANNEL FLEET.

  QUESTION.
  SIR HERVEY BRUCEsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether their Lordships will permit the Channel Fleet to anchor for a few days in Lough Foyle during their cruise this summer?
  LORD CLARENCE PAGET, in reply, said, that the Channel squadron, composed of a line-of-battle ship, five armour-plated frigates, two large wooden frigates, and a corvette, under the command of Admiral Dacres, was now making progress round the north of Scotland, and would,

  777
  weather permitting, touch at several ports. The Admiral had discretionary orders to visit the principal ports of the United Kingdom, and probably the port to which the hon. Baronet had alluded, and in which he seemed to take much interest, might receive a visit from the squadron.

MEDALS FOR THE BENGAL ARTILLERY.

  QUESTION.
  MR. HUMBERSTONsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for India, Whether the Medals for the 1st Battalion of the Bengal Artillery, for their services with the Roorkee and Rohilcund Force, under General Jones, were sent out to India in October 1862; whether it is known at the India Office at the time the Medals were sent out that Charles Fennah, of the 1st Company of the above Battalion of Artillery, had died on his passage to England on the 30th of September 1859; and whether the Medal to which he was entitled was with the others sent out to India in 1862; and when the Medal to which Charles Fennah was entitled will be sent to his surviving relatives?
  SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, in reply, that it was quite true that the medals for the 1st battalion of the Bengal Artillery were sent out in 1862, and among them the medal intended for Charles Fennah, of the 1st company, was also sent out by inadvertence; but orders had been forwarded to the Governor General to send back the medals of such members of the battalion as had died or had left India, so that they might be presented to the surviving relatives of persons for whom they were originally intended.

CHANCERY AND COMMON LAW COMMISSION (IRELAND) REPORT.

  QUESTION.
  MR. LONGFIELDsaid, he wished to ask Mr. Attorney General, When the Returns relative to the Land Registry Court in England will be laid on the table; and when the Report of the Irish Chancery and Common Law Commissioners will be presented?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, in reply, that the Report of the Commissioners had practically been agreed to; but it was necessary that one copy should receive the signature of each Commissioner. Some of the Commissioners were on Circuit in England and Ireland, and he could not hold out the expectation
  778
  that the Report would be laid on the table before the end of next week. Some delay had occurred in sending the order for the Returns relative to the land Registry Court, but he expected that the Returns would be obtained to-morrow.

THE COUNCIL FOR INDIA.

  COMMISSION MOVED FOR.
  MR. ARTHUR MILLSsaid, he rose to call attention to the constitution of the Council of the Secretary of State for India, created by the Bill transferring the Government of India from the East India Company to the Crown, and to move an Address for a Commission to inquire whether any alteration could be advantageously made in it. Considerable debate took place in 1858 on the measure to which he referred, and four-fifths of the discussion had reference to the constitution of the Council for India. Eventually it was decided that the number of the Council should be fixed at fifteen, and that the members should hold office during good behaviour, which practically meant for life, for when £1,200 a year depended on good behaviour no one ever misbehaved himself. The Bill, which received the Royal assent, gave to the Secretary of State entire control over all the functions formerly exercised by what was called the secret committee of the India House, and the Secretary of State was also empowered in cases of emergency to deal with all communications between the Home Government and the Government of India. The only practical and substantial power conferred by the Act on the Council was to deal with questions of finance and to record their dissent if they thought right from any measure which the Secretary of State, who had the power to overrule their decision, might think fit to adopt. It appeared from the opinions expressed by many leading men in that House that the object for creating the Council was twofold—to give to the Secretary of State the aid of a body of men possessing local experience with respect to Indian affairs; and to create a bulwark, as it were, between him and the Indian Government, and any sudden Parliamentary influence which might be brought to bear upon him. With regard to the first object, he apprehended that that might have been attained by providing the Secretary of State with five or six assistant secretaries; but with regard to the second object that was expected to be attained,

  779
  it was evident from the opinions expressed at the time by Sir James Graham, Earl Russell, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and other persons of authority, it could only be realized by the creation of an independent Council. It was thought, that that if the Council were well chosen, they would have all matters of moment, in reference to that country, brought before them by the Secretary of State. He wished, then, to ask those hon. Members, who took an interest in Indian affairs, whether the latter object had been accomplished, and whether the Council had fulfilled the conditions which were aimed at when the Act was passed? As a matter of fact, a state of things had arisen, according to which the Secretary of State for India could withdraw altogether from the consideration of the Council all questions which he might consider urgent. A despatch might arrive which the Secretary of State might declare required an immediate answer; and though that answer would involve the question of peace and war, the Secretary of State could, on the plea of urgency, withdraw the matter from the consideration of the Council and deal with it himself. It was only right that the consequences of such a proceeding should be duly considered by the House, and he wished to call attention to the fact that a similar power was exercised by the Secret Committee, and it was well known that by that Committee a despatch was sent out which led to the Affghan war, and cost £10,000,000 to the Indian revenue. The Act of 1858 left the House of Commons in ignorance as to where the responsibility fur the Home Government of India really rested. It might be said that India had of late enjoyed an unusual amount of prosperity, and therefore that the system on which the Government of that country was conducted had worked well. But he believed that, so far as the relations between the Council and the Secretary of State were concerned, it had not worked well, and as an illustration of its defective and uncertain working he would mention what had taken place in the year 1860 in reference to the amalgamation of the Indian army with the army of Her Majesty. He would not then enter into any discussion as to the wisdom of that measure; he would take it for granted that it was one which ought to have been adopted. But when it was proposed in 1860, the Secretary of State declared that he was entitled at any moment,
  780
  at his own discretion, to separate himself from his Council, and to regard any question as Imperial instead of departmental, and as coming under his notice not as Secretary of State for India, but as a Member of the Cabinet. Under these circumstances he might, he said, deal with a question without consulting his Council. Now, it was notorious that the Council were unanimously against the amalgamation of the two armies, but the Secretary of State acted quite independently of them, and he did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman, according to his own theory of his position, could not equally ignore the Council on any other subject. With a view to fasten responsibility on one or other, it was obviously of the utmost importance to have certainty in the relations of the Council and the Secretary of State, so that the latter should not be at liberty at one moment to cast all the responsibility of the administration on that body, and at another to disregard it entirely.
  He had no doubt he would be met by the stock answer that he had chosen either the wrong manner or time to bring forward the question. He could only say that he did not ask for a Select Committee of his own nominees, or wish to have the case at all prejudged. He left it to the Government to nominate any Commissioners they chose to conduct the inquiry. He was supported in his Motion by high authority. As to the time, he might remind the House, that in 1858, during the discussion on the Bill which regulated the existing system of conducting the Government of India, the noble Lord at the head of the Government himself proposed a clause in Committee on that Bill to the effect that at the end of five years Parliament should not merely have the option of reconsidering the constitution of the Council, but should be bound to do so. Mr. Wilson, Lord Russell, the hon. Members for Birmingham, Coventry, and Sheffield, the noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn, Sir Erskine Perry, now a Member of that Council, and others, also contemplated a revision at the end of five years. The five years which the noble Viscount had in contemplation had just expired, and he thought that the revision might well take place without any reflection on Parliament or the Council, especially as the Bill had been passed in 1858 under circumstances of great political pressure.
  He had no fault to find with the Secre-

  781
  tary of State or his Council. He would not inquire whether there was any truth in the rumours that they did not agree very well. It was the system and not the personelle of the administration to which he objected. In fair weather it might perhaps work very well, but in a political tempest he believed it would be found altogether unmanageable. Whatever might have been the vices of the old system, the present included a much more ingenious and effectual contrivance for promoting delay and avoiding official responsibility. The Secretary of State could at any moment assume the position of an autocrat or a cypher, and the House and the public never knew until afterwards in which capacity he was acting. Moreover, it was a loss to Parliament that the members of the Council—men of tried experience and proved ability—should be expressly prohibited from seats in that House, and from contributing to the slender stock of information which the House of Commons possessed on the important questions which came before them relating to their Indian Empire. The system was one in which it was impossible to say, in case of emergency or difficulty, where responsibility was to be fixed. Whether a remedy was to be found by relieving the members of the Council from their duties altogether, or by giving them greater power, he did not pretend to decide. All he did was to ask the House and the Government to do that which the noble Lord at the head of the Ministry had declared that Parliament ought to do at that very time—namely, to take steps for having the constitution of the Council reconsidered and revised. The existing arrangement had been tried and found wanting, and he believed, that if continued, it would be productive of great calamities to India. He would therefore conclude by moving an Address to the Crown for the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire and report whether any and what alterations may be advantageously adopted in the Home Government of India, as constituted by the Act 21 & 22 Vict., c. 106.
  MR. BAZLEYsaid, he rose to second the Motion, which, he thought, if adopted, would be beneficial alike to India and to this country. He was not there to deny that benefit had accrued to India from the administration of the noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn, and likewise from the administration of the right hon. Gentleman the present Secretary of State; but, in the present condition of Lancashire, he thought
  782
  that some important change was necessary, by which the great and vast resources of India might be made to benefit both the people of India and the manufacturing districts of England. He did not expect the Indian Government to become growers of cotton for Lancashire, but he should be glad to see such changes introduced as would permit the Natives more freely to cultivate cotton and allow European capitalists to invest their money in the soil of India. If the improvements suggested and commenced by the noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn, when he was Minister for India, had been continued up to the present time, he was convinced that at least a portion of the calamity which had now befallen the manufacturing districts of this country would have been averted. He was, moreover, aware, that since the amalgamation which had taken place of the services of India, there were certain discrepancies to be reconciled which prevented that cordial action between the two services which was so exceedingly desirable. He hoped, therefore, that the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for India would take a favourable view of the proposal of his hon. Friend, and that if nothing could be done in the matter for the present year, the right hon. Gentleman would be prepared to submit to Parliament in the next Session some measure for the revision of their system of Indian Government.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, that She will be graciously pleased to issue a Commission to inquire and report whether any and what alterations may be advantageously adopted in the Home Government of India, as constituted by the Act 21 & 22 Vict., c. 106."—(Mr. Arthur Mills.)
  SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, he had no intention on that occasion, nor did he think it would be consonant with the wishes of the House to discuss those general questions connected with improvements in India to which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester had alluded. He had already stated, and might have to state again before the close of the Session, what had been done in that respect, and he was not aware that the Government of India had in any degree failed to perform their duty in developing the resources of the vast country under their rule. With regard to the main question before the House—namely, the constitution of the Home Government, he could only say that it had worked very well and harmoniously,

  783
  and that whatever had been done had been done with his entire approval, and with the approval also of a large majority of his Council. The only question on which any considerable difference of opinion had arisen was that of the sale of waste lands. Some members of the Council were not disposed to go as far as himself, but the House had been put in possession of their opinions as well as of his own; and as regarded the general administration of Indian affairs, he could freely state that the same course would have been pursued if he had been standing alone. The hon. Member for Taunton had said he might be asked why he had brought forward his Motion, and he (Sir Charles Wood) must confess that he thought the question was a very pertinent one. On ordinary occasions, when a Motion was made for inquiry, it was because the mover implied some censure on the administration which he wished to be investigated. But the hon. Member had distinctly stated that he had no fault to find with the manner in which the Council had discharged its duties, or with any measure which had been passed by the Secretary of State in Council. The only ground he had shown for his Motion was that certain opinions were expressed by different Members of that House in 1858, that the principle on which the Council was constituted ought to undergo revision at an early period. Now, without following the hon. Member further, he confessed that at the time he did not altogether concur in the proposal of the noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn; but he was bound to say that in the course of the four years, during which he had presided over the Council, he had every reason to be satisfied with the arrangement made by his noble Friend of the members of the Council, No better selection could have been made; and if he were obliged to reduce the Council tomorrow, he did not know whom he could strike off the list of members without disadvantage to the public service. He was glad to have that opportunity of publicly expressing the obligations under which he felt to those gentlemen, many of whom had been put into a somewhat difficult position, having been members of the old and independent court of directors, and having been suddenly transferred to a body in which they no longer enjoyed the same position. He willingly availed himself of that opportunity of expressing
  784
  publicly the obligations under which he felt to all the members of his Council for the cordial and harmonious manner in which they worked with him. Whatever doubts he had previously entertained as to the mode in which the Council might work had been entirely removed by the experience of the last four years; and, indeed, he was entirely satisfied on that subject.
  The hon. Member for Taunton had complained that he could not ascertain with whom responsibility rested. He had no hesitation in telling the hon. Gentleman that the responsibility rested with himself as Secretary of State for India. On that point nothing could be more explicit than the following remarks made by the noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn in May 1858:—
  "The Minister is to be surrounded by those who can bring long experience to bear on the questions submitted to their consideration, who can give the Minister the best advice, and supply him with the best materials on which to form his judgment; but, having the benefit of that advice and experience, he is bound to act on his own single and personal responsibility." [3 Hansard, cxlix. 2181–5]
  He had followed the example of his noble Friend in acting upon that principle, and there could not be the smallest doubt that the responsibility rested upon the Secretary of State, whether he took the advice of his Council or not. The hon. Member for Taunton had asserted that the Council was also intended as a protection to the Secretary of State against Parliamentary influence.
  MR. ARTHUR MILLSexplained, that what he had said was that the Council was intended as a protection against casual Parliamentary majorities.
  SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, he would then ask whether the hon. Member meant to say that the Secretary of State was to be precluded from bringing before Parliament any measure which he believed to be for the good not of India only, but of the whole Empire, simply because he might differ from his Council upon it. Was that the length to which the hon. Gentleman's remarks extended? He did not believe there was a man in the House except the hon. Gentleman, who would suppose that the discretion of any Member of Parliament could be so bound. The proposal for the amalgamation of the Indian army was not a mere Indian question, but an Imperial question. It had been approved by large majorities of that House; it had

  785
  succeeded to a great extent in its object. [Colonel SYKES: No.] Of course, he (Sir Charles Wood) did not expect his hon. and gallant Friend, a member of the old Indian army, to acknowledge its success; but in the opinion of almost every one it had improved the efficiency of the army and the economy of the system. It was therefore rather late to say that the Secretary of State ought to have been precluded from bringing it forward, because his Council differed from him in opinion. The hon. Gentleman went on to say that the House did not know what was going on, and was ignorant of the opinions of members of the Council. Did the hon. Gentleman wish that the discussions of the Council should be conducted in the presence of a shorthand-writer and reported to the world? There were, happily, few occasions, indeed, in which there had been a difference between the Secretary of State and the majority of the Council. Those occasions were only four in number in four years, and they occurred on the most trivial and unimportant matters. The Council had power to record their dissent from any decision taken by the Secretary of State, and that House could call, as it had called, for the production of the records of such dissent. Indeed, he did not know of any case in which any dissent had been recorded without that dissent having been called for and laid before Parliament. The hon. Member seemed to suppose that the Secretary of State and his Council were always quarrelling. Happily, that was not the fact, for he and the Council had acted in the most cordial manner. He felt very grateful to the Council. It would be impossible for him to go on without their assistance. There might be excellent Councils in Bengal, Madras, or Bombay, but it was in the Council of the Secretary of State for India alone that the knowledge and experience of different parts of India were concentrated. The Secretary of State, therefore, had, in respect to any general measure, better means of forming opinions and coming to a right conclusion than the Government of any single part of India possibly could have. He thought the measure of the noble Lord opposite was a very wise measure taken altogether. The noble Lord had made an admirable selection of members for that Council, and all vacancies in it had been filled up on the sole principle of choosing the very best men who could be found. For these reasons he objected to the hon. Gentleman's Motion for
  786
  inquiry, for which no good ground had been adduced, and which, if adopted, must seriously interrupt the course of business in the Department.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, that there was not a Member of the House who did not expect when the Council for India was proposed that the experienced men who were to assist with their advice would necessarily have weight with the Secretary of State, and that the result of their experience would be acted upon. The right hon. Gentleman had, however, given them an important instance in which that expectation had been falsified; for he had admitted that on a momentous question, the amalgamation of the Royal and Indian armies, affecting the interests of between 5,000 and 6,000 British officers, he had acted upon his own judgment, in direct opposition to the unanimous opinion of his fifteen experienced Councillors who were to be his guides and mentors. There was but one feeling of rankling discontent among those 5,000 or 6,000 officers whose professional prospects had been ruined by the amalgamation of the Indian army with the Imperial forces. ["No!"] He said, "Yes—a hundred times, yes." They had no security that the Secretary of State might not exercise a similar power on some great political question, which might lead, perhaps, not only to another mutiny, but to a great convulsion throughout India. The right hon. Gentleman had no knowledge or personal experience of India, and might act on the advice of individuals who were the last persons who should give him advice, and who might have personal interests, sympathies, or Parliamentary predilections, or religions fanaticism, all of which might influence him, and induce him to set aside the voice of his fifteen Councillors. The Council was in a most anomalous position. They had no power to call for the papers which might have come from India, and it depended upon the right hon. Gentleman whether they should obtain any information or not. His complaint was that his right hon. Friend, though nominally responsible to that House, was as complete a despot as Alexander, Darius, or any other autocrat who ever existed, for being a Member of a Government which ruled by commanding a majority of that House, its shield was necessarily thrown over him. No single individual ought to have such a power. The Council was no adequate check upon him. The case was very different with

  787
  the old Court of Directors of the East India Company. The directors were elected for four years; they then went out of office for one year that their conduct might be reviewed by the electors, who might return them again or not as they chose. They were almost invariably re-elected. Each member had the power of giving notice of his intention to bring forward a Motion on any subject whatever, precisely as was the case with every Member of the House of Commons. The India Council could do nothing of the kind. A discussion took place in the Court of Directors, the result was determined by ballot, and scores of times the Chairman, the Deputy Chairman, and those acting with them had been put into a minority. Reference was then made to the controlling power which could exercise a veto; but generally an understanding was come to highly beneficial to India. There was a Secret Committee, but it was confined entirely to political objects. They could not divulge the orders sent out, but they could record their individual objections; they frequently made those objections, and the orders sent out by the Board of Control, were sometimes in consequence modified. That was another safeguard which no longer existed. He spoke from nineteen years' experience as a Director, and having filled the office of Deputy Chairman and Chairman. What he wished was that there should be some increased power in the Council, such as he had described, that they should have power to call for any papers, to propose any Motion, and to decide on it by ballot or in open court; and if the Secretary of State took on himself the responsibility of opposing their resolutions, the House should have the opportunity of judging between the Secretary of State and his Council. He entirely concurred with his right hon. Friend (Sir Charles Wood) that a man of judgment, proper feeling, and courtesy would generally be guided by the friendly opinion of the ex-rienced men about him; but still a crotchety, wilful, despotic, corrupt person might be Secretary of State for India, and in that case the whole empire of India, with its 180,000,000 of people and its £40,000,000 of revenue, would be at his feet. He therefore thought some modifications between the Secretary of State and his counsel should be made, as a matter of safety, if nothing more.
  SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEsaid, he wished to see the Council of India
  788
  strengthened, and he was of opinion that they ought to have seats in Parliament. That would materially improve their position in the country, without weakening the just authority of the Secretary for India. He thought they ought also to be allowed to take the initiative in pressing matters on the attention of the Government. But he entertained great doubt whether the inquiry, if granted, would tend in that direction, and for that reason he hoped the Motion would not be pressed to a division. There could be no doubt that the Council was a weak body, and that the Secretary for India was all powerful. But, independently of that, he was a Member of the Government, and that gave additional weight to his opinions He thought too short a time had elapsed to enable the country to form a correct opinion as to the working of the Council. It was a matter of regret that the question of the amalgamation of the army had arisen so soon after the formation of the Council and the new system of Government. In that case the right hon. Gentleman had taken a rather strong measure. But his complaint in that case was not that the right hon. Gentleman had acted against the opinion of his Council, but that he had never consulted them at all; for, although it was an Imperial question, it was also an Indian question. He was bound to admit that in many respects the working of the Parliamentary Government of India had not been attended with some of the objections which he had anticipated. He also wished to bear his testimony to the noble manner in which the right hon. Gentleman, in spite of obloquy, had stood out for the rights of the people of India, and for that he deserved great credit. No sufficient case had been made out for any great change in the constitution of the Government of India.
  LORD STANLEYsaid, as it did not appear to be the desire of the House to prolong the discussion, he would say only a very few words on the subject. If, however, the hon. Gentleman who had introduced the question was disposed to press it to a division, he should not be able to divide with him. He thought there was great objection to an inquiry of the nature proposed. A Royal Commission was an excellent instrument for investigating questions involving a large and complicated mass of details, into which it could not be expected that Members of that House generally would take the trouble to inquire. In such a case no course could

  789
  be better than to appoint a Commission to collect evidence, to ascertain the facts, to sum them up briefly and clearly, and so to give the House the means of deciding, with full knowledge, as to what should be done. But the questions involved in the case before the House were questions not of detail, but of general policy, as, for instance, whether the Council ought to have any check or control over the finances of India, how its members were to be appointed, whether by nomination, by election, or by a mixture of both, what should be their tenure of office, what their number, and whether they ought to have seats in Parliament. All these were questions of general policy, to be argued upon grounds which were perfectly familiar to Members of the House, and they were questions upon which the House had already expressed a deliberate opinion. But his hon. Friend wanted to refer all these questions to be decided by a body of seven, eight, nine, or ten persons, whose names even he did not know, the appointment of whom was to be left to the Government, and who, if not wholly ignorant of the subject-matter of their inquiry, would probably go into it with more or less of bias. But that was not the way in which the position of the Council ought to be inquired into. His hon. Friend left undecided whether there ought, in his judgment, to be a Council or no Council, whether the existing Council was too weak or too strong; he did not tell the House what he complained of in that respect, or what he wanted to have done. All the questions which he raised would be fit subjects of debate in that House, if any hon. Member chose to bring them forward, and there was nothing to prevent any Member of that House, if they thought their former decision wrong, from proposing to reverse it. The only complaints which his hon. Friend had made were of delay and divided responsibility. But it was clear, according to the constitution of the Government of India, that the responsibility of the Secretary of State was complete and undivided, with this one sole exception, that if he proposed a grant of money, and the Council, in the exercise of the power in their hands, refused it, he had only to state this circumstance and the responsibility fell from him upon the shoulders of the Council. He was rather surprised to hear his hon. Friend speak of delay, because he ought to have recollected that under the old system perpetual correspondence was going on between the Indian Government
  790
  and the Board of Control, a correspondence which descended into the minutest particulars, led to a ridiculous amount of verbal criticism, and wasted a great deal of time. Whatever of good or harm might have been done by the change which had been made, this one fact was certain—that a greater amount of speed was attained in the despatch of business under the new system than ever could be arrived at before. The decisions come to might be better or worse, that was matter of opinion, but that they were more expeditious was matter of fact, capable of proof. There remained only the question whether it would be of advantage that some of the members of the Council should have seats in that House. That was a point upon which a great deal might be said upon both sides. There was great force in what was said as to the advantage of having in the House men with special experience on Indian subjects. But, the objections on the other side were strong. The Council were the confidential advisers of the Minister, chosen for their knowledge of Indian affairs, and not from party motives; they were necessarily conversant with everything that passed in the India Office, and there would be extreme inconvenience if a Minister were to be exposed to Parliamentary criticism from gentlemen holding such positions, speaking from official knowledge, and possibly using that knowledge for the party purpose of an opposition. He did not think that the two positions of confidential adviser and Parliamentary critic were reconcilable. He was bound to say that the inconvenience to which he referred had to a great extent been avoided by the moderation and good sense of the old Directors who had seats in Parliament; but the difficulty must have been felt more or less; and when the remodelling of the system was proposed, the House determined by a large majority, upon a review of the whole question, that the members of Council should not have seats in the House. He had only, in conclusion, to repeat, that if his hon. Friend had any complaints to make, he ought to bring them at once before the House, and they should be ready to discuss the matter. There was no reason why the arrangement of 1858 should be considered final, but he (Lord Stanley) did not think it necessary to unsettle that arrangement by referring the question to a number of gentlemen of whom the House knew nothing, and pledging themselves as they would be pledged

  791
  to abide by the decision to which those gentlemen might come.
  MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he hoped, after the speeches of the noble Lord and the hon. Baronet (Sir T. E. Colebrooke), the hon. Member would not press his Motion. Many of the suggestions made by his hon. Friend seemed, no doubt, as if they would be improvements; but he entirely agreed with the hon. Member for Lanarkshire, after an experience of five years, that the improvements in the Government of India were manifest to all, and that the natives of India themselves felt increased confidence in the justice which they obtained from that House. He (Mr. Kinnaird) wished to join in the well-deserved tribute which had been paid to the right hon. Gentleman for the discretion and wisdom he had shown in his administration of the affairs of India.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, there were circumstances in the position of the Council which might render discussion advisable, and he believed that the discussion which had taken place was calculated to do good. Any real check upon Government must be exercised by a well-considered opposition in that House; and an impression appeared to prevail in India that there was no opposition to the Indian Government. He, for one, thought that the present system of Government had worked better than could have been anticipated. He was one of those who supported a Motion for allowing some of the Indian Council to have seats in that House—a Motion which was supported by Earl Russell and a large minority; but he owned, on reflection, that he thought the House came to a right decision in rejecting the Motion. It would not be a seemly thing to have the Secretary of State for India opposed in that House by his confidential advisers. In other matters the House ought to use all the weight of its authority in favour of the Council; and where the Councillors dissented, the record of the dissent should come before the House. He should like to know whether the Secretary of State, when he differed from the Council, recorded the reasons on which his dissent was founded. He quite concurred in the remark that a Commission would not be desirable, and that the House could deal with questions as they were raised, and introduce such Amendments of the system as might be deemed advisable.
  SIR CHARLES WOODwas understood to say that the Secretaries of State and
  792
  the Members of the Council were precisely on the same footing, and that either might record their dissent if they liked.
  MR. ARTHUR MILLSsaid, that he would not press his Motion, but he wished to observe, as his proposition had been so much criticised by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for India, that in suggesting a revision of the present arrangement, with regard to the unsatisfactory nature of which his opinion remained unaltered, he had only done what had been suggested by the noble Lord at the bead of the Government in 1858.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

ARMY PRIZE PROPERTY.

  COMMISSION MOVED FOR.
  COLONEL NORTHsaid, he rose to move an humble Address to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to issue a Royal Commission to inquire into the realization of army prize property, and its mode of distribution, and into the cause of the extraordinary delays: which bad, in most cases, occurred in its distribution to the captors, with a view to a remedy for the same. As the case was one which was free from party considerations, he felt some hope that he should carry with him the support of the House. He needed not to say that he did not pretend to interfere with the prerogative of the Crown to give or withhold prize property; but his desire was to have some rules or regulations established, which should come into operation when the Royal prerogative ceased. His attention had been drawn to the subject by the universal dissatisfaction which pervaded the army, both officers and men, who had taken part in those glorious campaigns, which resulted, owing to the gracious consideration of the Sovereign, in their right to receive prize money. What they complained of, was not only the small amount received, but the immense length of time which elapsed between the time of the capture and the period when the money was distributed to the captors. He had endeavoured to make himself master of the details, but considerable mystery appeared to exist on the subject. He naturally applied in the first instance to Chelsea Hospital for information, but the answer he received was, that that establishment was only the depository of unclaimed or forfeited shares after distribution was made. Without wearying the House by a reference

  793
  to very distant campaigns, and confining himself only to campaigns with which they were all conversant, and almost all of which had occurred in India, he should be able to show that most unreasonable delays had occurred in the distribution of prize money. He had moved for a Return of army prize money granted, stating the name and date of capture, and the date when the distribution in India was authorized in general orders. The first on the list was the Isle of France, and the date of the capture was 1810, while the first award for prize money took place on the 2nd of February 1819. But not to go so far back, he would refer to the Burmese war in the years 1824, 1825, and 1826; and he found that the order for the first payment of prize money was dated December 19, 1836, or just ten years after the war was closed. In July 1839 the capture of Ghuznee took place; but no prize money was distributed until March 17, 1848, or nine years after the event. Then came the case of Khelat, in November 1839, and six years elapsed before the prize money was paid. With regard to Pegu, the contest terminated in 1853, but the prize money was not paid until March 1863, after a delay of ten years, and he understood that the prize money to each private soldier only amount ed to about a couple of rupees. No one, then, could be surprised that the soldiers were disgusted at the treatment they experienced in the matter. From a Return it appeared that the amount of cash, arising from forfeited and unclaimed prize money, was no less than upwards of £1,100,000; and what he particularly objected to, on examining that Return, was to find that a considerable sum, arising from soldiers' prize money, had been expended on the purchase of land near Chelsea Hospital, and in opposing a proposed railway through the ground. No less a sum than £40,000 had been paid to Commissioners, in virtue of an Act of Parliament, for the purpose of purchasing a site for the Royal Military Asylum, and for improving that site. In 1854, it was brought under the notice of the House that 120 boys had been turned out of Chelsea Hospital in order that schoolmasters for the army might occupy their apartments. The House would not hear of such an arrangement, and the boys were Bent back to the Hospital again; but it now turned out that a very large sum had been taken from the soldiers' prize money to erect a building for those army schoolmasters. Those sums,
  794
  instead of being in the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, ought to be placed in the hands of the Commander of the Forces, the Secretary of State for War, and the Paymaster General, to be laid out for the benefit of the army. Last year, they asked for a Vote of £2,000 only, to provide means of recreation for the soldier in camp and barracks, and after fighting for it like dogs over a bone, they only carried it by a small majority. When money was required for any similar purpose, the officers were obliged to go to their private friends cap in hand, and solicit their contributions. In the capture of places where there was rich booty, officers had to depend on the honour of the soldiers. At Delhi the soldiers could have carried away valuable jewels; but on the call of their officers, who stated that the value of them would be given as prize, they gave up costly necklaces and other articles of great value. That being the case, it was to be regretted that the sum received by the men as their share of the Delhi prize money was so miserable as to cause great dissatisfaction. The House and the country ought to remember a dictum of the Duke of Wellington, to the effect that we should not only treat the soldier with justice, but make him understand that we did so. He felt assured that the matter could not be in better hands than those of the noble Viscount at the head of the Government; and his reason for moving for a Royal Commission was, that it would enable the noble Lord to select those who, from their services, their ability, and their name, would be qualified for the task and ensure the confidence of the army. The hon. and gallant Gentleman concluded by moving—
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, that She will be graciously pleased to issue a Royal Commission to inquire into the realization of Army Prize Property and its mode of distribution, and to inquire into the cause of the extraordinary delays which have, in most cases, occurred in its distribution to the Captors, with a view to a remedy for the same."
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, I rise to state to the hon. and gallant Officer and the House that Her Majesty's Government have no objection whatever to urge against the Motion which he has made. And, in fact, I am quite of the same opinion with him, that an inquiry into the matter may be attended with advantageous results to both the army and navy. I should suggest to him to leave out one word—the word

  795
  "extraordinary." I am afraid that word does not represent the fact, for the delays are "ordinary" and not "extraordinary." Besides, the word implies censure, and we want inquiry, and not to prejudge the matter. There can be no doubt that a length of time always elapses between military and naval operations and the distribution of the prize money that arises from them. That is a very great evil. I have often inquired about it, and I have always been told that there are things to be done which require time. Especially when ships or regiments are abroad you require accurate Returns, and there are difficulties in getting them as well as in procuring other particulars; but I cannot help thinking, with the hon. and gallant Officer, that a thorough investigation into these circumstances will tend to, at all events, a great abridgement of the delays which now take place. Those delays are a great evil to the parties whose rights they ultimately establish; because, when ten years elapse—as in the case mentioned by the hon. and gallant Officer—men get dispersed, men die, and men who by their own valour and achievements have established a claim to booty do not receive it. Some die; and then their families have to establish their rights as inheriting from the soldiers themselves; but it very often happens—I believe more frequently in the navy than in the army—that men who have claims are tempted by an immediate offer to sell their chances by anticipation for a small and inconsiderable sum. In that case the parties who receive the prize money are mere speculators, and not the parties who were originally entitled to it. I shall have great pleasure in concurring in the Motion of the hon. and gallant Officer; and I assure him that in the composition of the Commission we will take care that it shall contain within itself those elements of experience, information, and authority which will render its recommendations satisfactory to the army and navy, as well as to the country.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he was glad to have to congratulate his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel North) on the success which had attended his Motion; at the same time, he should have been pleased if its terms had been carried somewhat further. As the noble Viscount had consented to the issue of a Royal Commission, he would suggest whether it might not be possible to assign to the Commission the task of investigating some other
  796
  grievances which had not been touched on in the speech of his hon. and gallant Friend. He thought it would be well to refer to the Commission an inquiry as to whether some proper mode or proper practice could not be adopted for ascertaining who the parties were that were entitled to booty which had to be divided among several claimants. In the distribution of prize money there was a great difference existing between the practices which prevailed in the army and navy respectively. In the navy there was a properly constituted Court to which disputes in respect of prize money were carried, which Court, by decisions extending over a period of more than a century, had established a regular code of laws. In the case of the army there was no such regular tribunal; and the consequence was, that whereas the only questions to be considered with regard to the navy were whether the prize was a good one, and how soon the money could be given, a third point had to be determined respecting the army—namely, what portions of the army were entitled to share. That uncertainty and difficulty had given rise to endless discussions and disputes. For example, in the case of the Deccan prize money, which was captured by an army under Sir Thomas Hislop, when the Marquess of Hastings was Commander-in-Chief of India, a question arose whether the Marquess of Hastings was entitled to a considerable share, and there were two large quarto volumes of papers on the subject. The Treasury then endeavoured to settle the question by some legal or semilegal proceedings; they heard council and took the opinion of their own Law Officers, afterwards disposing of it in the best way they could. Owing to that and to similar difficulties, an Act was passed at the beginning of the present reign for altering some of the functions of the High Court of Admiralty, and in that Act a clause was inserted providing that in any disputed cases of prize Her Majesty should be empowered to refer to the High Court of Admiralty questions affecting the army, just as those relating to naval prizes. If that clause had been acted on, as it should have been, it would have solved all the difficulties which had arisen. But it had never been so acted on, and the result was that among those interested much dissatisfaction, and some suspicion of undue influence, prevailed as to the present mode of determining these disputed questions. For himself, he disclaimed any in-

  797
  tention of imputing undue influence, but he was very much struck with the inconvenience and mischief attending the sort of discussion that went on in cases of the kind, and he wished to refer the matter to the Commission, that they might see whether it was not possible to devise a remedy in such cases. The case of the Banda and Kirwee prize money was one in point, and though he would not enter into the merits of the question, inasmuch as he had given notice that he would bring it under the attention of the House, he wished to mention it in connection with the present discussion. It arose out of the claims of Sir George Whitlock's force, which marched from Madras during the Indian mutiny, and of the force under Sir Hugh Rose, which marched from Bombay. Both forces had behaved most gallantly in Central India, and that of Sir George Whitlock, by the capture of two places called Banda and Kirwee, obtained a considerable booty. The force under Sir Hugh Rose was also engaged in several severe actions, but at the time of the capture of those two places was 250 miles distant. Sir George Whitlock's force, as the actual captors, claimed the whole of the prize money, and sent in a claim to that effect to the Treasury, fortified by counsels' opinions. They were ultimately informed that the matter had been referred to Lord Clyde, who had drawn up a memorandum on the subject. For some time they were unable to obtain a sight of the memorandum, but, at last they were told that the Government had decided against their claim; and as that decision was founded upon Lord Clyde's memorandum, it would be desirable that they should see the grounds on which the decision rested. Now, without entering into the merits of the case—[Viscount PALMERSTON: You have entered into them]—he contended that the claimants in that case should have their claim decided according to certain rules of evidence and certain principles of law, instead of being left to the discretion of the Treasury. They had reason to know that the opinions of the legal advisers of the Crown were favourable to them; and all he asked was that the Government, having taken those opinions, should either act upon them or should do what was done in the case of the Deccan prize money—hear counsel, or refer the matter, as they had the power to do, to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, or to the High Court of Admiralty. In distributing prize money care should be taken to satisfy the
  798
  soldier's sense of justice. Some years ago the noble Lord, in speaking of the China prize money, said that if a soldier thought he had a fair claim to prize money, he naturally felt aggrieved unless some satisfactory steps were taken to test the question. And that was his contention—that a fair hearing should be afforded where those claims existed, and that the soldier should not be left to feel that he had a grievance. It was his intention, when the proper time came, to move a Resolution on the subject, and he promised the House that he would then detain them with very few remarks.
  SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, he did not mean to dissent from the proposal of the hon. Gentleman that the case to which he referred should be considered by the Commission. He thought, however, he had reason to complain that the hon. Gentleman had not fulfilled the promise he made on rising, that he would not go into the merits of the question, and that he had impugned the conduct of his noble Friend after he had spoken, and when he had therefore no opportunity of replying. The hon. Gentleman had a Motion on the paper with regard to the Banda and Kirwee prize money, and he should have reserved his remarks on that subject till the House came to it. He did not think that the conduct of the hon. Gentleman was either consonant with the practice of the House or fair towards his noble Friend.
  Motion amended, and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to issue a Commission to inquire into the realization of Army Prize Property and its mode of distribution, and into the cause of the delays which have, in most cases, occurred in its distribution to the Captors, with a view to a remedy for the same.—(Colonel North.)

FIRE INSURANCES.—RESOLUTION.
MR. H. B. SHERIDAN, in calling the attention of the House to the question of the fire insurance duty, said, he regretted that circumstances over which he had no control had prevented him from bringing it on, as he had intended, at an earlier period of the Session. Several Petitions had been presented to the House from chambers of commerce in reference to the subject, and he had received a great many letters, asking him how it was the question had been so long delayed. He would answer that question in this way:—Private Members

799
had only one night in the week out of the six—namely, Tuesday in each week—for the discussion of those questions which in their opinion required consideration; and the fact was, that after deducting a week or two at the beginning, and a week or two at the end of the Session, there were not above ten or twelve Tuesdays available for Motions. Early in the Session he fixed on one of these Tuesdays, understanding that it was an open day, but he never was more miserably deceived. That was the day appointed for the marriage of the Prince of Wales, and the House did not sit on that day. He put his notice down for another day, when he was induced to postpone it because, it being St. Patrick's night, many Irish Members who would have supported him were engaged elsewhere. Upon the next occasion be was again unfortunate, the House adjourning immediately in consequence of the lamented death of a distinguished Member of the Cabinet. He fixed upon another day, when his notice stood second, but the preceding Motion—that of the hon. Member for Berkshire upon education—occupied the whole evening, and again upon the last day for which he gave notice, and when he again stood second, the entire evening was occupied with a discussion upon the first Motion—one relating to the condition of Ireland. He did not propose to ask leave to introduce a Bill, believing that at that period of the Session no private Member could hope to interfere with the arrangements of the Government respecting the surplus of revenue which they possessed. He therefore only proposed to submit a Resolution conceived in such moderate terms that he could not understand upon what grounds the Chancellor of the Exchequer could object to it. As, however, he feared he could not expect the cordial acquiescence of the right hon. Gentleman, he would give a few arguments in support of his proposition. He would, in the first place, remind the House that last Session he obtained leave to introduce a Bill to reduce the duty on fire insurance. That Bill was read a first time, but he did not press it, because he took the vote of the House to imply rather a recognition of the policy of the principle of reduction than the empowering a private Member to interfere with the financial arrangements of the Government. But that Vote was an encouragement to him to propose a Resolution—
"That in the opinion of this House the duty now chargeable upon fire insurances is excessive
800
in amount, that it prevents insurance, and should be reduced at the earliest opportunity."
He submitted that Resolution because he believed that a reduction of this duty would benefit the revenue by bringing into the area of insurance a vast amount of property that was not then insured, and also because the present high rate of duty interfered with the prudent insurance of national property. The revenue derived from fire insurances was £1,600,000, representing £10,007,000,000 of insurable property. He proposed to reduce the duty, then 3s. per cent, by 1s. for five years, at the expiration of that period to reduce it by another shilling, leaving the ultimate duty 1s. per cent. Although he believed any duty upon fire insurance was impolitic, he did not propose to go further. Neither did he limit the proposal to any particular amount of premium. He had said that he believed the reduction he proposed would really augment the revenue derived from that source. The natural increase of the revenue for duty upon fire insurances was £50,000 a year, which was supposed to represent the annual increase of the national wealth, but to which in reality it bore a very small proportion. But, adding to that yearly increase the increase of £100,000 a year that might reasonably be expected to flow from a reduction of the amount of duty, there would be £150,000 a year to compensate for any immediate loss the revenue might sustain from a reduction of the duty. Taking the increase of £150,000 annually for five years, it was clear that at the expiration of that period the first loss of £530,000, consequent upon a reduction, would be far more than made up. Besides, even if that were not so, an experiment or two less in art and science, or at Woolwich, would enable the Government to concede a boon which the country had been anxious to obtain for years. He had consulted some of the most eminent actuaries and statists in the kingdom, and they considered that £100,000 a year was the minimum which the Chancellor of the Exchequer might expect from a reduction of the duty by one-third. But if the reduction should be greater, the boon which would be given to the country would be of such a character as would more than compensate the right hon. Gentleman for the small ad valorem loss which the revenue might sustain. A new feature had been added to the question since it was last discussed. In 1856 the Government actually employed counsel to defend the insurance duty, and the gentleman they

801
selected for that purpose was Mr. Coode. He should be content to leave Mr. Coode's blue-book, however, to the statistical and scientific societies, who dealt very severely with it when it appeared. He need only refer to the very talented and conclusive arguments of Mr. Samuel Brown, which were supposed to have cut to pieces the reasoning of Mr. Coode, and the House had also expressed its opinion of it by the support which it had given to his Motion. But, nevertheless, a revised edition of it was published during the Easter holidays, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had cited it as an authority on the subject. Mr. Coode asserted that property to the amount of 400 millions was not insured, because, as he said, the insurance offices were disinclined to receive small sums of money on account of the stamp duty imposed by Government. Now, in point of fact, the companies did not charge the stamp duty in certain cases; but if, as Mr. Coode alleged, a tax of 6d. prevented insurances, was it not reasonable to suppose that a Government tax of 200 per cent upon the premium itself would have the same effect? Another statement made by Mr. Coode was that the insurable property of the country was exhausted, and, that consequently, no hope need be entertained of an increase to the revenue from that source. He estimated the insurable property at £1,141,000,000, but he omitted from his calculations the whole of Scotland and the whole of Ireland, all our ships and our cargoes, all our railways, all the tools of industry, and all the machinery with which we carried on our mercantile and commercial transactions. In France all the railways were insured, and he believed that the railway property in this country might be valued at £600,000,000. He estimated all the various descriptions of property which Mr. Coode excluded as amounting to £1,500,000,000. Mr. Coode argued, that as it was proved that the average amount of the property lost in cases of fire did not exceed one-third of the amount insured, a prudent man would not insure for more than one-third of his property. It was, however, absurd to suppose that in individual cases men would insure only one-third of the insurable property they possessed merely because by the law of averages that was found to be the proportionate amount actually destroyed taking the whole of the losses by fire throughout the country. But upon Mr. Coode's figures alone he maintained that
802
there would be a sufficient return to the revenue to make up for any reduction of duty which the adoption of his Resolution might involve. Mr. Coode had said a great deal about agricultural insurances; and, indeed, the reply of the Chancellor of the Exchequer last year turned principally upon that point. The right hon. Gentleman argued that the farmers had not adequately responded to the liberal manner in which they had been treated. But Mr. Coode's own figures should answer the right hon. Gentleman. From 1835 to 1846, while other insurances had increased 25·2 per cent. agricultural insurances had increased 28 and 1–6th per cent. In May 1850 the offices raised their charges, and the agricultural insurances immediately fell. In December 1853 they reduced them again, and the insurances rose. Mr. Coode argued that the duty was a tax not upon prudence, but upon property, because it could not be said that insurance added to the general wealth of the country. Surely, however, to insure was an act of prudence with reference to the individual, and in that sense at least the tax fell upon prudence. Mr. Coode had discovered that the tax was not only wise, but deserved support; and that its effect was not to discourage insurance. Mr. Coode said that the profits of the companies were 50 per cent of the premiums; but if that was so, it followed that the Government tax was really one of 400 per cent upon the cost price of insurance. If assurance companies were nothing but so many nests of swindlers, what must be said of the Government, who insisted on being partners in every transaction? For every £100 taken by an insurance company, the Government took £800 as its share of the swindle. That was the sum and substance of Mr. Coode's conclusions. He therefore thought it would be a waste of time to follow his argument further. Mr. Coode was not an actuary, a statist, or a financier; he had nothing to do with chambers of commerce or the great commercial body. He had been retained to defend the duty, and he had done so to the best of his power. Mr. Coode relied on theory, and the Government relied on Mr. Coode. It had been said that a scruple of fact outweighed a pound of theory; and he relied on the evidence of practical men. There were 100 Petitions presented to that House from corporations, all urging the reduction of the duty on the ground that it would in-

803
crease the revenue. There were 17 from chambers of commerce and the associated chambers of commerce, 100 Petitions from inhabitants of towns and cities, 130 from village societies, and 100 from miscellaneous places, all numerously signed. In fact, there was no other fiscal subject on which so many Petitions had been presented during the Session, as for the reduction of the duty on fire insurances. Then, if he took the opinions of the great thinkers on statistical subjects, he might quote Mr. Leoni Levi, Mr. Porter, The Times, and Mr. Newmarch, who stated that the duty on fire insurance was a duty against fire insurance, and to that he attributed the fact that about 80 per cent of the insurable property was uninsured. In addition, he (Mr. Sheridan) had scores of private letters showing how the tax operated in preventing insurances. One letter, from a gentleman who acted in the country as agent for a first-class insurance company, stated that he found the farmers almost universally insured their farming stock, but almost as universally refrained from insuring their household property, on account of the duty. He might, in addition to these letters, quote Mr. Sharman's very able pamphlet to show how seriously the amount of the duty operated in restricting fire insurance and the benefits which might be expected to result from a reduction of the duty. In the year 1862 the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself admitted that the reduction of duty would produce an increase of insurance. Despite all that the right hon. Gentleman had said to the contrary, he maintained that the duty operated as a punishment or fine of 200 per cent upon all those who insured. The Government did nothing for the tax. Not only did it offer the insurance offices no guarantee whatsoever in return for it, but it even took no part and rendered them no assistance in the extinction of fires. The Resolution which he asked the House to adopt was only a re-affirmation of that to which it came last year, when it gave him leave to introduce a Bill upon this subject. The right hon. Gentleman might say that its adoption would amount to a declaration that the tax was the first that ought to be repealed, and might dwell upon the inconvenience of such a declaration. For his part, he could see no inconvenience in the adoption of such a course, because there was no tax of which the incidence was more unfair or the abolition or reduction of which was more nesessary. He did
804
not desire to re-impose the tax on farming stock, although Mr. Coode appeared to favour such a course; and he warned hon. Members that if Motions like his were defeated, the Government might be inclined to take that step. He believed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was in his own mind sensible of the objection to this duty, and he hoped that he would not oppose the Resolution. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving—
"That, in the opinion of this House, the Duty now chargeable upon Fire Insurances is excessive in amount, that it prevents Insurance, and should be reduced at the earliest opportunity."
MR. COXseconded the Motion.
MR. HUBBARDsaid, he had hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have thought fit to say a few words in answer to the Motion of the hon. Member for Dudley, the more so since a Report on Fire Insurance Duties by Mr. George Coode, prepared by order of the Government, had been circulated to the Members of both Houses; and he was anxious to learn whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer did or did not adopt its facts, arguments, and general reasoning. If he did not, he should like to know why the Report had been circulated. If he did, its contents must be considered, not as the work of a private individual, but as a State paper. He should apply himself to those arguments in the Report bearing directly upon the question in the order in which they arose. One of the complaints against the present fire insurance duty was the large proportion that it bore to the property insured. How did Mr. Coode meet that complaint? Why, thus—"No house is wholly destructible by fire," said Mr. Coode; few properties are insured to their full value; and assuming two-thirds only to be insured, the duty of 3s. per £100 amounts to the insignificant tax of 1s. per £1,000; and then, concluded Mr. Coode, "it is a tax that can be condemned only in common with alt other taxes on permanent property."
Now, it ought to be obvious to every one that the complaint referred to the pressure of the tax upon the property insured, and not to the proportion it bore to property uninsured. The duty on property worth £100 fully insured is 3s.; but the 3s is an annual tax, and the proportion between the tax and the property is shown by the investment of which the annual interest would provide the annual tax. The sum of £4 13 s. invested in Consols at the present price would yield an interest of 3s.; so that

805
£4 13 s. per £100, or nearly 1–20th part, is the proportion of any insured property absorbed by the tax. And then this tax—this property tax, as Mr. Coode calls it—on what property does it fall? An equitable property tax should fall on all property; but this can fall only on insurable property, and does not fall equally on that; it falls on property which the owner could only lose to his inconvenience or ruin; it does not fall on the property of the rich. The lord of half a county, the proprietor of a whole town parish, becomes his own insurer, he need not insure; he altogether escapes this novel property tax, which takes the twentieth part of the possession of his poor neighbour. Again, the magnitude of the tax in comparison with the premium paid for the risk insured against is a complaint. What is Mr. Coode's defence? "You complain," says Mr. Coode, "that the 3s. duty is double the 1s. 6d., which you assume to be the natural cost price of the insurance." But you are quite mistaken; the natural cost price is infinitely less than you imagine—half of the premium is required to meet fraudulent and dishonest claims—a quarter more is taken for the profit of the insurance office; and, in fact, "the premium is at least four times the natural cost of the insurance." He (Mr. Hubbard) had never heard that the business of fire insurance was a monopoly, and the insurers are satisfied to consider the risk balanced by the charge of the insurance office; but how does this argument affect the complaint Mr. Coode is answering? Why, in this remarkable manner—that, upon Mr. Coode's own evidence, the cost "price of the ordinary risks" should be not 1s. 6d. but 4½d., and that the duty of 3s. enacted by the State, in proportion to the risk, is not as 2 to 1, but as 8 to 1. Mr. Coode is not satisfied to treat this question in a dry fiscal view—he raises an important moral consideration; he charges the present practice of fire insurance as being one "which for every shilling paid to an honest insurer gives another to reward fraud or arson—another shilling to tempt or reward those who practise the most alarming and destructive of all crimes." If this were so, the Government should not let the scrutiny stop there—they should take steps for the repression of a system so full of danger to property and life; and he would add, they should abstain meanwhile from any participation in gains from such an immoral source. Another objection
806
to a heavy duty on fire insurance is that it becomes a tax on prudence.
"The objection," replies Mr. Coode, "is in truth merely rhetorical. It is of the very nature of taxation that it must be mainly derived from the exertion of all the moral and physical excellences productive of wealth; for industry, enterprise, fortitude, temperance, and prudence are the main producers of revenue, public and private. We have no alternative but, in the same rhetorical sense, to continue to tax 'prudence' and all the other productive, frugal, and profitable habits of men."
Without stopping to inquire whether a tax on spirits and tobacco would be classed by Mr. Coode with taxes on prudence, he (Mr. Hubbard) might at once point out that Mr. Coode wholly misunderstands or wholly misrepresents the argument. He ignores the influence of the tax upon the taxpayer, and looks only at the taxpayer's property. Doubtless prudence and industry are the producers of the taxpayer's property, which may be taken either by the income tax or the insurance tax; but while one tax shared the products of his prudence, the other prohibits acts of prudence. The complaint against the insurance duty is, not that it taxes the products, but that it taxes the exercise of prudence.
The last of Mr. Coode's arguments which he would notice is one which its author considers conclusive evidence against any reduction of the duty—
"Commencing with 1834," writes Mr. Coode, "the value of farming stock insured was thirty-seven and a quarter millions sterling; in 1862 it had risen to sixty-fire and a half millions; but in 1834 property subject to duty was insured to the amount of four hundred and eighty-three millions, and in 1862 the amount had increased to one thousand and seven millions."
Thus showing an increase in farming stock of 76 per cent, and on other property of 108 per cent. So that while agricultural "property, exempt from tax, has increased only at the yearly rate of 2·7, all other insurances without bounty or exemption have advanced nearly three times as fast, at the yearly rate of 7·3 per cent." There is great arithmetical inaccuracy in this statement. The amount of taxed insurances in 1862 was not 1,007 millions, but 941 millions, and the real results are these—that between 1834 and 1862 the insurance of farming stock increased 76 per cent, or 2·7 annually, and the insurance of other property increased 96 per cent, or 3½ per cent annually. But taking these rectified results, did they truthfully exhibit the relative progress in insurances of taxed or untaxed property?

807
Nothing of the sort. It had been said that few things were more fallacious than figures, and he would show to the House that this statement of Mr. Coode's was an arithmetical fraud. If they were told that Bath was vastly inferior to Brighton in sanitary intelligence, for that in Bath vaccination had increased only 10 per cent in fifteen years, while in Brighton it had increased 100 per cent, they might accept the facts, and believe the assertion. But they would find they had been egregiously misled when they discovered that during the period in question the population of Bath had been stationary, while that of Brighton had doubled. And so with regard to the argument of Mr. Coode—he told them what was the positive increase of insured property of either kind, but he omitted to state what were the respective areas from which the increase arose. He (Mr. Hubbard) would supply the omission. In 1834 the population was 17,000,000; in 1862 it was 23,500,000. In 1834 the population consume 17,000,000 quarters of corn, of which 1,000,000 were imported and 16,000,000 home grown. In 1862 the consumption of corn was 23,500,000, of which 7,500,000 were imported, leaving, as before, 16,000,000 as provided from our home growth. Judging from these figures—and he had taken an average of the five years' importations in order to be more accurate—it would seem that the increase in value of farming stock must have been very small. But he would apply another and a more definite test. In 1453 the value of lands assessed to the Property Tax was £40,167,000, and in 1860 it was £42,940,000, showing an increase of £2,773,000, equal to 7 per cent, or at the rate of ·375 (less than one-half per cent) per annum. In 1843 "Houses" (representing taxable insurable property) were assessed at £35,556,000, and in 1860 at £48,779,000, showing an increase of £13,223,000, equal to 37 per cent, or at the rate of 2·061 per annum. The proportional increase in property taxable if insured had therefore been more than five times as rapid as that of property exempt from taxation if insured; and combining in the computation the increased insurable value and the increased value insured of either class, it will be found that since 1834 the proportional increase in exempt agricultural insurance has been four-fold as rapid as in other insurances subject to the tax. So much for the irresistible facts and logic
808
of Mr. Coode; and here he might leave this "Revised Report on Fire Insurance Duties"—a tissue of mystification and deception, "presented to both Houses of Parliament" by Her Majesty's Government; but he could not resist the challenge thrown out in the last page of this official document for the proposal of "any other tax as productive, as little burdensome, to industry or property, and as little annoying in collection;" and he therefore would suggest a means by which some £300,000 might be gained to the country, at a moderate cost of collection, and without any sensible obstruction to our commerce. He meant an export duty upon iron. Our export of iron is about 1,400,000 tons, of the value of £12,000,000; and on this quantity a duty of 5s. per ton would yield £350,000. Such a duty would be paid wholly by the foreign consumer; for no foreign iron could approach British iron in the way of competition; and as the price of bar iron had varied over a period of ten years from £5 to £10 a ton without materially affecting the amount exported, it might safely he assumed that an export charge of 5s. a ton would not diminish the foreign demand. We were unfortunately precluded by the French Treaty from levying an export duty on coal for six years to come, but we were still at liberty to turn to the advantage of the national revenue our special and unrivalled capacity for the production of iron. This, however, by the way: for, to return to the question before the House, no inducement but its own demerits, need be pleaded in favour of a reduction of the fire insurance duty. He trusted the House would not hesitate to express its opinion upon that question, for at this period of the Session such an opinion could not embarrass or obstruct the measures of the Government. His hon. Friend (Mr. H. B. Sheridan) had wisely submitted the question to the House in the shape of a Resolution, and the House by affirming that Resolution would, in the most convenient form, furnish the Government with an instruction to be followed by the Finance Minister who might prepare the Budget of 1864.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: There are two subjects, one of which is I think before the House, while the other has formed the staple of the remarks which have been made in this debate. The speeches of my hon. Friends have entirely turned upon the merits of

809
the fire insurance duty—but that is not the real question before the House. The question before the House is whether the Resolution proposed by the hon. Member is a Resolution proper to be adopted. On the merits of the fire insurance duty itself, if I say anything, it is that I may not be supposed to concur in all the exaggerated statements which have been made by the hon. Gentlemen who have addressed the House. The hon. Mover of the Resolution states that an admission has been made by me which places me upon his side—namely, that the reduction of a duty of this nature would, in all probability, as in most other cases of a reduction of an indirect tax, be followed by increased consumption. I do not deny that at all, or that there is much to be said, under different circumstances and at a proper season, in favour of the repeal or diminution of this duty, in competition with other duties. But I am sorry my hon. Friend proposes an abstract Resolution in condemnation of this particular duty. The hon. Gentleman's estimates are some of them so positively astounding, that I could hardly credit my cars when I heard them. It was with considerable misgiving, and after much investigation, lest there might be any error in the figures, that I ventured to give an estimate of the increased wealth of the country. But my computations are not only modest and humble, but absolutely contemptible by the side of those of the hon. Gentleman. A thousand millions sterling a year is the hon. Member's computation of the augmentation of the wealth of this country; but then, with an enormous liberality of deduction, he admitted that it ought to be reduced to £200,000,000.
MR. H. B. SHERIDANsaid, that making allowance for various reductions, he had stated the augmentation at about £200,000,000, but he dismissed that point from his argument.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: But the hon. Member could not shut it out from his argument. Quintupling figures in this way is a most dangerous practice in debate, because the hon. Member thus involves his calculations with a kind of golden halo, so that it is hardly possible to resist his propositions, even when most questionable. Mr. Coode, a gentleman of great ability, had been chosen by a man of great ability, whose loss we all deplore, the late Sir George Lewis, to consider this question; and I think Mr. Coode's report has led to a thorough investigation of the subject, and has been pro-
810
ductive of much good. I think the hon. Member ought to be very grateful to Mr. Coode, for I do not know how he could have been supplied with materials for his speech to-night without Mr. Coode. But I do not think he quoted Mr. Coode with accuracy. [Mr. H. B. SHERIDAN here rose to explain.] The hon. Gentleman has got his speech and his reply, and I think he may dispense with incessant speeches in the middle of my remarks. The hon. Gentleman quoted a number of persons whom he calls "practical men," and one of these "practical men" states, in the most confident manner, that any reduction, no matter of what kind, the Government may make in this duty, would be made up in the increase of insurance. But that, to my mind, has very much the appearance of an off-hand judgment, and one which the House of Commons, responsible as it is for the income and expenditure of the country, would not be very safe in acting upon. The hon. Gentleman has quoted, as an authority, the declaration of a "practical man" that the farmers generally would not insure their stocks. [Mr. H. B. SHERIDAN: I must say I said no such thing. I said their household furniture.] Well, then, I will not insist upon that point. With respect to the case of agricultural property, the argument of my hon. Friend was of such a nature, that I could neither give my assent to it nor withhold it. But let us take the figures as they stand. According to him, the annual increase upon farming stock is 2·7 per cent per annum, and the annual increase upon other commodities, subject to duty, 3½ per cent per annum. It may be true that farming stock has not increased in the same proportion as other insurable commodities; but, for all that, farming stock has increased, and is increasing, enormously, and that is a fact which materially qualifies the extreme assertions sometimes made. In the case of the paper duty, I used to resist the conclusion to which hon. Members leaped, that because the duty was an increasing one, therefore it could not be a bad duty. But the paper duty was an impost on an article essentially connected with other articles. But that is not the case with fire insurance, and to think that the maintenance of the duty leads to a diminution of other articles is like supposing that a high duty upon mustard would limit the consumption of beef. In the year 1816, when the 3s. duty was first imposed, it produced £543,000; in 1848,

811
£1,130,000; and in 1862 it produced £1,609,000. The increase, therefore, has apparently been more rapid than the increase of the general wealth of the country, because I do not think that the increase of the wealth of the country, considerable as it has been since 1816, can be said to have increased threefold upon any such estimate as I should like to rely upon or to be responsible for. The hon. Gentleman's calculation, that the duty, if reduced, will be replaced to somewhere about £100,000 a year, is, I must say, of the most sanguine character. It is difficult to argue dogmatically on a question which affords us so few data of a positive character, but experience shows us that the reduction of duties which are not direct taxes, but which are taxes falling on property and on classes having property, is attended with a very much smaller effect in the way of recovery than the reduction of duties on articles of general consumption by the great body of the people. In 1840, when 5 per cent was laid on the Customs and Excise duties, and 10 per cent on the assessed taxes, while the 5 per cent was almost entirely absorbed by the increased pressure on the consuming power of the country, very nearly the whole anticipated 10 per cent was obtained from the assessed taxes, though it was a time of distress. Again, in 1858 the assessed taxes were modified and simplified and their amount very much reduced, and yet, though that is ten years ago, they have not recovered from that reduction.
I will not trouble the House by answering the hon. Member's speech, as he has done me the honour of answering my speech of last year. I prefer to go to that which is the main point before us—the merits of the Motion. It is a Motion which invites us to give a certain abstract opinion on the merits of the fire insurance duty. It asks the House to declare—
"That, in the opinion of this House, the duty now chargeable upon fire insurances is excessive in amount, that it prevents insurance, and should be reduced at the earliest opportunity."
I want to know whether that is a proper course for this House to take, which is charged with imposing burdens on the people and relieving them whenever it is possible? Is it right to pronounce an abstract opinion—written in the air, as it were—on the merits or demerits of a particular duty without taking any step to remove it? I protest against such a step, and I say it is in direct contradiction to
812
every true conception of the duties of this House. The hon. Member told us that it was a kind of instruction to the Government, signifying that some day, and that an early day, the duty is to be removed. What is meant by some day, and above all by an early day? You will answer me, that must depend on circumstances. Well, then, let us wait for the circumstances, and then we shall be able to judge whether we can remove it or not. We are told, on high authority, "In vain is the net spread in the sight of any bird." The hon. Gentleman has spread his net; and if the birds go into it, it is their own fault. He makes no concealment of his object; he tells us fairly that his object is to secure a preference to the fire insurance over all other duties, and that the fire insurance duty is to stand No. 1 for reduction. [Mr. HUBBARD: Hear, hear!] I perceive my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham cheers that, and I certainly thought from his speech that he was going to make some addition to the Motion. I could have suggested to him a very appropriate form of words which would have formed an admirable conclusion to his speech. He should have moved to add, after expressing an opinion that the tax should be removed at the earliest opportunity, "and this House is prepared to provide a substitute by means of a duty on the export of iron." I certainly did not expect to hear a Gentleman connected with the commerce of this country stand up in his place in Parliament and recommend as an unexceptional tax the imposition of a duty, and a rather heavy duty too, on the export of iron. My hon. Friend puts the price of pig iron at from £5 to £10 per ton. If he has any pig iron for sale, I should be sorry to deal with him; but, for his sake, I hope he may find a customer. [Mr. HUBBARD: It was bar iron I meant.] My hon. Friend means bar iron, but he certainly said pig iron. The hon. Member wants to put this tax No. 1 for reduction, and there I join issue with him. I am not prepared to write down any duty as first for reduction, and I say it would be a gross breach of duty in me to give countenance to any attempt to forestall financial arrangements which it is impossible to foresee, and when, for all we know, it may be our duty to impose new taxes instead of reducing old ones. We are not without warning as to abstract Resolutions on these subjects. What occurred on the paper duty ought to be a warning to us all. I will give a

813
slight outline of the facts. In 1858 the Government of the day, as I think unfortunately, acceded to a general Resolution condemning the paper duty. In 1860 the then Government had to consider whether it would propose to reduce the tea duty or to abolish the paper duty. They determined to propose to abolish the paper duty, and a material element which guided them was the fact that the House had recorded its condemnation of that duty. But when they came down to the House with a proposal to repeal the paper duty, they found that one-half of the House was entirely indisposed to admit that any weight was to be attached to that Resolution. I am not going to say who was right or who was wrong, but there is a clear proof of the danger of those abstract Resolutions. Of such resolutions I have never at any period been enamoured; but unquestionably, after what occurred on the paper duty, I should think it most unfortunate if we fell into the same error again. The Resolution, so far from being calculated to produce a mitigation of burdens, must exercise a most misleading effect with respect to the financial state of the country. It was stated to-night by the hon. Member that Chancellors of the Exchequer are accustomed to say, when the repeal of a tax is proposed, either that it is too soon or too late. Well, I am right in saying it is too soon when it is soon, and that it is too late when it is too late. But there is a suitable time; and that is, when the financial plans of the Government are proposed. Then an hon. Member may put up a tax, which he thinks ought to be repealed, against another which the Minister thinks ought to be repealed. In that way the repeal of the paper duty was opposed, for it was said that the tea duty should be repealed instead, and there was a fair fight between the advocates of the one remission and the advocates of the other. That is the manner in which such matters should be brought to an issue; but do not let us adopt a system which evades a fair issue and sets up an issue altogether indirect. If we are to deal fairly with respect to the people in matters of taxation, we must consider the various claims for reduction together. The other evening the hon. and learned Member for East Suffolk might have drawn forth enthusiastic cheers, when the House was filled with Gentlemen from the barley-growing counties, if he had proposed a Resolution to the effect that the malt duty
814
restricted the consumption of a wholesome beverage, interfered with trade, and should be reduced; but the hon. and learned Gentleman took a more straightforward course, and proposed an inquiry, without attempting to prejudge the opinion of the House. Nothing is easier than to move an abstract Resolution in favour of the reduction of a tax; but the House should receive with great caution and circumspection these separate propositions, for the House is not in a condition to decide whether it can part with a particular tax, until its comparative claim for remission is considered in connection with the claims of other taxes, at the time when the finance of the year is to be determined. That is the principle on which I take my stand, and I do not, therefore, go about the bush to move the Previous Question, for that implies that the Motion is fit to be put at another time, whereas I do not admit that an abstract Resolution like this is fit to be put at any time. Against these abstract Resolutions, condemnatory of taxes, I, for one, after our previous experience on the subject, am determined to take every opportunity of registering my most decided protest. If we think that we have the power to reduce this tax, and that it is one of the best taxes to be reduced, then let it take its place for consideration, but it is essential to public justice that the tax should not be dealt with in the dark, and in a corner as it were, when other claims are not under view.
MR. THOMSON HANKEYsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman had entirely repudiated the book of Mr. Coode, though he could not imagine that the order for its reprint in 1863 had been given by any other person than the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself. Greater rubbish was never put forward as an official document by any Government, and they ought in fairness to have published Mr. Brown's report, which contained an answer to every word in Mr. Coode's book. He was not prepared to say that the fire insurance tax should be the first to be repealed, but he thought it desirable to have the opinion of the House that it was a bad tax. It was only by what the right hon. Gentleman called an abstract Resolution that a private Member could bring a question like that under consideration before the House; and the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself admitted that the repeal of the paper duties was practically owing to the abstract Resolution to which he had referred.
MR. H. B. SHERIDANsaid, that he had been in one part of his speech misunderstood by the right hon. Gentleman. What he had stated, quoting from a letter, was, that farmers, in nineteen cases out of twenty, did not insure their household property.
Motion made, and Question put,
"That, in the opinion of this House, the Duty now chargeable upon Fire Insurances is excessive in amount, that it prevents Insurance, and should be reduced at the earliest opportunity."—(Mr. Henry B. Sheridan.)
The House divided:—Ayes 103; Noes 67: Majority 36.

FELLOWSHIP PORTERS (LONDON).

  SELECT COMMITTEE MOVED FOR.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he rose to move for a Select Committee to inquire into the treatment of the fellowship porters by the corporation of London. The fellowship porters were the remains of an ancient body in the City of London. They had their origin several centuries ago, in connection with the privileges of the corporation of London. The corporation claimed the right of measuring all goods that came by the river Thames into London. The fellowship porters were appointed to do the measurement; and the corporation directed that they should pay one penny out of every shilling they earned, which penny was to go to a fund devoted to the expenses of management and certain other purposes. The corporation had given up measuring, but still enjoyed a large revenue as measurers, while the fellowship porters, whom they had mulcted of a penny out of every shilling of their earnings to form a benefit fund, were left unprovided for. The only way in which the corporation could be influenced, was by appointing a Committee of that House to expose the way in which these poor people had been treated. For forty years they had been mulcted of one-twelfth of their daily earnings, and it was a shame that they should be left now in utter destitution, while the corporation spent tens of thousands of pounds upon dances for the pleasure of its members and their wives. The benefit fund was distributed in this way—£60 for table, £234 to the rulers, £138 for an office, £100 for a clerk. £10 for a servant, and only £117 for the relief of the fellowship of the porters. It was monstrous that there should be this extravagant waste, and he hoped that the House would inquire into the matter.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the treatment of the Fellowship Porters by the Corporation of London."—(Mr. Ayrton.)
  MR. CRAWFORDsaid, he had no wish to suppress inquiry, nor was he instructed to ask for such suppression. He had however heard the speech of his hon. Friend, and he confessed he could not see on what ground he impeached the conduct of the corporation of the City. That was one of the opportunities of which his hon. Friend always availed himself, in season and out of season, for inveighing against the corporation of London. The fellowship porters were an old body connected with the City; and although the right of the corporation to make rules for them had been disputed, that right was confirmed. No doubt it would not be right to establish such a body at that day, but the corporation had no interest whatever in their existence. They were placed by immemorial usage, confirmed by a decision of the Queen's Bench more than a hundred years ago, under rules made by the corporation of the City. Their claims had been considered by competent members of the council; and the fact was, that out of some 600 working men who were affected more or less by the changes which had taken place in the mode of carrying on business, 400 had petitioned against the proposed inquiry as being wholly unnecessary. Those who had petitioned for inquiry were either old persons unfit for labour, or persons indisposed to work, and they wished to appropriate the accumulated fund, which amounted to about £3,000, and to see the fellowship wound up: but the majority of the body were perfectly content with the present state of things, and did not complain of the reduction in their wages. He hoped that the House would not institute any inquiry.
  MR. H. A. BRUCEsaid, he thought hon. Members would be of opinion that the subject was not one which ought to be referred to a Select Committee of the House, especially at that period of the Session. The question was one of a quarrel between the corporation and its employés, and the better remedy would be that they should have recourse to a legal tribunal.
  SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, that the poor porters were unable to have recourse to a legal tribunal. The fact was, that the same duties were levied from them as

  817
  were raised years ago, when the fellowship porters performed duties which they were no longer able to perform. These poor men had no other tribunal than the House of Commons. At the same time, he admitted that it was not a favourable period of the Session at which to bring forward the claims of these men. He trusted the corporation of London would take larger views with reference to public interests—a corporation which had only one merit, that of an ancient descent—an apostolical succession for anything he knew. No one would rejoice more than he (Sir John Shelley) to find an improvement in the conduct of the corporation in this respect.
  MR. AYRTONhoped that between that time and the next Session the City of London would do justice to these men; and if not, he might feel it his duty to call attention to the subject during the next Session,
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

BANDA AND KIRWEE BOOTY.

  ADDRESS MOVED.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he rose to move that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to give such directions in the matter of the Banda and Kirwee Booty or Prize Money as Her Majesty may be advised by the Law Officers of the Crown or by some competent judicial authority. He begged leave to assure the noble Lord at the head of the Government that he had no intention of saying or doing anything discourteous towards him. He referred to the subject on the previous Motion merely to illustrate the necessity of having such questions decided by a competent judicial tribunal and on definite principles. The facts of the case were very simple. There were two bodies of troops who were engaged in the suppression of the Indian mutiny, one under Sir G. Whitlock, and the other under Sir H. Rose. The troops under Sir G. Whitlock captured Banda and Kirwee. When it was announced that the prize money at Banda and Kirwee was to be distributed, a claim was advanced on behalf both of the column under Sir G. Whitlock and of that under Sir H. Rose. It was suggested that these two columns were parts of one force, and on that question a difference of opinion prevailed. He did not ask the House to pronounce in favour of one claimant or of the other. All he sought was
  818
  that they should urge the Government to have these matters decided, not by the artrary discretion of the Treasury, exercised in the dark and without any opportunity of cross-examining witnesses and hearing evidence on both sides, but by some competent authority on sound judicial principles. Sir G. Whitlock and his friends desired only that the dispute should be settled before a legal tribunal. As he had been erroneously supposed to have said something offensive to the Government on the merits of the case, he would refrain altogether from going into it. If the army was to be encouraged by grants of prize, and if the men were to be kept in good order and discipline by the hope of such a reward, they ought to know on what principle it would be distributed. The same measure of justice should be meted out to the army as to the navy. That was a proposition which commended itself to common sense, and which had already been sanctioned in more than one instance. The High Court of Admiralty had, after hearing opinions of counsel, repeatedly decided cases of army prize; and, in fact, the Act passed twenty years ago for providing a better tribunal for these matters, authorized that arrangement. When Lord Cottenham brought in that Bill, he said it was desirable that there should be a court for deciding questions of army as well as of navy prizes. These were formerly disposed of by the old Court of Chivalry; but when that was given up, they were transferred to the Treasury, and then to the High Court of Admiralty. He hoped that Act would not be allowed to remain a dead letter, and that the Government would deal with these cases in a spirit similar to that which governed them in regard to navy prizes.
  SIR MINTO FARQUHARsaid, he would second the Motion. He wanted to know on what principle booty was to be given in one case to actual captors alone and in another to constructive captors. They heard that the opinions of Sir R. Phillimore, of Sir R. Palmer, and of Sir H. Cairns had been given in favour of the actual captors in that case, and he could not understand on what grounds the moderate proposal of his hon. Friend could be resisted. There was not a man in the whole army of India who did not thoroughly do his duty in the fearfully trying circumstances of the mutiny, and therefore this Motion was a simple act of justice.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to give such directions in the matter of the Banda and Kirwee Booty or Prize Money as Her Majesty may be advised by the Law Officers of the Crown or by some competent judicial authority."—(Sir Stafford Northcote.)
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: My right hon. Friend the Secretary for India complained, justly, as I think, in the early part of the evening that the hon. Baronet, having declared that he would not go into the particulars of this case, did go into these particulars, and stated ex parte one view, which no one could answer afterwards, and when that statement did not apply necessarily to the object of the Motion of the hon. and gallant Officer. But I have another complaint to make. The hon. Baronet implied that I had been influenced by some private and personal motives. I beg to say I repudiate those motives with the utmost contempt. [Sir STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I never intended to impute such motives.] There are two modes of imputing motives. One is directly imputing so and so, and the other is by saying, "I will not say that he was influenced by such motives," but implying that it really was so. In the first place, the noble Lord (Lord Stanley) moved some days ago for papers connected with this subject; and as that Motion was granted, the papers will soon be in the hands of hon. Members. It appears to me that it is more fitting that the House should wait until they have got those papers, to know what the case is, before they agree to a Motion which is founded in the dark, and without a knowledge of all the circumstances of the case. There is no law at all ruling cases of this sort. That is admitted by all. It is the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown, it is admitted by the prize agents themselves in one of their last communications, and it is an unquestionable fact, that there is no law regulating the distribution of prize money. It rests entirely with the discretion of the Crown according to the circumstances of the case. As far as private solicitation is concerned, I have had a good deal of it, as I have no doubt have had also those hon. Gentlemen who are so loud in their expressions of concurrence with the hon. Baronet. No doubt they have also received solicitations from the prize agents, who have been extremely active in canvassing hon. Gentlemen for their support on behalf of their view of the case. ["No!"] Well, I can only speak for myself, and I have
  820
  had a great deal of private solicitation from them. But I have had no private solicitations of this kind from those who represent the other force. The representations of the agents of Sir G. Whitlock's claims were that Sir G. Whitlock was acting in an independent command upon a separate base, and not co-operating with any other force, and that therefore his position was entirely separate and independent. They say that consequently any prize of his column could only be shared by his column. But these assertions were, in my opinion, entirely refuted by a memorandum of Lord Clyde, under whose orders that force was acting, and which shows that these two columns were part of a combined force acting under his directions, and not at all independent of each other, but acting from a common base arranged by him for a common purpose; that the action of one was materially assisting the action of the other, and that to all intents and purposes they were co-operating columns; and that, although not united, union was not necessary to success, as the success of one depended mainly upon the success of the other operating against the common enemy. The mere fact of one column being in one place and the other column in another place did not affect their co-operation. It appeared to me that the fairness and justice of the matter required that the captures made by each of those columns should be thrown into a common fund, and be divided among the two columns. That opinion I came to, not in the least in consequence of private solicitation—there has been none, indeed, on the part of Sir Hugh Rose's force—but upon a view of the facts of the case, and very much in consequence of seeing that the statements made by the prize agents of Sir G. Whitlock's force were not founded on fact, and were rebutted by the orders of the Commander-in-Chief. I have no interest in the matter. I have no personal pride or vanity in the matter. It is a matter of perfect indifference to me how the matter is decided, provided it be according to justice and right. But there is no rule whatever upon the subject. Each case is decided upon its own merits. We are told that many precedents can be quoted in which the prize has been given to the particular corps by which it was taken. It seems to me that to make a precedent applicable to a given case you must show that the circumstances of the precedent were similar in ail respects to the circumstances of the case to which you

  821
  apply the precedent as a ruling guide. That does not appear to be the case here, but I would suggest, as the noble Lord has moved for papers, which will be presented in a few days, that the hon. Baronet should wait and see those papers before calling upon the House to take any further steps in the matter. I shall have no objection, when the papers are produced, if the House should think that the case should be referred to any authority competent to decide, for it is indifferent to me what course is taken. But it must not be forgotten that these proceedings are not unattended with expense to the parties, besides involving delay, and therefore I would suggest to the hon. Baronet whether he had not better wait for the papers, to enable him to judge whether he ought to take any further steps.
  LORD STANLEY: Are we to understand that no steps will be taken to deal with this fund until the House has had an opportunity of considering those papers?
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsignified assent.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, if that were the understanding, he had no wish to press his Motion. He had only brought it on that evening because of the advanced period of the Session. The papers had only just been ordered, and there was a natural fear that they would be presented only at the very close of the Session, when no opportunity would be afforded to the House of expressing an opinion upon them. If it were understood that the prize fund should not be dealt with until the House had had an opportunity of expressing an opinion, he would not press his Motion, and the matter must stand over until next Session. He only wished further to state distinctly that neither directly or indirectly had he intended to impute to the noble Lord any personal interest in this matter. What he said, or meant to say, was that it was most important for the discipline and good feeling of the army that there should not be even a suspicion of any personal influence being at work to insinuate statements which the other parties had no opportunity of criticising in open court. For his own part, he had no acquaintance with any of the persons interested in the prize money, and had taken the matter up simply for the purpose of doing what he believed to be a good service to the army in getting such cases decided upon some principle of law.
  MR. AYRTONhoped that all the papers relating to the case would be produced.
  LORD HOTHAMsaid, he thought that the Motion should not be withdrawn until the noble Lord at the head of the Government had given a distinct assurance that no action would be taken until the House had had an opportunity of expressing its opinion on the subject. His object was that justice should be done, and that the influence of a Commander-in-Chief should not be unnecessarily strained in order to give him a share in prize money to which he was not fairly entiled.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he had already assented in as plain terms as were usual in that House to the proposal of the noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn that no step should be taken until the papers were considered by the House.
  COLONEL DICKSONsaid, he trusted that no long time would be allowed to elapse before the prize money was distributed, for it was monstrous that the soldiers should for years be kept out of a reward which they had earnt by their blood and valour. If, as the noble Lord had stated, there was no law for the distribution of prize money, the sooner one was made the better. At the time of action nothing was too good for the soldier; but when it was over, he was forgotten.
  SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he wished to ask whether, if the papers were not laid on the table till the close of the Session, no decision would be come to until next year; or whether the question would be referred to a judicial tribunal in the interval.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, that unnecessary delay in the distribution was to be avoided, but no action would be taken until the House had had full time to consider the papers, and express any opinion upon them which it might think fit.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  PETTY OFFENCES BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. WHALLEY, Bill to amend the Law as regards persons charged with Petty Offences, and to enable such persons and their wives to give evidence, ordered to be brought in by Mr. WHALLEY and Mr. HODGKINSON.
  Bill presented, and read 1°. [Bill 240.]

  LAND TAX COMMISSIONERS' NAMES BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. PEEL, Bill to appoint additional Commissioners for executing the Acts for granting a Land Tax and other Rates and Taxes ordered to be brought in by Mr. PEEL and Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER.
  Bill presented, and read 1°. [Bill 239.]

  INDEMNITY BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. PEEL, Bill to indemnify such persons in the United Kingdom as have omitted to qualify themselves for offices and employments, and to extend the time limited for those purposes respectively, ordered to be brought in by Mr. PEEL and Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER.
  Bill presented, and read 1°.

  EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL.
  Bill for continuing various expiring Acts, presented, and read 1°. [Bill 238.]
  House adjourned at a quarter before One o'clock.

MINUTES.
Sat First in Parliament—The Lord Atherton, after the death of his Father.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Sydney Branch Mint * (No. 217).
Second Reading—Savings Banks Acts Amendment * (No. 183); Stipendiary Magistrates* (No. 196); Growing Crops Seizure (Ireland) * (No. 209); Clergymen (Colonies) [H.L.] * (No. 205); Harwich Harbour * (No. 174); Howth Harbour * (No. 180); Colonial Acts Confirmation [H.L.] * (No. 213).
Committee—Removal of Irish Poor * (No. 182 & 218); Marriages Registration (Ireland) * (No. 147 & 219).
Report—Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) * (No. 198); Metropolis Turnpike Roads Acts Amendment * (No. 145).
Third Reading—Sheep and Cattle (Scotland)* (No. 144); Sir Robert Hitcham's Charity * (No. 165); Ruthin Charities * (No. 166); Police and Improvement (Scotland) (Provisional Order) * (No. 194); and severally passed.

JAPAN—CASE OF MR. MOSS.

  EXPLANATION.
  EARL GREYsaid, that since the discussion on our relations with Japan he had received a letter from Mr. Ross, the gentleman who was accused of having shot a policeman in that country, enclosing a pamphlet and a statement of the case, which entirely exculpated him, and showed that he was very much ill-used. He could only say that he took the statement which he made from the work of Sir Rutherford Alcock, and he was not aware that it had over been contradicted. He could, of course, give no opinion as to which statement was the more correct. Mr. Moss stated that a most unprovoked attack was made upon him by a party of armed men, and that the gun had been for some time out of his hands before it went off. He also complained of a grievous denial of justice on the part of Sir Rutherford Alcock.
  EARL RUSSELLsaid, that the fact was that Mr. Moss complained very much that Sir Rutherford Alcock was too favourable to the Japanese.

UNITED STATES—THE "MARGARET AND JESSIE."—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF AIRLIEasked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, Whether he has received any official Report of the Attack alleged to have been made by a Ship of War of the United States on the ship Margaret and Jessie in British waters? The noble Earl said, he did not think he was commit-

729
ting any indiscretion in putting this Question, nor was this event likely to lead to any serious misunderstanding. In a great war like that now raging, questions must from time to time arise affecting the rights of neutrals, and while each party was desirous of doing justice to the other, it was possible that both might arrive at different conclusions. In the present instance, however, matters of fact were at issue which ought to be very easily ascertained, because a great number of persons must have witnessed the transaction. The statements which had appeared in the Nassau papers ought to be received with caution, because in that place much dissatisfaction was felt at the measures taken by the United States cruisers to put an end to the trade between Nassau and the Confederate States. But about ten days ago a letter had been published in The Times giving a more circumstantial account of the circumstances. According to this statement, it appeared that the Confederate steamer Margaret and Jessie left Charleston on the 27th of May, laden with a cargo of cotton, having succeeded in eluding the United States vessels at the entrance of that harbour. In the course of her voyage, when about twenty-five miles from Nassau, she saw a steamer, which gave chase. The Margaret and Jessie at once made for the land, and when she was between four and five miles of the land the steamer opened fire; but she continued her course for the shore until she arrived at about 300 yards of the land, and could get no nearer. The United States steamer still pursued, and though compelled to keep at a distance from the shore of 1,000 or 1,200 yards, still continued her fire, which reached the shore, some of the shot or shell being picked up and carried into Nassau. At last the Margaret and Jessie was sunk by a shell from the United States steamer, which put off a boat, and the persons in the boat declared that the steamer was the United States vessel Savannah, though it was afterwards ascertained that her name was the Rhode Island. The captain of the Rhode Island stated, that he was at no time within four miles of the land; but this was denied. However, the point to be ascertained was not the position of the steamer when she fired, but the position of the Margaret and Jessie when she was fired upon. He understood that Mr. Seward had mentioned the matter to Lord Lyons without having the matter brought formally under his notice, and had stated
730
that he would make inquiry; and if the facts were such as were reported, he would make full reparation. It was to be hoped, at the same time, that Mr. Seward would take steps to prevent the recurrence of such acts; because not only were they outrages to a friendly Power, but they were directly at variance with the instructions issued by Mr. Seward for the guidance of officers of the American navy. He wished to ask the noble Earl another Question, of which he had given no notice. Some little time ago it was stated that the officers of the vessels blockading Charleston had determined to take no more prizes, but to sink any ship which attempted to enter the port. Now, he could hardly believe that such a determination could have been come to by the United States captains, still less that they had been ordered to take that course by the Secretary for the Navy; because, though the attempt to enter a blockaded port involved the forfeiture of the ship and cargo, he never heard that any penal consequences attached to the persons who made that attempt. Certainly they were not punishable with death, or even with imprisonment, and he therefore hoped that the statement in question was inaccurate. He begged to ask the noble Earl if there was any truth in the statement?
EARL RUSSELLsaid, the noble Earl had stated the facts in the case of the Margaret and Jessie, as far as they were known, quite accurately, and he had very little to add to that statement. The Governor of the Bahamas had not mentioned the circumstances of the case from his own knowledge—he only said there was a report to this effect. On the other hand, Mr. Seward, having seen the statement in the New York papers, immediately assured Lord Lyons that the captain of the Rhode Island gave a different account of the affair. Obviously, the facts must be inquired into further. It was impossible to do anything more than ascertain what the facts were; and if it should appear that the statement made was borne out, he had no doubt that the Government of the United States would give the reparation which they volunteered. With regard to the other occurrence referred to by the noble Earl, he had certainly seen the statement in the newspapers; but it was not mentioned by Lord Lyons, and without some confirmation of it he should certainly disregard it as being entirely inaccurate.

BRAZIL—THE "PRINCE OF WALES"—CLAIM OF COMPENSATION.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD CHELMSFORDrose to call the attention of the House to the "Memorandum regarding Assessment of Compensation in the Case of the Prince of Wales," which has been laid upon the table: And to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to inform the House upon what Grounds the Queen's Advocate founded his Estimate of the Sum of £2,360 as the Amount of Compensation which ought to be paid for the Cargo after making Allowance for probable and necessary Damage; what was the Nature and Description of the Cargo and its invoiced Value, and if the Owner has received anything from the Underwriters in respect of its Loss; also, in what Manner the Queen's Advocate has ascertained that the Loss of Wages and Effects ought to be estimated at £290 and the Compensation for "possible Murders" at £840? The noble and learned Lord said the reprisals which were made upon Brazil were intended to refer, not merely to the compensation for the plunder and wreck of the Prince of Wales, but also to satisfaction for a supposed insult which had been offered to some naval officers belonging to one of Her Majesty's ships. In execution of these reprisals Brazilian vessels were captured of the value of £13,000, leaving a very wide margin for any possible damage. So far as these reprisals extended to the supposed insult offered to the naval officers, by the impartial judgment of the Royal arbiter to whom the matter was referred, they were improper and unjust; and he trusted that the noble Earl (Earl Russell) would not consider it inconsistent with his position, or with the national dignity, to make some acknowledgment to the Brazilian Government of the error in this respect. He would certainly take occasion to put a Question to the noble Earl on the subject. What they were, however, more immediately concerned with was the case of the Prince of Wales. Their Lordships might remember that the Brazilian Government to the very last denied that they were liable in respect to the plunder of the wreck, and they refused to take any part in the liquidation of the demand of the Government, because it would amount to an admission of their liability; and they said, that if force was employed, they would pay under protest any demands that were
  732
  made upon them. He was sure their Lordships would all agree with him, under these circumstances, that when the Brazilian Government had as it were surrendered at discretion, and had compelled, if they pleased, our Government to take upon them the delicate office of being judge in their own cause, it was incumbent upon us to use the greatest care and caution, and not to put forward any claim which was unfounded and exorbitant. The noble Earl (Earl Russell) recognised that obligation in a despatch which he sent to Mr. Christie, in which he said that the sum to be demanded from the Brazilian Government should be based upon the most accurate estimate which this Government could make. Accordingly, the noble Earl referred the matter to the Queen's Advocate for his opinion as to the amount of compensation which ought to be assessed. Now, undoubtedly, there could not be a safer or a better reference with regard to the legal claim which ought to be made upon the Brazilian Government; but he could hardly think that the Queen's Advocate was a proper referee with regard to the amount of compensation, which depended upon particulars with which his learned Friend was not so likely to be so conversant as an insurance broker or an underwriter at Lloyd's. He could not help wishing that the noble Earl had referred to the Queen's Advocate for his advice at an earlier period, because he would then have been told by him that no demand ought to be made upon the Brazilian Government for the freight of the vessel. That which did occur would not then have taken place. On the 5th December Mr. Christie, acting under the instructions of the noble Earl, made a demand upon the Brazilian Government for the sum of £1,025 in respect of the freight of this vessel. Any tyro in the profession would have told the noble Earl that no freight was payable unless the goods arrived at their destination, and therefore that any demand upon the Brazilian Government under the circumstances would be unfounded. Their Lordships would remember that at the time when the reprisals were ordered the freight of the vessel was part of the demand which was made upon the Brazilian Government, and it continued part of the demand when the Brazilian Government submitted to pay the amount which our Government estimated as our claim; and he believed that when the gum of £3,200 was paid by M.

  733
  Moreira he was not aware that the freight was not included in that sum, and also that the fact was not communicated until after payment had been made. The Queen's Advocate assumed the office which the noble Earl requested him to undertake, and he believed to the very best of his ability he performed his duty; but he seemed almost to acknowledge his own incompetency when upon every head of claim he told them that he had "roughly estimated" the amount. He (Lord Chelmsford) would go shortly and rapidly through the three heads of claim, and make a few remarks applicable to each. He would begin with the cargo, in reference to which the learned Gentleman said he had made due allowance for necessary damage and salvage, as if the people of the coast had appeared as salvors and not as plunderers. The rough estimate of the Queen's Advocate under that head was £2,360. Just let them consider for a moment what were the materials with which the Queen's Advocate ought to have been furnished in order to form this estimate. In the first place, he should have been told the original value of the cargo, and he should have been accurately informed as to its nature and description. It had been stated in another place, and not denied, that the invoice value of the cargo was £3,500. The noble Earl would correct him if he was in error in this respect. The statement was made some months ago in another place, and it had never been denied; and therefore, for the present, he assumed that that was the invoice value of the cargo. With respect to the description of the cargo, he stated on a former occasion that it was a general cargo, consisting of coals, kegs of nails, iron castings, painters' colours, barrels of soda, and barrels of beer. Of course, the Queen's Advocate would have to consider the description of this miscellaneous cargo, and how much of it, after the total wreck of the vessel, was likely to find its way to land and come within reach of the plunderers—because the Brazilian Government was only liable for that portion of the cargo which came to land and was taken possession of by the plunderers who resorted to the coast at the time. He took it for granted that the noble Earl had been furnished with all these particulars, and therefore he would like to know how it was that the Queen's Advocate arrived at the sum of £2,360 as the claim for that portion of this miscellaneous
  734
  cargo (being more than two-thirds of the invoice value) which found its way to land. He should have thought that the greater part would have been swallowed up by the waves, that a considerable portion would have been spoiled by the salt water, and that most of the lighter goods would have been broken by the violence of the waves. That the latter part of his supposition was correct, was proved by the statement of Consul Vereker as to the appearance of the shore when he went there six or eight days after the wreck. He said the whole shore was strewn with crates and boxes and remnants of the wreck; and he added that most of the crates and some of the barrels appeared to have been broken by the force of the waves. Then there was a circumstance with regard to a portion of the goods which had never been adverted to—that of a sub-inspector of police having collected the goods for the benefit of the customs, and Mr. Vereker said that the greater part had been taken out of their cases. He never heard any reference to these goods, which ought to be taken into account, because the Brazilian Government could not be liable for that which had been delivered up. He could not help being perfectly surprised at the enormous estimate of the ship's cargo by the Queen's Advocate. He could not imagine on what ground the Queen's Advocate had estimated the amount to be paid by the Brazilian Government at £2,360. That functionary must have had some information on which he acted, and he hoped the noble Earl would be able to satisfy the House that so large an amount of property was saved from the wreck (a fact which seemed at first sight to be highly improbable) as to justify the award of so large a sum. There was, however, one item charged to the Brazilian Government which he could not understand—namely the item of £290 for seamen's wages and effects. What the value of the effects might be, he did not know, but there was no possible ground on which to charge the Brazilian Government with the wages. Indeed, up to a comparatively recent time, a seaman had no claim on the owner for wages at all unless he earned his freight, and it was quaintly said that freight was the mother of wages. That law had been altered by the 16 & 17 Vict.; but the new law contained a clause which enacted, that unless a seaman did his utmost to save the ship and cargo, his claim for wages was invalid. There was, in-

  735
  deed, a case in which a seaman had been wrecked, and after being on a rook all day, was taken off, but died next day, and on his relatives claiming his wages, the Court of the Exchequer considered the claim so doubtful as against the owner that it did not decide it. If then in such cases it was doubtful whether the owner could be made to pay shipwrecked seamen their wages, on what plea could the Brazilian Government be charged with a payment on that account to the owners? He now came to a point on which the noble Earl (Earl Russell) was more responsible than on the one he had just mentioned, and which was more extraordinary than all the others. The Queen's Advocate had made a claim for the "too probable murder of all or some of the crew." He (Lord Chelmsford) supposed the Queen's Advocate meant the almost certain murder of the crew. At all events, he roughly estimated the value of the compensation for possible murders at £840. It might be said that that was a rough estimate, but it was certainly a very curious amount, and seemed to be founded upon a nice calculation. They had heard of the calculation of probabilities; but certainly this was the first time he had ever heard of a calculation being made of compensation for possible murder. But he had a much graver charge than that he had made; because he should show that not only was such a claim never made on the Brazilian Government, but that it was expressly repudiated; and he would prove that assertion by reference to the papers produced. When the claim was made by Mr. Christie by the noble Earl's instruction of the 5th of September 1862, he asked among other things compensation for the plunder of the wreck and of the bodies. The Marquis d'Abrantes, misunderstanding him, wrote to Mr. Christie, and asked for which bodies his Excellency claimed compensation. Mr. Christie replied on the following day, the 30th of December, in which he stated—
  "Your Excellency, in your yesterday's note, strangely made a serious mistake in stating the demand of Her Majesty's Government in the case of the Prince of Wales. You spoke of the indemnity demanded for the supposed assassinations. There is no such demand. Her Majesty's Government are, indeed, of opinion that there is the strongest presumptive proof of murder of the crew, but they have strictly confined their demand of indemnity to the property plundered."
  The Marquis d'Abrantes, in a subsequent letter, referred to this note, and said that in his note of the 5th instant Mr. Christie
  736
  had demanded an indemnification for the bodies stripped and plundered. On this Mr. Christie became a little angry, and said—
  "Your Excellency persists in a misstatement of importance when you say that Mr. Christie, in his note of the 5th of December, requested an indemnity for the bodies stripped and plundered, Mr. Christie does nothing of the sort."
  He went on to show that what he had demanded was compensation for the plunder. He (Lord Chelmsford) appealed to the House to say whether he had not shown not only that the claim was not made in regard to the murders, but was expressly repudiated; yet when the whole claim of £3,200 was made, there was to be found in it an item of £840 for the possible murder of the seamen. After the claim was paid, M. Moreira was anxious to obtain the different heads of the claim. One would have supposed that among other items this would have been mentioned. But nothing of the sort. The noble Earl never gave to M. Moreira the items, but on the 28th February 1863 wrote that he had already informed M. Moreira that—
  "No sum was claimed for the loss of the ship nor for the freight of the cargo. The sum was claimed for the shameful plunder of the cargo, and the negligence shown by the Brazilian authorities in their inquiries to ascertain the delinquency of the supposed murderers."
  How could M. Moreira understand from this that the sum of £3,200 included an item of £840 for "possible murders." Now the Queen's Advocate, in dealing with this claim, seemed to have had in his mind the mode of proceeding under Lord Campbell's Act, by which a railway company or other person was responsible for damage through the negligence of his servants; though how that Act was to be made to apply to a Sovereign Power he (Lord Chelmsford) did not know. If the Queen's Advocate had acted according to the analogy furnished by that Act, he could not be justified, because it was distinctly stated by the noble Earl that it was not any punishment that he wished to impose, but he sought to obtain compensation for the loss incurred by the owner of the vessel from the plunder of the cargo. In addition to this, he (Lord Chelmsford) would remind the House that only those who were pecuniarily injured by the death of relatives could claim compensation. He supposed, therefore, that before the Queen's Advocate decided upon the mode in which

  737
  the money should be distributed, he had ascertained that there were parties who sustained pecuniary loss by the death of these seamen; but surely he ought to have confined the payment of compensation to the possible relations of the possibly murdered persons. He had no right to make it distributable among the relations of the persons who were wrecked, because there was no neglect of the Brazilian Government which occasioned the deaths of those persons. It was impossible for the noble Earl to say that he imposed this as a fine upon the Brazilian Government for homicide, because he had proceeded altogether upon the footing of compensation. He had demanded compensation for the owner of the vessel and cargo for their loss, and for the relatives of the possibly murdered persons for the pecuniary loss which they had suffered by their deaths. It appeared, therefore, that the first head of claim was most exorbitant—he had almost said outrageous; the second had no foundation in law, and the third had been absolutely disclaimed by the noble Earl; and yet these were the different items which went to make up the £3,200 which had been paid by M. Moreira on behalf of the Brazilian Government. He wished to ask the noble Earl whether he had made or proposed to make any acknowledgment to the Brazilian Government for what must certainly be considered an illegal act—namely, the reprisals which were intended to cover the supposed insult to the officers of the Forte. He also hoped that the noble Earl would be kind enough to favour their Lordships with any particulars which he had in his possession showing the invoice value of the cargo, and its nature and description, and explaining how the Queen's Advocate had made it out that two-thirds of that cargo, of the value of £2,360, was likely to be washed on shore from a vessel totally wrecked a league off. He should like to know whether Mr. Stevens had received anything from the underwriters in respect of this loss; upon what grounds the Queen's Advocate had imposed upon the Brazilian Government a liability to indemnify the owner of the vessel for the wages of the seamen; and lastly, how it was, that having disclaimed making any demand upon the Brazilian Government in respect of the murders, he had adopted an estimate in which "possible murders" were included, without indicating to the Brazilian Government that such a claim had been made upon them,
  738
  and had received £3,200 which involved that claim.
  EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has gone into detail, and has drawn various inferences favourable to the Brazilian Government. What we know is, that when this vessel was wrecked, the Brazilian authorities refused to produce the bodies of the sailors, and that the officer whose duty it was to do so refused to hold an inquest. The noble and learned Lord draws inferences which are favourable to the Brazilian Government and the Brazilian authorities; and he is able to do so, because the Brazilian authorities contrived that there should be no proof of the facts which probably occurred. The noble and learned Lord supposes that we ordered reprisals for the affront which had been offered to the officers of the Forte, and he says, that as no affront was offered, therefore the reprisals were wrong. What happened was, that the officers of the Forte thought there had been an insult to the British navy. The Brazilian Government, either admitting the insult or not, might have said, "As this is the feeling of the British officers who are in the service of an ally of His Majesty, we will refer the matter to the arbitration of the King of the Belgians or some other Power in whom we have confidence, and will be bound by his decision." If that had been done, there would have been no reprisal in the matter of the Forte, because Mr. Christie was instructed, that if such a proposal was made in either or in both cases, no reprisals should be made on that account. Therefore, the alleged affront having been brought before the Brazilian Government, we were justified in ordering reprisals, and it was not until those reprisals were made that we received the satisfaction of having the affair referred to arbitration. I am perfectly satisfied that it should have been referred to an impartial Sovereign; and as he has decided that no affront was offered to the British navy, I am bound to admit that no such affront was offered. It is only, however, by means of the reprisals that we have obtained this satisfaction. Up to the time that those reprisals took place there was a determination on the part of the Brazilian Government to make no reparation, and in no way to consider the matter. The noble and learned Lord has gone at length into the question of compensation. There again the Brazilian Government left us without the means which we desired to

  739
  ascertain the reparation which was to be made. What we desired was, that the sum claimed by Mr. Stevens should be examined by two persons, one acting for the Brazilian and the other for Her Majesty's Government, with the expectation that they would come to a fair decision. If they had decided that £100 represented the whole amount of damage, we should have been satisfied with that decision. With regard to the whole question, however, there was, until the reprisals took place, an apparent determination on the part of the Brazilian Government that the claim should be treated with a contempt and with a refusal of redress, such as is very rare in the case of a friendly country. When the Brazilian Government threw it upon the British Government to make this inquiry alone, saying that they would pay whatever sum was demanded, they placed us in a position of considerable difficulty, because we had no one on the other side to dispute the various items. The noble and learned Lord said that I ought to have gone to a shipbroker, and referred to him the questions with regard to the compensation to be claimed by the Government.
  LORD CHELMSFORD: I said that the Queen's Advocate would not be so conversant with these matters as an insurance broker or an underwriter.
  EARL RUSSELL: If that means anything, it means that I should have applied, not to the Queen's Advocate, but to a shipbroker. I can only say that it has been the custom of the Foreign Office with regard to all these questions to apply to the Law Officers of the Crown, especially to the Queen's Advocate. No doubt there may be various cases in which the Queen's Advocate may not be so competent to assess the damages as some other person might be. If a British subject comes to the Foreign Office and complains that he has been thrown into a gaol in South America, the atmosphere of which has injured his health, and asks for compensation, we refer the question to the Queen's Advocate, and ask him to consider the whole matter, and settle what compensation we should demand. The noble and learned Lord may say that the Queen's Advocate is no judge of the air of gaols, or modes of confinement, and that it would be better to consult a prison inspector, or some person who is conversant with gaols. I can only say that the regular course adopted by the Foreign Office, as far as I know, in all time, appears to me to be the
  740
  better course. If we were to adopt any other plan than that of asking some official authority to give an opinion to the Government, we should, I think, diminish the authority of the Government and the confidence of Parliament. The noble and learned Lord, acting as the advocate of the Brazilian Government, makes the supposition that the wreck was of such a nature that various parts of the cargo must have sunk in the sea, and other parts of it reached the shore very much damaged. He therefore contends that compensation ought to be assessed on that supposition. But the supposition made by everybody on the spot, as well as by the Queen's Advocate here, was of a very different character. We have the authority of Consul Vereker for saying that the boats came on shore, and that the oars were in them; and Admiral Warren adds that there must have been some foul play in the transaction. The Queen's Advocate, proceeding in that spirit, and not according to the view taken by the noble and learned Lord, came to the conclusion that he ought to base his calculations on the ground that the goods in the wreck, forming part of the cargo, were placed in the boats and brought from time to time on shore. When, I may add, Consul Vereker reached the spot, he found that several chests had been broken open, that they were perfectly dry, that the linings had not been at all injured, and that it was not at all probable they had been exposed to the action of the sea. The Queen's Advocate, then, naturally formed the opinion that a great portion of the cargo had gone on shore, and had been there plundered. The noble and learned Lord, however, says that no demand was made on the Brazilian Government in this respect; but I believe I followed in the matter that which is the usual course, I said, "Here is a claim. You can appoint some one to examine the claim, and ascertain what is the right amount to be paid." To do that was, I think, better than to state originally what was the exact value put upon the cargo. The Queen's Advocate took into consideration the loss of wages and the contents of the seamen's chests. The noble and learned Lord said that the estimate with respect to wages proceeded on a wrong principle; but the ground on which the Queen's Advocate proceeded was this—that, according to the statement of our own Admiral and our Consul, foul play was to be inferred. Otherwise, the seamen would have brought

  741
  the goods on shore, those goods would have been protected, the seamen would have been paid their wages, as having done everything in their power to save the cargo, and their wages would ultimately have gone to their families. The loss of the wages, therefore, it was thought, ought to enter into our calculations in the demand made on the Brazilian Government. The noble and learned Lord seems to suppose that the amount of those wages was to be paid to the owners of the vessel; but I think they should rather be paid to the families of the crew. The noble and learned Lord found great fault with the compensation proposed for "possible murders," and it is quite true that Mr. Christie made no demand on the Brazilian Government for the murder of the crew. When, however, everything had been reviewed, and we were forced to exact reprisals, the Queen's Advocate arrived at the conclusion that several of the crew had been murdered. [Lord CHELMSFORD: Too probably murdered.] Just so; and then in reference to the claim for compensation the phrase "possible murder," which is less strong, occurs. Now, in regard to this point, I must say my belief is these men were murdered, and this, I am sure, is the prevalent opinion where the wreck took place. The Brazilian Government, however, by their neglect prevented the necessary evidence from being taken; they did not allow inquests to be held or the bodies to be shown. Now, if the bodies had been produced, and the throats of the missing sailors had been found cut, then it is evident that some compensation should have been made. But the noble and learned Lord seems to think that it is somewhat an extraordinary thing that compensation in the case of persons killed should be made to their families. There are, nevertheless, many such instances in which compensation has been asked for, and some in which it has been given without being asked. I recollect very well a case of a Portuguese sailor who was accidentally killed at Macao in the case of a rescue of British subjects who were supposed to have insulted the Roman Catholic religion. So far from thinking it wrong that the offer of compensation should be made in that case, the Brazilian Minister came to me and said that certain things had taken place. I replied I would communicate immediately with the Admiralty, and ask what, in accordance with their view of the matter,
  742
  should be done. Having applied to the First Lord of the Admiralty, and he having come to the conclusion that a wrong had been done, he proposed to make the most ample apology to the Portuguese Government, and to give to the family of the Portuguese sailor the most ample pecuniary compensation. Now, I can see nothing wrong in that; and if the Brazilian Government had not been rather more proud of setting the British Government at defiance than of acting in a friendly spirit, they would have taken the same course, and would have offered us compensation. The noble and learned Lord asks whether I will give further papers relating to the value of the cargo. I have only to say, in answer to that question, that any papers with which we have been furnished on the subject by Mr. Stevens which show what the nature of the goods in question was, and what was in each case, I am ready to place at his disposal. I may add, in answer to a further question of the noble and learned Lord, that I am told no insurance was paid. What Mr. Stephens from the beginning said was, that he had a valuable cargo, that he had sent it out under the charge of a man in whom he had perfect confidence, and that he was sure the vessel had been wrecked, the crew foully dealt with, and the cargo plundered. He therefore repeatedly applied to us for compensation, and I cannot help thinking that the amount fixed is very moderate. With regard to our relations with Brazil, it appears to me that in the end they are likely to be very much improved by the Brazilian Government being made aware that we will not submit to have our sailors murdered and our ships plundered without making some grave remonstrance.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: My Lords, I do not know whether there be any other papers or any other blue-book in the Foreign Office and which I have not seen; but I almost believe that such must be the case, for I am unable to reconcile the noble Earl's statement with those made in the papers and blue-books that have been laid before Parliament. The noble Earl states, as a fact, that the Brazilian Government refused to produce the bodies of the sailors or to have an inquest, but I appeal to both sides of the House to say whether that is correct according to the papers before us. Not only did the Brazilian Government produce four bodies, giving all the details as to those bodies, which proved that the parties had not been

  743
  murdered—for two of the bodies were locked in each other's arms; and therefore, unless they had stifled one another, they could not possibly have come to a violent death. The Brazilian Government, therefore, did produce the bodies. [Earl RUSSELL: There were ten; they did not produce the others.] The other bodies were buried in the sand, and could not be found again; but as many as could be found were produced, and a regular inquest and a regular verdict, according to the laws of the country, was pronounced; more than that we had no right to ask. The noble Earl makes the conduct of the Brazilian Government, in refusing to join in an arbitration as to the value of the cargo, an excuse for having made an exorbitant claim; but surely under the circumstances he should have exercised the most extreme delicacy, and made a claim that was rather below than above the real value. Let your Lordships just look at the probability in reference to the value of the cargo plundered. The ship was anchored outside a spit three miles from shore, and she went down at her anchors. The cargo consisted of coal, iron, soda, and beer; and there were the seamen's chests of course. It was impossible that the iron or the coal should float ashore, or, indeed, that they should have been brought ashore in the ship's boats; and the cargo consisted principally of these two things, which must have gone down with the ship and there remained. What was left to come on shore, therefore, was the soda and the barrels of beer; and the Consul admits that he saw the barrels of beer, which had been broken by the waves. The only thing left was the soda, and for that the £3,200 was paid. The amount is so exaggerated, and indeed so absurd, that the matter is hardly worth argument. The noble Earl went on to say that there were two claims which he had against the Brazilian Government; that with respect to the ship and that which referred to the insult to our officers; and that he gave orders to make reprisals on account of those two injuries to our interest and our honour. The noble Earl said, that the Brazilian Government refused to submit these questions to arbitration; but such is not the fact. The Brazilian Government paid the noble Earl the compliment of supposing that there was more justice and more judgment in his nature than was possessed by Mr. Christie, for they offered to refer the matter to the noble Earl himself, and to the Brazilian Minister in London. I do not say it
  744
  was the noble Earl's fault that Mr. Christie would not let the matter go out of his own hands, and therefore that the noble Earl never had an opportunity of judging for himself coolly and calmly at the Foreign Office in reference to the whole case. He left it in the hands of Mr. Christie, who evidently had some hostile feeling against the Brazilian Government. I want to know whether, when the assessment was made, Mr. Stevens was called upon to give evidence before the Queen's Advocate; and if so, what was the value of his evidence? We may judge of Mr. Stevens by his antecedents. We may find in the first place what his covetousness is by his having asked twice the amount which even the noble Earl demanded; and in the second place, he offered to come up to the Foreign Office, and bring the witnesses who had seen the sailors murdered in the forecastle; but what became of that matter we have never been told. This is the man upon whose evidence the Queen's Advocate had to act. The fact is, that the whole of the actors in this business have been miscast for their parts. Mr. Christie, the diplomatic agent, appears as a belligerent; the Admiral acts as a jurist, and instructed the noble Earl what to ask for; and the Queen's Advocate has been used as an appraiser of the value of seamen's chests. How could the Queen's Advocate know what things a seaman was likely to have in his chest, what was the nature of different cargoes, and what was likely to be destroyed by water? The noble Earl seems to think that it would have been absurd to call in a ship-broker. [Earl RUSSELL: To refer the question to him.] To refer the question means simply to ask the ship-broker what he supposed would be the value of such a cargo in the ship, and, if the ship were lost, what would be the damage; and the noble Earl never seems to think that this was all that had been left to the Queen's Advocate—the result being the assessment which had been referred to. I very much regret that the noble Earl has not answered the question of his noble and learned Friend (Lord Chelmsford), and that he has not thought it consistent with his own dignity and that of his country to state, that after the award of King Leopold he regrets that reprisals should have been made, because the noble Earl seems to have made these unfortunate reprisals entirely on account of that dispute. I do not see what right there was to make reprisals on account of the officers

  745
  of the Forte, when that question had been referred to King Leopold. But the noble Earl told M. Moreira plainly that the reprisals were made not only on account of the Prince of Wales, but also in consequence of the insult offered to the officers of the Forte. The noble Earl had no right to make reprisals when once the subject was submitted to King Leopold. [Earl RUSSELL: The submission was afterwards.] Then surely the noble Earl could have no scruples in expressing, since the arbitration had taken place, his regret on that point—it being such an award as shows that he was wrong, and that he was not justified in making a claim on account of the officers of the Forte. It surely would not have lowered the dignity of his office or of his country to have said this, and I trust the noble Earl will not allow any feeling of false pride to prevent a reconciliation with the Brazilian Government. I hope that your Lordships will consider that it is of the greatest possible consequence that we should be on good terms with Brazil, and we have already had some awkward questions with that country, in which we had not always been in the right. There is the case of the slave trade, and naturally our dislike and hatred of slavery have sometimes blinded us as to the point in dispute. When I say this, I wish to refer to what is called the Aberdeen Act. That is certainly a most unjustifiable Act as between one nation and another. The Aberdeen Act was passed to give Her Majesty's cruisers power to stop and search Brazilian vessels supposed to be engaged in the slave trade, even in Brazilian waters. That, in my opinion, was simply an Act to legalize piracy for the purpose of punishing pirates. I am in a position to state that not long before Lord Aberdeen's death, in a conversation which we had together, Lord Aberdeen told me that he had never felt satisfied in his mind that he was right in proposing that Act, and that he should be very glad to see it repealed. I think the Act a breach of international law to the utmost extent. It is no excuse for it to say, that because one country committed crimes and breaches of treaty, we should pass an Act that is opposed to international law, and which can only be enforced by a strong country against a weak one; for it is quite evident that this law cannot be put in force against a strong Power, but only against a weak one. It appears to me, that so long as that law exists, the two countries cannot
  746
  be on good terms. The Act was suspended by my noble Friend (the Earl of Derby) during his Government in 1852, and it has remained suspended ever since. It, however, continues to be a disgrace to our statute-book, a standing sore to the Brazilian people, and a constant irritation to their pride, I beg to suggest to the noble Earl whether the time has not come when an Act which is not now in force should be repealed, and the noble Earl may depend upon it that nothing would give greater satisfaction to the Brazilian people than a repeal of that Act. I think that many of the questionable acts of the Brazilian Government may be accounted for, if they take the same view of this Act as I do. If the noble Earl asks me why I did not while I was in office attempt to repeal that Act, I will candidly own that the Government of my noble Friend (the Earl of Derby) was not strong enough to take such a step; and that during the existence of that Government their political enemies sought every opportunity to thwart and oppose them. That was the only reason I did not suggest and press upon my noble Friend the propriety of repealing that Act. I mention the subject now because it will give to the noble Earl the Foreign Minister a chance of re-opening negotiations with the Brazilian Government, and holding out the hand of fellowship to a people who feel offended by our recent conduct towards them.
  EARL RUSSELL: As the noble Earl has expressed his opinion that it is of the highest importance that Her Majesty's Government and the Brazilian Government should be on good terms, I may mention that I have been informed by the Minister of the King of Portugal in this country that his Sovereign has directed his Minister in Brazil to take steps with a view of seeing whether a good understanding cannot be restored between the two Governments. I think it is better to wait to see what effect that recommendation will have, and I, for one, should be most happy to announce that they have been successful.
  EARL FORTESCUEsaid, he regretted to hear that any ungentlemanly qualities had been attributed to his old friend Mr. Christie. Mr. Christie had been charged with being influenced by the most unworthy motives in his dealings with the Brazilian Government. It appeared to him (Earl Fortescue) that the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Malmesbury) should have

  747
  exhibited greater forbearance, considering the very favourable way in which the noble Earl, when in office, had spoken of Mr. Christie. In his public despatches he had spoken of him in the most laudatory and friendly terms, and had even pressed him to remain at his post.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: I never pressed Mr. Christie to remain in office. It does not follow because I approved of his acts in 1852 that I should also approve of what he did in 1863.

GALWAY CONTRACT.—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF HARDWICKEasked the Postmaster General,
1st. Whether the Contract for the Conveyance of Mails between Galway and America has yet been concluded?
2nd. Its terms; and whether any and what Modifications, more especially as regards the landing of Mails or Telegrams at Saint John's Newfoundland?
3rd. When the Performance of the Service is to commence?
4th. Whether, notwithstanding the Reports of the Admiralty Surveyors as to the Unfitness of the Vessels, the Government are prepared to incur the Risk of another Failure in this Service?
5th. Whether any steps have been taken by the Government authorities to ensure the Public against the Consequences of those Deficiences in the Vessels of the Galway Company pointed out by the Admiralty Surveyors?
There was great anxiety on the part of the public to ascertain the precise facts in regard to this matter. He therefore submitted those questions, which were put in the interest of the Irish people, with a view of eliciting a distinct answer to each. He trusted, therefore, that the noble Lord would give a categorical answer to his five Questions, and that he would not confine himself to a general reply.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, that with regard to Question No. 1, he had to say that the contract had been drawn up and forwarded to the Company, and it remained for them to accept it or not. He believed they were prepared to accept it. In answer to Question No. 2, the terms of the contract were precisely the same as the previous one, without any modifications, except as regarded two points—the one was that no Member of either House of Parliament should share in the contract; and the other, that before the contract should come in force it should be laid for one month on the table of the House of Commons. No alteration
748
had been made in the terms of the contract as regarded the landing of mails and telegrams at Saint John's, Newfoundland. It was taken for granted that the port of St. John's would be continued as the place for landing and departure of the mails on the opposite side of the Atlantic. As to the third Question, the time at which the contract was to commence would depend upon the time at which the contract was signed; and when the Company intimated that they were ready to perform their part of the contract, the Government would name a day for the performance to commence. In answer to the fourth and fifth Questions, he was not aware of any additional security being provided for the fulfilment of the contract. The Government surveyors had reported to the Admiralty that though the vessels were in some respects fit to perform the voyage, yet possibly when they were loaded they might not be able to keep up the required rate of speed. The Government, however, were not prepared to insist upon the complete fulfilment of the terms of the contract in that respect; but if the voyages were not performed within the time specified, the Government would insist upon the penalties stipulated for in the terms of the contract. He had nothing further to say upon the subject.

PRISON MINISTERS BILL.
Commons' Amendments to Lords' Amendments considered (according to Order): Moved not to agree to the first Amendment of the Commons to the Lords' Amendments, but to amend the Words thus reinstated; agreed to: Commons' Second Amendment disagreed to; and a Committee appointed to prepare Reasons to be offered to the Commons for the Lords disagreeing to One of the Amendments made by the Commons to the said Bill: The Committee to meet forthwith: Report from the Committee of a Reason, read, and agreed to; and Bill, with the Amendments and Reason, returned to the Commons.
House adjourned at a quarter before Eight o'clock, to Thursday next, half past Ten o'clock.