Sitting of 23 July 1863

MINUTES.
Select Commmtee—on Ordnance Report (No. 487).
Resolutions in Committee—East India Revenue Accounts.
Public Bills—First Reading—Exhibition Medals (Lords) * [Bill 261].
Committee—British Columbia Boundaries (Lords) [Bill 187]; Augmentation of Benefices (Lords) [Bill 134]; Rum Duty * [Bill 250]; Clergymen (Colonies) (Lords) * [Bill 251]; Alterations in Judges' Circuits (Lords) * [Bill 252].
Report—British Columbia Boundaries (Lords); Augmentation of Benefices (Lords); Rum Duty *; Clergymen (Colonies) (Lords) *; Alterations in Judges' Circuits (Lords) *.
Considered as amended—Statute Law Revision (Lords) * [Bill 233]; Augmentation of Benefices (Lords) * [Bill 134]; Clergymen (Colonies) (Lords) * [Bill 251]; Alterations in Judges' Circuits (Lords) * [Bill 252].
Third Reading—Consolidated Fund (Appropriation); Colonial Acts Confirmation (Lords) * [Bill 250]; Partnership Law Amendment * [Bill 242]; and severally passed.
Withdrawn—Superannuations (Union Officers) [Bill 253].

CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL—THIRD READING.
Order for Third Reading read.
MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALDsaid, that he rose, pursuant to notice, to ask a question with reference to the present relations between the Germanic Confederation and the Government of Denmark, and with reference to any further communications that have passed between Her Majesty's Minister at Copenhagen and the Danish Government. He had to express his regret at having brought down the noble Viscount at the morning sitting, and his personal obligations to the noble Viscount for attending in his place on the present occasion; but the Session was coming so near to a close that he was very unwilling it should terminate without obtaining from Her Majesty's Government some explanation of their policy with reference to the German Confederation and the Kingdom of Denmark. The difference between the German Confederation and Denmark had subsisted for several years—in fact, almost since the settlement of 1851 there had been these disputes going on, and from time to time they had been the subject of diplomatic interference on the part of the other Powers of Europe, but their friendly offices had seemed only to embitter the relations between Germany and Denmark. Until recently the policy of Her Majesty's Government, and of preceding Governments of this country, had been to support the rights of Denmark, and to refuse to admit any pretension on the part of the Germanic Confederation to interfere with the internal organization of the Kingdom of Denmark. No one had more emphatically adopted that policy than the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Office, and the views he had expressed in his communication of the year 1861 met with the full approval of those who desired to see the independence of Denmark maintained. But, for some reason unknown to the world, the noble Earl the Foreign Secretary seemed to have adopted not only a different policy, but a policy totally contradictory to that which for so long a period had been adopted by himself and by those who preceded him in the important

1247
office he held. Towards the close of the last year, the noble Lord, in a communication addressed to the Court of Denmark, proposed in effect what was a new constitution for the Kingdom of Denmark and its dependencies. That was now a matter of history. A more extraordinary proposition was never made, for it was in reality a new constitution for an independent kingdom. The noble Lord discussed the subject of a moderate civil list, and he went into matters connected with the internal affairs of Denmark, as though he had been the prime minister of Denmark, and not the Minister of England. That was an absurd, but, at the same time, it was obviously a dangerous proceeding, on the part of the noble Lord. For, on the one hand, he told the King of Denmark that he could no longer rely on that support from his allies which he had hitherto received, and, at the same time, gave a certain sanction to the pretensions of the Germanic Confederation, which up to that time had not been supported by the Courts of England and France. That was important, because the King of Denmark, seeing that he was deserted by his allies, found it necessary for him to take a decided step, and accordingly he issued, on the 30th of March, a patent, by which he gave to the States of Holstein the entire control of all the affairs of that duchy. That patent, in fact, came to this:—That Holstein was to decide, in perfect independence of Denmark, on all questions affecting the civil list, the appanage of the Royal family, the public debt, the navy and army, the customs, and the postal arrangements with foreign Powers; in fact, the patent gave the most perfect autonomy to the States of Holstein, and separated them as far as could be done from the Kingdom of Denmark. The next step was the appointment of a Committee of the Diet sitting at Frankfort. It might have been anticipated that the Diet of Frankfort would have received with satisfaction a measure giving an independent constitution to Holstein, and that they would have considered that the King of Denmark had done more than he was required, rather than less than he was called upon to do. That, however, was not the way in which the Diet of Frankfort dealt with the matter, for by a resolution of the 9th July last the Committee of the Diet gave notice to the King of Denmark calling upon him, in six weeks from that period, to annul the patent of the 30th of March; and if that was not done,
1248
the Committee were authorized, without further reference to the Diet, to proceed at once to Federal execution—that was, authorizing the Committee to proceed to the occupation of the Danish territory by Austrian troops. Those six weeks would expire on the 13th or 20th of the next month. As soon as that time arrived, unless the King of Denmark annulled the patent, which it was obviously impossible for him to do, the Committee of the Diet were authorized to call in the Austrian troops to occupy the Duchy of Holstein. That resolution was at once resented by the Sovereign and Legislature of Denmark, and the consequence was that at that moment Denmark was strengthening all the garrisons in Holstein, calling together what were called the two years' service men, which would give the King of Denmark a vastly increased force, and the officers of the reserve and manning their forts. They had also recently entered into a contract with some eminent shipbuilders in this country for two ironclads. They were manning them with all speed, and they had issued a proclamation that any captain in the English merchant service, by taking service with them, could have the rank of lieutenant at once. All these proceedings were menacing to the peace of Europe, and no man could say what the result might be, if Denmark should resist the occupation of Holstein by a foreign force. It was important, therefore, that the House should know what course Her Majesty's Government were prepared to pursue if the Germanic Confederation should attempt to occupy Holstein, and that occupation should be resisted by a Danish force. The Danish Government had done its best to fulfil the stipulations into which it had entered with the Governments of Prussia and Austria. It was an acknowledged principle of our foreign policy, that while the Germanic Confederation had a right to interfere in the affairs of the Duchy of Holstein, it had not the slightest right to interfere with the affairs of the Duchy of Schleswig. He was prepared to contend, that while the Germans had no ground to complain in regard to Holstein, they had no right to interfere or complain in regard to Schleswig. It was perfectly clear that the obligations of the King of Denmark to the Federal Government were not obligations, in the strict sense of the word, the breach of which was to be resented by force of arms; but were only in the nature of certain declarations on the part of the Danish

1249
Crown which the Danish Government were called upon to fulfil in certain particular circumstances. Now, if that was the condition of the question, the German Confederation had certainly no right to interfere, because the Danish Government had given more than the German Confederation had a right to ask. The independence of the Danish Crown was most important to Europe. If the Government would say that under pretence of Federal rights the Germanic Confederation were not to interfere with the rights of the Danish Crown, and if France and Russia held similar language, the danger to which he had adverted might be obviated. If, on the other hand, Her Majesty's Government were prepared to let matters take their own course, the territory of Denmark might within a few weeks be occupied by Austrian troops, and blood might be shed. Russia would then be brought upon the scene, and it was impossible to say where matters would end. He trusted that the noble Lord would give the House some assurance that the subject would receive the serious attention of Her Majesty's Government, and that they would not allow the independence of Denmark to be menaced by the Germanic Confederation.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, the hon. Gentleman has made a very clear and dispassionate statement of that which is one of the most complicated subjects that almost ever engaged the attention of the statesmen of Europe. I will not enter into the long details of what is called the Schleswig-Holstein Question. It is involved in the greatest obscurity in former times. I will only say that the German advocates refer to a period as far back as 1460, quoting the transactions of that time as a reason why they should maintain a closer union between Schleswig and Holstein. All I can say is, that if the States of Germany, and more especially Prussia, choose to adopt the year 1460 as the starting point with reference to what territorial limitations are to be, they had better begin with themselves, and Prussia had better go back to what she was in 1460; and as to some of the other States of Germany, I do not think they will find that rule any more convenient to them than would be its application to Denmark. Now, I entirely concur with the hon. Gentleman, that it is an important matter of British policy to maintain the independence and integrity of the Danish monarchy. That monarchy is not a large one, but it has its rights as well
1250
as larger States, and its geographical position renders the maintenance of its independence and integrity a matter of peculiar interest to this country. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman is entirely mistaken if he supposes that my noble Friend at the head of the Foreign Office has, in any degree whatever, altered his views as to the policy that this country ought to pursue in regard to the differences between Denmark and the Germanic Confederation. In 1861 my noble Friend, after many former ineffectual efforts, suggested to the two disputants an arrangement that appeared to him calculated to meet the views of both, as far as those views could be made consistent with the objections of both. That arrangement was not adopted, or was not found suitable; the suggestion fell to the ground, and it is now a matter of history, and not of practical application. The position that we have always held is that Holstein is unquestionably a member of the Germanic Confederation; and such being the case, that the Germanic Confederation have a right to have an opinion on the affairs of Holstein in the same degree and in the same way in which they have a right to look to the affairs of the other members of the Germanic Confederation; and that any arrangement made by the King of Denmark in regard to the Duchy of Holstein, if it were at variance with the fundamental rules and privileges of the Germanic Confederation, would be one that the King of Denmark would not be entitled to make. With regard, however, to Schleswig, we contend that the Germanic Confederation has no rights. Any question as to the Duchy of Schleswig is a matter of international law and of European concern; and the Germanic Confederation are no more entitled to prescribe what should be done with regard to Schleswig than with regard to Spain, Portugal, England, Russia, or any other independent State. But there is in Schleswig a very considerable German population, and therefore it is not unnatural—indeed, it is perfectly justifiable—that the Germanic Confederation should take an interest in the condition of the German population; and it is entitled to make representations to the King of Denmark requesting that the German population should be put on a fair and equal footing with regard to the Danish population of Schleswig. That, however is a matter of explanation and discussion, and not a subject that would justify an

1251
appeal to force. The hon. Gentleman more particularly touched on the question now pending between the King of Denmark and the Confederation with regard to Holstein. The last stage of the question is the only important matter to discuss—namely, the patent which the King of Denmark issued in March last for the affairs of Holstein. No doubt he imagined that in the patent he had conceded to Holstein everything that the Germanic Confederation had a right to expect. The Members of the Diet were however, of a different opinion, and a discussion is now going on between the Danish Government and the Diet on that particular question. The Danish Government are preparing an answer to the objections made by the Diet, and that reply will have to be considered by the Diet. It is quite true that there was a resolution that a Federal "execution" should take place at the end of six weeks if the King of Denmark did not within that time cancel the patent. But I remember a story of Prince Talleyrand, who, wishing the Diet of the Germanic Confederation not to do something or other that he thought disagreeable, and an inconvenience to the French Government, instructed his Minister at Frankfort to urge the Diet not to act with too much precipitation. Now, precipitation is not the characteristic fault of the German Confederation; and I am persuaded that their good sense and the soundness of their views on the peace of Europe will lead them not rashly to have recourse to a step, the consequences of which might be far different from those which are immediately contemplated. It is impossible for any man who looks at the map of Europe, and who knows the great interest which the Powers of Europe feel in the independence of the Danish monarchy, to shut his eyes to the fact that war begun about a petty quarrel concerning the institutions of Holstein would, in all probability, not end where it began, but might draw after it consequences which all the parties who began it would be exceedingly sorry to have caused. But if any one Power more than another would, upon grounds of general policy, be disinclined to set fire to the combustible elements of Europe, that one Power is, I think, Austria. The hon. Gentleman says it is an Austrian force that would be called upon to execute the Federal decree in Holstein; and I think it reasonable to conclude that Austria would not be disposed to take that step lightly and prematurely,
1252
or until every other means of settlement had been exhausted, and unless she was convinced not only that she had right, but necessity on her side. There is no use in disguising the fact that what is at the bottom of the German design, and the desire of connecting Schleswig with Holstein, is the dream of a German fleet, and the wish to get Kiel as a German seaport. That may be a good reason why they should wish it; but it is no reason why they should violate the rights and independence of Denmark for an object which, even if accomplished, would not realize the expectation of those who aim at it. The hon. Gentleman asks what is the policy and the course of Her Majesty's Government with regard to that dispute. As I have already said, we concur entirely with him, and I am satisfied with all reasonable men in Europe, including those in France and Russia, in desiring that the independence, the integrity, and the right of Denmark may be maintained. We are convinced—I am convinced at least—that if any violent attempt were made to overthrow those rights rights and interfere with that independence, those who made the attempt would find in the result, that it would not be Denmark alone with which they would have to contend. I trust, however, that these transactions will continue to be, as they have been, matters for negotiation, and not for an appeal to arms. I have no apprehension that any appeal to arms will be made at the end of six weeks—the term mentioned to the King of Denmark. His Ministers will make a reply, and that reply will have to be considered, and a rejoinder will have to be made; and I can assure the House that every effort will be made by Her Majesty's Government to induce the disputing parties to confine the question within the limits of diplomatic intercourse; and all their influence, and, no doubt, the influence of other Governments also, will be exerted to impress on the Diet a reasonable view of the matter, and to urge a settlement which may be consistent on the one hand with the rights of the Diet with regard to the internal organization of Holstein, and consistent, on the other hand, with the rights, the independence, and the integrity of the Danish monarchy. I do not myself anticipate any immediate danger, or indeed any of that remote danger which the hon. Gentleman seems to think imperils the peace of Europe arising out of the Danish and Holstein question.
MR. COBDEN: If it be necessary to show that, according to the technical rule of the House, I am entitled to bring under the consideration of the Government the subject to which I am going to advert, I can do so by adducing the fact that sums of money voted for the Police and Customs departments are contained in the Appropriation Bill now before the House. Sir, as the remarks which I have to make will imply that those departments have not performed their duty efficiently under the present circumstances, this is not an unsuitable moment for calling their conduct in question. I hold ill my hand a memorial from upwards of thirty of the most respectable shipowners of Liverpool. It is a memorial to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, suggesting an alteration in the Foreign Enlistment Act. The memorialists state that they "view with dismay the probable future consequences of a state of affairs which permits a foreign belligerent to construct in and send to sea from British ports vessels of war, in contravention of the provisions of the existing law;" and they allude to "the attitude of helplessness in which Her Majesty's Government have declared their inability to detect and punish breaches of the law notoriously committed by certain of Her Majesty's subjects." Now, Sir, in reading in the blue-books the correspondence which has taken place respecting the fitting out of ships of war in England to prey upon the commerce of the United States, I have been very much struck with this feature:—The Foreign Office seem to me to assume a passive position, and treat the question as one in regard to which they are only to be called into activity when some foreign Power has shown to them that the law of nations has been violated. I find Earl Russell repeatedly telling Mr. Adams, the American Minister, that it is impossible to act until he supplies the Government with conclusive evidence as to the guilt of the suspected parties. This has led, I think, to a complete misapprehension in the public mind as to the nature of our Foreign Enlistment Act. That Act was not passed in the interest of foreigners. It was passed for our own safety and protection, and as a proof of that I will just read the preamble of the Act. Omitting some technical phrases which intervene, these are its words:—"Whereas the fitting out and equipping and arming of vessels by His Majesty's subjects may be prejudicial to and endanger the peace and welfare of this king-
1254
dom." Now, I apprehend that when a law is passed for such an object as that, it is the duty of our Executive to see that it is not violated or evaded. In fact. I do not know of any object to which the Home Office, with all its affiliation of magistrates and policemen throughout the country, could devote its attention more worthily than the enforcing of the observance of this Act of Parliament. For what is going on? At this moment there are three vessels which are specifically known to be engaged in preying upon the commerce of a friendly Power. These vessels generally have aliases—like other had characters, they have two or three names. There is the Oreto, alias the Florida; the Alabama, alias the "290;" and the Japan, alias the Virginia. Now, these three vessels, all of which were built in England, armed from England, and chiefly manned by Englishmen, are engaged at this moment in the destruction of the commerce of the United States. I believe that only one of the three has ever entered a Confederate port, and that one contrived to enter Mobile and to come out again. But two out of the three have never entered a Confederate port. They have gone from England, and commenced their depredations upon a friendly Power without ever having gone home at all. And I am told—it has been stated publicly—that one of these vessels had fifty-two out of fifty-three of its crew Englishmen, and most of them sailors from our Naval Reserve, and, of course, accustomed to the use of artillery. We know what effect these vessels produce upon the commerce of the United States. I will give it in the language of the memorialists, who are men of experience in maritime affairs. They say—
"That the experience of late events has proved to the conviction of your memorialists that the possession by a belligerent of swift steam cruisers, under no necessity, actual or conventional, to visit the possibly blockaded home ports of that belligerent, but able to obtain all requisite supplies from neutrals, will become a weapon of offence against which no preponderance of naval strength can effectually guard, and the severity of which will be felt in the ratio of the shipping and mercantile wealth of the nation against whose mercantile marine the efforts of those steam cruisers may be directed. That the effect of future war with any Power thus enabled to purchase, prepare, and refit vessels of war in neutral ports will inevitably be to transfer to neutral flags that portion of the sea-carrying trade of the world which is now enjoyed by your memorialists and by other British shipowners."
That is the opinion of upwards of thirty of the most intelligent and influential ship-

1255
owners of Liverpool, who have affixed their signatures to the declaration. Recollect that we are under very different circumstances to what we were when privateers or ships of war were employed in former wars to capture merchant vessels. At that time the motive power of all vessels was the wind; they had no steam; but now, when still the great bulk of our commerce is carried on by sailing vessels, two or three steamers, built especially for speed, may harass, and, in fact, may render valueless the mercantile marine of a whole nation. I have heard it said, "Oh, if it were our case, we should soon catch those vessels." The self-complacency of some people is certainly unlimited. I have made some long voyages in my time. I have four times crossed the Atlantic, and sailed for 2,000 miles without seeing a strange sail. The ocean is a very wide place. You cannot follow a vessel when it has once got out to sea with any chance of catching it. You have no stations where you can hear of it, and no road by which you can follow with the chance of catching it. But recollect that those vessels have been built expressly for speed and nothing else; and if you choose to go to an American builder and say, "Build me a vessel that will be so fast as to catch anything, or to run away from everything," he will build you a vessel to go twenty knots an hour just as readily as an Englishman. No one knowing the mechanical genius of that people will doubt it. Your ships of war are not only built for speed but for armament and capacity, and merchant vessels are necessarily built to carry freight. Therefore, if you have two or three very swift vessels, they are sufficient to destroy the value of the whole mercantile marine of one of the first naval Powers of Europe, This is a question which affects our vital interests, in case we should ever be at war, and the United States at peace. But it may be said, you have not the power, by your laws, to prevent the construction in British ports of those ships. I must confess that I think, if public opinion fairly supported the Government, the law as it now stands would be sufficient. But if the law as it now stands be not sufficient, these memorialists "respectfully urge the expediency of proposing to Parliament to sanction the introduction of such amend-mends into the Foreign Enlistment Act as may have the effect of giving greater power to the Executive to prevent the construction in British ports of ships des-
1256
tined for the use of belligerents." We may be told it is too late to propose any alteration in the law this Session, but I would remind the House that the insertion of one word in our Foreign Enlistment Act would be sufficient to make it effective. The great controversy in the law courts is, as to whether the word "building" can be said to be implied by the words "fitting out, furnishing, or equipping" You have only to add the word "building" to the words "fitting out, furnishing, equipping, and arming," and every one must admit that you would cover the whole ground, and be enabled to prevent a vessel leaving any of our ports in a partially finished state. But the point to which I wish particularly to draw attention is one of a more serious nature. What has been done cannot be recalled. But there are two vessels now completing in this country, iron vessels heavily armoured for war purposes; and Mr. Adams, the American Minister, has declared to the Government his belief that those vessels are intended for the Confederate Government. They are being built in Liverpool by a house that I believe has previously been engaged in building vessels for the Confederate Government, and I presume that the remonstrance which has been sent to the Government by the American Minister contains some proof, at least sufficient to furnish a ground of suspicion, that those vessels are intended for the Confederate Government. Now, sir, I do not think it is very difficult to find out for what Government any vessel which is being built in this country is intended, if it be intended for a Government which can legitimately come to this country to buy a vessel. I know where a vessel is being built for the Danish Government; we knew where the Chinese Government were getting their vessels; and we know precisely where a vessel is being built for any other legitimate Government. But here are two vessels, which, I am told, are being built for the Confederate Government. Now, I am bound to say—for I think the public are entitled to know what is passing in the minds of public men with regard to future events—from all I see of the state of public opinion in America through the press, and from what one hears around him, that I believe if these two iron-clad vessels go out and commence a war upon the United States, it will lead to a war with this country. These vessels are calculated probably to match any vessel that

1257
we have, or any vessels the Americans have; and if they go out, I am very much afraid it will have the effect of leading to a rupture with this country; and I base my supposition upon the fact that by what we have already done we have rendered the mercantile marine of America practically valueless. What is said here in this memorial of what would happen to us if two or three steamers were let loose on our commerce has already happened to the American mercantile marine. The rate of insurance has been raised so high in America that they can no longer compete with England and other maritime States; and the effect has been to render the great property, probably 20,000,000 sterling, of the shipowners of America practically, for all present purposes, valueless. They have been selling their ships extensively in this country. Let us consider the effect which this must have upon the minds of American shipowners and merchants in New York, Boston, and other places. Let us suppose their case our own—that our shipping had been driven from the ocean by privateers built in New York—if we would understand what must be their feelings towards England, which has rendered their property valueless? The shipowners and merchants of America comprised that portion of the community which had always constituted the bond of peace between this country and America. The shipowners of Boston hung their flags half-mast high in 1812, when war was declared with this country; but you have now placed them in such a position with reference to the value of their property that actually they are enlisted on the side of war with England, because if there were a war with this country, then their cruisers would, by preying upon our commerce, raise the rate of insurance on British bottoms to a level with their own, and they would stand on the same footing as ourselves with respect to the world at large. You have removed from the scale of peace and placed in the scale of war that part of the community of America which has always been the great safeguard of peace between the two countries. The question is whether Her Majesty's Government, during the recess, cannot take those precautions which are necessary in order to prevent these vessels leaving our ports for the service of the Confederate Government. The public are not aware of the consequences that are now happening from what has already been done. It is not generally known, that in
1258
respect of every vessel captured by the three privateers I have mentioned, the American Government takes a deposition on oath as to the value of that property, and sends in a claim for indemnity to our Government. Recollect that every vessel captured by the Oreto, the Alabama, and the Virginia is debited to the account of England, and that the American Minister has made a formal claim upon this country for indemnity for these captures. Our Government has constantly refused to acknowledge the claim, but that is the serious part of the whole question. Here is a claim by a foreign Government, which must be met in Borne way or other. It is out of disputed claims such as these that frequently arise those collisions which take place between one country and another. Is this a state of things that ought to have been brought upon the whole community by the acts of individuals—by three or four firms in England doing that which is known to be an evasion of the spirit of the law? Is it, I ask, desirable that the whole interest of this great community should be put in future jeopardy in consequence of these proceedings? I say, on the contrary, it is the interest of every one in this country, of every loyal subject of the realm, to be himself a detective with a view to prevent such transactions as these, to frown them down when he sees they are going on; and if you cannot find in the public opinion of this country sufficient patriotism and loyalty to do that, the consequences that I have spoken of must fall upon the country. On a former occasion the hon. Gentleman the Member for Birkenhead, who spoke exultingly, as I thought, of the part his firm had taken in these transactions, tried to mix up two questions which are totally distinct. The hon. Gentleman spoke of the exportation of munitions of war and arms. Now there is, as I have stated before in this House, no law in this country to prevent the exportation of munitions of war, and there never has been, and the American Government has never asked us to provide a law for that purpose. It is not difficult to show the difference between munitions of war and ships of war. Munitions of war are a constant article of commerce, and the great element of all armaments, gunpowder, is used for civil as well as for military purposes. It is largely consumed for blasting, for mining, and other purposes; and therefore to attempt to put a prohibition upon the export of arms and munition—to prohibit all trade

1259
in arms and munition—would be an injustice to a very large and regular industry. But what your law does undertake to do is this—to prevent the supplying of ships of war and men to engage in a foreign war with a friendly Power, and it is done in your own interest to prevent your being involved in their disputes. The hon. Member for Birkenhead made use of another argument, he stated that the American Government had applied to him to build ships of war, and that he refused to violate the law. But it would be no excuse for violating the law in one direction to say that he had refused to violate it in another. If the Federal Government applied to the hon. Gentleman to build ships of war, he did quite right in refusing them; but if by building ships of war for the Confederates he violated the law, it was no excuse to Bay that he had refused in the other case to violate it. But I have a contradiction of his statement which I wish to read to the hon. Member—
MR. SPEAKER: This is not an occasion to reply to a speech made some time ago, and certainly not to read observations on anything that took place during a debate in this House.
MR. COBDEN: It is a copy of a letter from the Secretary of the Navy at Washington to my friend Mr. Charles Sumner, which, with the permission of the House, I will read.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member may make any statement he thinks proper, but to read a letter commenting on a speech made in this House is entirely out of order.
MR. COBDEN: Then I must confine myself to a statement of the contents of the letter. I have given the hon. Member notice that I would call attention to it. It is a letter that contradicts very emphatically the statement of the hon. Gentleman. The writer states, that under no circumstances, nor at any time, has any order been sent from the American Navy Department to any shipbuilder in this country. I do not consider that it has much bearing upon the question before us, but it is interesting as an important matter of fact. With regard to the main question at issue, I say it is wholly a matter of public opinion in this country. If it be not felt by the people at large as it is felt by those influential shipowners in Liverpool, that we have a vital stake in preventing the violation of the neutrality code, those proceedings will go on. But I appre-
1260
hend we are bound by motives of self-interest, and by the desire to exhibit a feeling of fair reciprocity towards the American people, to put down those illegal proceedings. I alluded before to the course of conduct adopted by the American people in relation to those neutrality laws. I stated in this House that I would challenge any one to show that we ever made any complaint to America with reference to those laws that was not redressed. I challenged any person to prove that there had been on this point any unsatisfactory treatment of this country by America; but why has this been so? Be cause the public opinion of America has been in favour of maintaining this neutrality code. An appeal was made to the American Government in 1855, during the Crimean war, to maintain it. There was supposed to be a vessel of war building in New York called the Maury, and our Consul at New York obtained permission from the Government of the United States to have the vessel arrested. She was found to be an innocent vessel, and was released at the instance of our own Consul. The Chamber of Commerce in New York met, and passed the following Resolution:—
"Resolved,—That the merchants of New York, as part of the body of merchants of the United States, will uphold the Government in the full maintenance of the neutrality laws of this country; and we acknowledge, and adopt, and always have regarded, the acts of the United States for preserving its neutrality as binding in honour and conscience as well as in law; and that we denounce those who violate them as disturbers of the peace of the world, to be held in universal abhorrence."
I should like to see our chambers of commerce putting forward a similar declaration, that the Acts for preserving our neutrality "are binding in honour and conscience as well as in law, and that we denounce those who violate them as disturbers of the peace of the world, to be held in universal abhorrence." If such a sentiment be not entertained by the country, the Act of Parliament becomes a dead letter, for it will not have the support of public opinion. I said that our Foreign Enlistment Act is a municipal law passed for our own preservation, but there is another view of the question most important to statesman and diplomatists. It is this—that the municipal law is an inherent part of the international code of civilized nations. It is the way in which we fulfil by Act of Parliament the duty we owe to foreign countries who adopt the same legis-

1261
lation in regard to us. It is on this ground that the American Government have raised the question of indemnity for captures, about which I do not mean now to offer any opinion. If our Government refuse to pay, it is because they believe they have a right to refuse to pay, but there is this view of the question to be taken into consideration:—The Americans claim the indemnity on international grounds, and not merely because we have violated our own municipal law. They say, "We paid you money for captures made by cruisers that left our ports so long back as 1794, when we had no municipal law at all, on the ground of international law, and we now claim from you the observance of this code on international grounds." It is a very serious element, when diplomatically considered that we made ourselves parties to the international code by repeatedly applying to the American Government to enforce their law, and pass a new law for the protection of our interests. In 1838 we asked them to amend their law to protect us in Canada, and the Americans passed an amended law instantly. During the Crimean war we asked them to exercise a fair neutrality towards us, and they did so. Now, we are in the position of neutrals, and they are in the position of belligerents, and can we now proclaim that we are exempt from the obligations of acting towards them as they acted towards us? If we are bound by the obligations of international law, it is no answer to say we cannot compel our subjects to obey our own municipal law. Standing on the ground of international law, the American Government may say, "We hold your nation as a unit responsible to us, and it is for you to look to your own subjects and see that they obey your municipal law." With regard to the future, those gentlemen who, for their own small gains, are building those ships of war for foreign Powers are placing us in an embarrassing and very dangerous position. I think there is a fair claim upon the Government to exercise its utmost vigilance to prevent those armed vessels from leaving our shores. I perceive a fallacy which runs through Lord Russell's despatches, and the Solicitor General's speeches. They constantly confound two very different things—namely, the evidence necessary to detain a vessel, and the evidence necessary to convict a vessel. The consequence is, that we refuse to interfere until Mr. Adams has brought forward conclusive evidence on oath that is sufficient to convict. Why
1262
do we maintain the costly machinery of our superior courts, if there be no further proofs left to elucidate? We do not act so in other cases. We do not require all the evidence that is necessary to convict when we arrest a person and bring him before a magistrate. He is brought before the magistrate and committed for trial. When he is before the grand jury, it is only on ex parte evidence he is tried. I say the Government will incur an immense responsibility if they allow those iron-clad vessels to leave these shores as the Alabama left. The departure of that privateer might have been prevented. That vessel, according to Lord Russell's despatch, left the port of Liverpool without a clearance, clandestinely. She left it on pretence of taking out a pleasure party of ladies and gentlemen, and did not return. It was an unworthy action for any person to be a party to—it was an unpatriotic act; but the Government might have prevented that. They had grounds for suspicion, and might have said to the collector of the port, "Before this vessel leaves or has her clearance we must be satisfied on these points;" and to prevent her leaving without a clearance, they might have put custom-house officers on board. I maintain that you have power to do that under your Customs Consolidation Act, and I hope that those other vessels will not be allowed to escape as the Alabama did. The consequences are too serious for the Government to remain passive. The machinery of the Home Office ought to be put in operation to trace the guilty, if there be guilt in the matter. I trust the Government will not meet us next Session without finding that the law as it stands is sufficient to carry out the intentions of the Foreign Enlistment Act, or, if not, that they will come to the House to propose an alteration of the law. The addition of one clause to the Customs Consolidation Act would meet the whole case. By that clause it should be provided that before any vessel of war shall leave any port of England for any foreign country, the builder or owner of such vessel shall be required to state to the collector of customs for that port for what foreign Government she is intended. That simple clause added to the Customs Consolidation Act would meet the whole case. You would then know the foreign Government for which the vessel was intended, and could ascertain from the Minister of that Government if they had ordered such a

1263
vessel. Recollect that a ship of war differs from articles of merchandise. A ship of war can only be legitimately used by a Government. It cannot be legitimately used by an individual. In the hands of an individual it would be a pirate vessel, because an individual has no flag. As the destination of a ship of war so leaving this country must be legitimately the port of some foreign Sovereign, it is no hardship to the shipbuilder to state to the authorities the foreign Government for which she is intended. The interests at stake are too vital on a question of this kind to allow us to be deterred by petty obstacles on the part of individuals. Let them be licensed to build ships of war, and let them declare for what Government each ship is built. If the ship be built for an individual, let that individual declare for what foreign Government she is intended. Let not the dimensions of the civil war in America be extended by involving ourselves in it. By intervention you may widen the dimensions of that civil war, but all history proves that no benefit to the cause of peace can arise from an interference in the domestic quarrel of a great and spirited nation. I am surprised to hear persons taunting us in this House with being opposed to peace in America because we are against intervention. The same argument was used in 1793 with relation to France, and that argument prevailed. Foreigners interfered to put down the Reign of Terror in that country. What was the consequence? They extended the Reign of Terror over the whole Continent, and Europe was deluged with blood for twenty years. Interference could now only produce similar consequences in America. I do not pretend to say what the result of the war will be. I have travelled twice over the American continent, and have given very close attention to all that has passed there during the last thirty years. Assuming for myself no superiority, but claiming only the ordinary powers of observation, probably no Member of the House has had a better opportunity than I have of judging of the state of affairs at the present moment in America and of the power of the respective belligerents. And I say I do not expect to live to see, and I never have expected to see, two independent nations within the area of the old United States. I do not ask any one to agree in opinion with me; but I am afraid that a good deal has been said, and that even a little has been done, in this country on a contrary assumption.
1264
Whatever may be the issue of this dreadful war, let us keep clear of it. Prevent those British-built cruisers and ships of war from interfering in a way that will injure the great material interests of America, and my voice will be mute in the quarrel. I desire nothing more than that we should in this House he silent—silent and sorrowful, until this terrible struggle is brought to a close.
MR. LAIRDsaid, he was prepared, if necessary, to prove that every word he had said in a former debate was perfectly true; and as the question was one which affected Her Majesty's Government, he was ready to put his proofs in the hands of the noble Lord at the head of the Government. The hon. Gentleman stated that the Alabama went out with a picnic party, but he had ascertained that she went out of dock at night, that she anchored in the river until eleven or twelve o'clock next day, and that she was seen from the shore by thousands of persons. [Mr. Cobden: I quoted from Earl Russell's despatches.] He was not responsible for those despatches. [Mr. Cobden: She had no clearance.] It was not necessary to take a clearance. The owner might either clear her or take a register. The course pursued was to hand the builder's certificate to the owner, and then he might do what he liked with her. A great deal of blame had been cast upon the English Government, but what had been the orders given by the American Government to the Tuscarora? She was running about the country after the Alabama, but orders were given to her not to touch the Alabama in the Channel. Mr. Adams, in a letter to Mr. Seward, dated August 7, 1862, said—
"On the same day I received by mail a note from Captain Craven, dated the 31st, announcing the receipt of my despatches and his decision to go to Point Lynas at noon, on the 1st instant. Captain Craven seems to have sailed up St. George's Channel. This last movement must have been made in forgetfulness of my caution about British jurisdiction, for, even had he found No. 290 in that region, I had in previous conversations with him explained the reason why I should not consider it good policy to attempt her capture near the coast. In point of fact, this proceeding put an end to every chance of his success."
The hon. Member stated that the Foreign Enlistment Act was infringed because the Alabama had never been in a Confederate port, but that was not necessary so long as she carried the Confederate commission. If we were at war with America, and the Admiral on the North American station

1265
captured vessels that were likely to be useful, did the hon. Gentleman suppose that he would be obliged to send them into Portsmouth harbour and wait for their return? No, the moment a vessel received a commission from a belligerent Government she became a recognised vessel of war, and must be so regarded by every nation in the world. A proof that the American Government admitted the lawfulness of the captures made by the Alabama was, that the American Courts had recognised the bonds given by the officers of the ships seized and liberated by the Alabama. They thus recognised the whole proceeding under which she became a Confederate vessel and received a Confederate commission, and they could not back out of it. The memorial presented by the hon. Gentleman was signed by thirty of the shipowners of Liverpool. They were very respectable persons, but they were too small a number to claim to represent the shipowners of Liverpool. Many of those who had signed it had, he was told, done so with the understanding that other nations were to do the same. It had been proposed to make the law more stringent, and that any one undertaking an order for building a ship should prove for whom she was intended. But there was this difference between ships and cannon, that ships might be used for peaceful purposes, while cannon and muskets could only be turned to one use. The Northern States got all they wanted from this country. They imported largely our arms and ammunition, and at the same time they wished to stop a legitimate branch of industry. As a proof how easily vessels built for purposes of commerce might be converted into vessels of war, he might mention that in 1859 he thought it desirable to strengthen the local defences of each port by adapting the ferry-boats and tug-boats to purposes of defence. He laid a proposition before the Admiralty, and also before Lord Herbert, by whom it was warmly taken up, offering to adapt forty or fifty of these vessels at an expense of from £250 to £300 each to the purposes of defence. The Admiralty sent down a talented officer of the navy, who made a survey, and reported that for £290 or £300 each these vessels might be made to carry, some 32's and others 68-pounders, then the most efficient gun in the service. He (Mr. Laird) would, indeed, take any ship and at a small cost adapt her to carry
1266
some of the largest guns of the service. While the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cobden) was turning his attention to the breach of the Foreign Enlistment Act, he could have wished that he had made inquiries into the enlistment of men for the Federal army that was now going on in Ireland. If he would advise with the American Minister on that point, he might do a great deal of good to the people of Ireland. The hon. Gentleman, however, persisted in seeing only one side of the question. The Chief Baron had given a strong opinion that the law was on the side of those who had built the Alexandra. The hon. Member had vouched for the readiness of the Americans to abstain from infringing the law in that respect. He wished, however, to relate to the House what took place in regard to the America, a vessel which was built, manned, armed, and equipped in the United States, and which was taken out by Captain Hudson to Petropaulovski for the Russian Government. Captain Hudson—
"expressed his deep chagrin at the unexpected termination of the war, as the America was only one of a fleet that were preparing and equipping for the same Government and purpose, and added that in the event of another year's war they would have swept the Pacific of the English vessels."
In confirmation of that statement, he would read a memorandum made by an officer on board the Savannah—
"The America came into Rio de Janeiro on her way round from New York to Petropaulovski. When she was in Rio, the captains of the English and French men-of war lying there wanted to overhaul her, but the Brazilian Government would not permit it. They then determined to overhaul her after she left the harbour. Commander Salter, who was commander of the United States squad, ron at Rio in the frigate Savannah, in order to protect the America, ordered her to take the Savannah in tow, which effectually prevented the English and French searching the America. One of the crew of the America gave the British Consul at Rio information of the America having her guns in her hold ready to mount. The America was commanded by Captain Hudson, an ex-lieutenant in the United States Navy."
Lastly, an officer of the British navy stated in a letter—
"The America laid in the Pei-ho river for some weeks during the months of April and May 1858. She had the flag of Count Putiatine flying at the signing of the Treaty of Tien-tsin, May 1858, and was well known to every naval officer present as having been built in America for the Russians. She had an American eagle on her stern."
So far from the American Government keeping faith with that of Great Britain

1267
during the war with Russia, they allowed the America to get away, and gave orders to the American Admiral to protect her against the search of the English and French officers.
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he wished to ask a Question relative to the exclusion of Turkey from the Conferences which were to be held for the cession of the Ionian Islands. It had been stated that Turkey had no right to claim admission to these Conferences, because she was not one of the parties to the Treaty of Vienna. By a further Act, however, dated April 1819, Turkey did adhere to the provisions of that treaty, and therefore stood on the same footing as the other Powers who were signatories to the treaty. She had therefore an absolute right to be consulted on the cession. It had been said that the Act of 1819 had no reference to the arrangement for the cession of these islands; but in the French despatches it was called the accession of the Ottoman Porte to the treaty of Paris, and it was so regarded by the English Foreign Office. The effect of the Act of 1819 was, that Turkey recognised the Ionians as the protected subjects of Great Britain; and the practical result of the acknowledgment was, that the people of the Ionian Islands became possessed of the rights of British subjects in the Turkish dominions. He contended that it was indisputable that Turkey had a right to be summoned and to attend any Conference to determine the future status of the Ionian Islands. No Power in Europe was in fact so directly interested in the question of the Ionian Islands as Turkey, and that consideration was no doubt present to the minds of those who signed the Treaty of Paris. It was an obvious necessity, that if the balance of power were to be maintained, the Ionian Islands ought not to be handed over to a Power whose hostility to Turkey was well known. He therefore protested, in the name of treaties, of justice, and in the interest of the future peace of Europe, against the proposed exclusion of Turkey from these Conferences. The proposed cession of these islands to Greece was in his opinion one of the most impolitic, most uncalled for, and most prejudicial acts that could be committed by the Government of this country. He trusted that the people of the Ionian Islands, when they were called upon to vote, would not imagine that they were deserted in their hour of need; and that their vote would not be given un-
1268
der the impression that there was not a large body of public men in this country who believed that the maintenance of the connection between Great Britain and the Ionian Islands was beneficial to both countries. Perhaps the noble Lord would state to the House whether Turkey had made any demand to be admitted to the proposed Conference?
MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, he wished to know whether the Government intended to take the opinion of the Conference before the Ionian Parliament assembled?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it appeared to him that it was a convenient moment, when the Appropriation Bill was passing through the House, to state the corrections which had been finally made in the figures representing the Estimates for the year. He had stated that on the 15th of April last he gave the estimated revenue for the year at £68,280,000, and the estimated expenditure at £67,749,000. The surplus therefore stood at £531,000. That was according to the proposals of the Government, and assuming that every proposal was accepted. In the course of the proceedings of the year, however, an amount of revenue, estimated at £109,000, which was asked for by the Government, was not granted by the House. The principal part of that amount proceeded from the proposed extension of the income tax to charities, and the loss of revenue from the non-acceptance of that proposal was £75,000. The balance was made up by certain minor proposals which were not acceded to. That original estimate of £68,280,000 was therefore reduced to the sum of £68,171,000. On the other side, the actual votes of the House were less by £44,000 than was estimated, so that the original estimate of expenditure, instead of being £67,749,000, was reduced to £67,705,000; and comparing the two sums together, the surplus for the year stood not at £531,000, but at £466,000. Perhaps if he were, from the experience of the preceding four months, to make an estimate of the revenue of the year at that time, it would be somewhat more favourable than that which he made in April. The prospects of the revenue were at present satisfactory.
MR. F. S. POWELLsaid, he wished to express a hope that next year a greater compensation would be awarded to the talented gentlemen who were engaged in

1269
making the geological survey than they had received hitherto.
Bill read 3o.
On Question, "That the Bill do pass."
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, I have listened with great attention to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale; but it appears to me that he and Her Majesty's Government, and I think the country at large, start in the consideration of the matter to which he has directed the attention of the House from different points of departure. We look upon the two parties who are now in arms against each other in America as each of them belligerents, and therefore alike entitled, as far as our neutral position is concerned, to all the privileges and rights which appertain to belligerents. Now, it seems to me that that which is running in the head of the hon. Gentleman, and which guides and directs the whole of his reasoning, is the feeling, although perhaps disguised to himself, that the Union is still in legal existence—that there are not in America two belligerent parties, but a legitimate Government and a rebellion against that Government. Now, that places the two parties in a very different position from that in which it is our duty to consider them. Now, what is the duty of a neutral in regard to two belligerents, and what are the rights of neutrals? The American Government have laid down the position for themselves, because they have declared that a neutral is at liberty to furnish a belligerent with anything that the belligerent may choose to buy—whether it be ships, arms, ammunition, or anything else. No restriction is imposed on a neutral in furnishing a belligerent even with those things which are material ingredients in the conduct of military operations. Therefore, on no international law has the Federal Government any right whatever to complain of this or any other country that may supply a party in arms against the Federals with anything they may choose to buy. I cannot, in the abstract, concur with my hon. Friend in thinking that there is any distinction in principle between muskets, gunpowder, bullets, and cannon on the one side, and ships on the other. Those are things by which war is carried on, and you are equally assisting belligerents by supplying them with muskets, cannon, and ammunition, as you are by furnishing them with ships that are to operate in the war. What has been the
1270
practice of the United States Government themselves? The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Laird) has alluded to the case of a ship built in the United States when we were at war with Russia. We complained, and the ship was examined and declared by the local authorities to be free from any ground for molestation. Nevertheless, there was the best reason for believing that the ship was destined for the Russian Government and for naval operations in the Eastern seas, where the Russian Government most wanted such assistance. We had reason to believe that other ships were then building in America for the same purpose, and would have been used if the war had continued. Therefore I hold, that on the mere ground of international law belligerents have no right to complain, if merchants—I do not say the Government, for that would be interference—as a mercantile transaction, supply one of the belligerents, not only with arms and cannon, but also with ships destined for warlike purposes. But then in our case there comes in, no doubt, the municipal law. The American Government have a distinct right to expect that a neutral will enforce its municipal law if it be in their favour. Then comes the question whether the Government have done that which the Government is enabled to do, and ought to do; and I contend that we have. My hon. friend says that we ought to have prevented ships from being built which were evidently destined for war. But it was very well said by the hon. Member for Birkenhead that you cannot draw a distinction between ships that may evidently be built for warlike purposes, and those that may be eventually applied to warlike purposes. He has mentioned—what everybody knows—that when we had to consider our means of naval defence we found a great number of mercantile steamers in our ports, which might, in a short time and at a small expense, be converted into ships of war and made available for the defence of the country. Take what has happened. One of the ships employed in the service of the Confederates to prey on the commerce of the Federals was the Nashville. Now, what was the Nashville? Suppose she had been built in this country, what possibility had we under the Foreign Enlistment Act of preventing her from leaving this country? I went on board the Nashville in Southampton Docks. She was a steamer very much like those that go up and down the Thames, with a glass room built on deck,

1271
and furnished below with berths for passengers. But they put guns on board, and being able to steam with great rapidity, the Nashville could easily capture and destroy any merchantman. In the same way a ship might be built in this country capable of being converted into a ship of war; but with respect to which, while building, it would be perfectly impossible to prove by any legal construction that she was intended for a ship of war, and therefore liable to be interfered with. My hon. Friend complained that the Government have not exercised the vigilance incumbent on them in such a matter, and that they have relied entirely on receiving information from the Minister of the United States. But that is not the fact. The Home Office have employed all the means that could, with propriety, be used, and in some cases complaints have been made that they have employed more stringent means than they ought to do. We are not in the habit in this country of employing that system of spies which is resorted to in other countries; still, the Government have thought it their duty to employ persons openly and legitimately to obtain information. With regard to the Alabama, an explanation has been given by the hon. Member for Birkenhead. With regard to the Alexandra, the attention of the Government having been called to the construction of the vessel, steps were taken to stop and seize her. The trial came off; and the judgment of the court was against the Government, the court deciding that under the Foreign Enlistment Act the Government had no right to stop her. Exceptions have been put in to that ruling, but the question cannot be decided until next November. I really think there is no ground on which either hon. Gentlemen or the Federal Government can found any complaint that Her Majesty's Government have not done all that the municipal law entitles them to do in regard to the fitting-out of ships in this country. There is a further difficulty. I will suppose a ship built of such a character that we might safely say it was built for warlike purposes. Then you must prove whom she is intended for. The hon. Gentleman assumes that parties may be in combination to evade the law; but in that case nothing can be easier than to show that a ship is not intended for the particular State for which she is supposed to be built. The hon. Gentleman suggests that: we ought to amend the Foreign Enlistment Act, and add the word
1272
"building," as well as "armed and equip ped." But that goes beyond the question of ships of war. You put an end to a branch of trade—the building of ships of commerce for foreign States. You would thus go beyond what even the hon. Gentleman contemplates. I say nothing about the question of altering your law to suit the convenience of any foreign Government at any particular moment. We undertook a change in the law some years ago—not in deference to any demand from a foreign Government, but because we thought, as gentlemen and men of honour, the Government and Parliament of this country were bound to do what we proposed—to protect an allied Sovereign from the personal danger to which he was exposed from conspirators in this country. We did it spontaneously, but not successfully. But no such principle applies to this case, for to pursue the course the hon. Gentleman recommends would be fettering our own legitimate industry and commerce, and I do not think the House would agree to such a change. I quite agree that we ought to endeavour to enforce our law as far as we can, and that whenever we learn that there are ships being built presumably for a belligerent, between which and other belligerents we profess to be neutral, we ought to enforce our law as far as courts of justice enable us. That will be the course pursued by the Government. As regards one of the iron-clads to which my hon. Friend has referred, I am informed that the French Consul claims it. [Mr. Cobden dissented.] How that is I cannot say.
With regard to the question of the noble Lord (Lord John Manners) as to the Treaty of 1819, I cannot concur with him He considers that the treaty of accession to the treaty by which the Ionian Islands were placed under the protection of Eng-lard gives Turkey a right to be represented at the Conferences. I can assure him that it is not so. The accession of Turkey to the Treaty of 1815 was invited and refused. The Sultan had a paramount disinclination to mix himself up with any European treaty transactions. He declined to accede to the treaty when it had been signed, and this Treaty of 1819 was not an accession treaty to that of 1815. [Lord John Manners: It was called so.] I do not care for the title; but if the noble Lord looks to the stipulations, he will sea that this treaty is not a transaction by which the Ionian Islands are placed as a

1273
separate State under the protection of Great Britain. It is not an instrument in any degree on which the foundation of the Protectorate is established; it is simply an acknowledgment on the part of the Sultan of a pre-existent fact, which derived its existence from another treaty to which he was not a contracting party. The Treaty of 1819 recited, that whereas Great Britain, out of regard for Turkey, had given up Parga and other places; and whereas Great Britain asked Turkey to acknowledge the existing Protectorate of the Ionian Islands, and give the people of those islands all the privileges of British subjects in Turkey, the Sultan, in acknowledgment of the manner in which we gave up Parga, Ac, acquiesced in the demand of Great Britain, and not only acknowledged that the Ionian Islands were under the protection of Great Britain, but, as a consequence, promised to give the Ionian people all the benefits they derived as British subjects in Turkey.
MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKrepeated the question which the noble Viscount had omitted to answer.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: There will be a treaty signed between the Powers which signed the Treaty of Vienna, recording the consent of those Powers, before the people of the Ionian Islands will be called upon to give a vote.
MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALDsaid, that the Treaty of Vienna was signed by Powers who were not parties to the original Treaty of Paris, and yet they were asked to join the Conference. Then why not Turkey?
MR. DARBY GRIFFITHhad heard with great satisfaction the declaration of the noble Lord with regard to Schleswig and Holstein. There could be no doubt that the motive of the Germanic Confederation was to obtain the harbour of Kiel. They had the use of it for all commercial purposes; but they required it for other purposes. He was glad that the noble Lord had broken through the web of diplomacy. He (Mr. Darby Griffith) did not view the cession of the Ionian Islands with the same satisfaction, as the House of Commons had been excluded from all participation in the transaction. No doubt the House of Commons would have supported the noble Lord; but such an important step as the cession of these islands ought not to be taken on the mere fiat of a Minister.
LORD JOHN MANNERSwished to
1274
know whether Turkey had made a demand to be admitted to the Conferences; and, if so, whether the noble Lord would have any objection to lay the despatch on the table.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he did not think that Turkey had made any distinct application. Her Majesty's Government knew that Turkey did not approve the cession of the Ionian Islands to Greece. There were, however, no papers ready at present on the cession of the Ionian Islands.
Bill passed.

AUGMENTATION OF BENEFICES BILL (Lords).

  [BILL 134.] COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  MR. AYRTON MR. AYRTON moved the following Clause:—
  (No conveyance of any advowson shall be made to any purchaser under this Act until it shall be proved to the satisfaction of the Lord Chancellor, for the time being, that a deed has been executed by all proper parties for the purpose of vesting the right of presentation in perpetuity of the advowson to be conveyed in some one or more persons, not exceeding four, being owners or occupiers of land in the parish to which such advowson relates, and being members of the Church of England and Ireland; and such deed shall be valid and effectual to vest such right of presentation in perpetuity irrevocably in such owners or occupiers for the time being.)
  Clause brought up, and read 1o.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 18; Noes 47: Majority 29.
  MR. MORRISONsaid, that the sale of presentations was one of the worst features of the Church of England. As, however, it was part of the law of the land, he did not wish to interfere with it by a side wind. He trusted, however, that the Committee was not prepared to increase the evil, and in that hope he had prepared a clause, the only argument against which might be, that it would restrict the sale of advowsons too much. The sale of next presentations was, however, such a scandal to the Church that it was better the Lord Chancellor should get seven instead of eight years' purchase rather than the system should go on. He would therefore move the following clause:—
  "It shall not be lawful for the purchaser or grantee of any advowson under this Act, his heirs, successors, or assigns, to sell, assign, or otherwise

  1275
  dispose of for any valuable consideration whatsoever, the next or any subsequent turn or turns of presentation of such advowson apart and separately from the residue of such advowson, but every presentation, collation, admission, institution, or induction thereupon shall be void; and the right of patronage shall thereupon, for that turn, lapse to the Lord Chancellor for the time being."
  Clause brought up, and read 1o.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he trusted that the Committee would not, by accepting the clause, create a new and anomalous class of livings. He should oppose the clause.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he thought the hon. Gentleman was straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel. He did not object to give the Lord Chancellor power to sell the presentation for ever, yet he said it was wrong for him to sell it once. He could not support the Amendment, because it was unadvisable to create anomalies in that class of Church livings.
  MR. MORRISONsaid, that landed gentlemen, who would not alienate an advowson from the family, would, nevertheless, sometimes sell the next presentation.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the said Clause be now read a second time."
  The Committee divided:— Ayes 23; Noes 45: Majority 22.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered this day.

SUPERANNUATIONS (UNION OFFICERS) BILL.—COMMITTEE.
Order for Committee read.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he would express a hope that the Bill would be allowed to stand over until next Session.
MR. VILLIERSsaid, that at that late period he could scarcely hope to pass the Bill that year, and he would therefore withdraw it.
Order discharged:—Bill withdrawn.

SCOTCH HERRINGS FOR AUSTRIA.

  QUESTION.
  MR. GRANT DUFFsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, What progress has been made in the negotiations with the Austrian Government relative to the introduction of Scotch herrings into Austria at a lower duty than that which is now levied?
  MR. LAYARDsaid, in reply, that the
  1276
  subject, which was one of great interest in Scotland, had not escaped the attention of the Government. The various memorials on the subject addressed to the Foreign Office had been sent to Vienna, and the British Ambassador there had been instructed to press the matter on the attention of the Austrian Government. Before long he hoped to be able to give the hon. Gentleman a satisfactory answer.

COUNTY COURTS.—QUESTION.
MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, Under what regulations Grants are made from the Consolidated Fund in aid of the erection of Buildings, of which the use is obtained for holding the County Courts; and what precautions are taken by the Treasury to secure such Buildings, on which the Public Money is so expended, being in all respects suitable for the purposes intended?
MR. PEELsaid, in reply, that no regulations existed under which grants of public money were made for the buildings of the kind referred to; but the best bargain that could be made was entered into for their erection, with the condition that the buildings should be completed according to plans approved beforehand.

THE CROWN SOLICITOR IN BANKRUPTCY.—QUESTIONS.
MR. COXsaid, he would beg to put the following questions to Mr. Solicitor General:—Whether in the amounts he stated on Thursday last as the remuneration received by the Crown Solicitor in the Court of Bankruptcy, he included the sums received by such Solicitor from Bankrupts for the Fees payable on adjourned meetings; and whether such amounts included the sums received by such Solicitor under the second clause of the General Orders of the 22nd day of February 1862? When an Order in Bankruptcy by the Lord Chancellor, reducing the Fee payable to Mr. W. W. Aldridge under the Order of the 22nd of February 1862 from £3 to £2 was made; and whether such Order has been laid upon the table of the House pursuant to the Act 24 & 25 Vict., c. 134? Under what Clause of the Bankruptcy Act of 1861, or of any other Act of Parliament, the Lord Chancellor made the General Orders of the 22nd of February 1862, appointing Mr. Aldridge not only the Solicitor for all Petitions in formâ pauperis, but also appointing him the Solicitor to act in the prosecu-

1277
tion of all Bankruptcies where no creditors' assignee was chosen at the first meeting of creditors, and directing that "in every Bankruptcy prosecuted by such Solicitor, and not being under a Petition in formâ pauperis, the bill of costs, charges, fees, and disbursements of such Solicitor shall be taxed and paid in like manner as bills of costs of other Solicitors in matters of Bankruptcy are taxed and paid"?
THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, in reply, that the gross sum he stated on a former occasion to have been received by the gentleman referred to by the hon. Member did not include the sums received in respect to the other branches of his emoluments, which were paid in the ordinary manner; but the statement he made with respect to the net remuneration would include everything paid for that gentleman's services. The gross sums received by Mr. Aldridge from all sources amounted to £3,565 8s. 5d. for the first year of his appointment, and, deducting disbursements, the net amount received during the first year was £1,519 17 s. 10 d. The gross receipts during the third half-year from all sources were £1,689 8s. 8d., and, deducting disbursements, the net receipts were £623 1s. 11 d. for that half-year. This statement agreed substantially with that which he made the other night. With regard to the second question of the hon. Gentleman, he had to state that the facts were as follows:—The Lord Chancellor had originally made arrangements for a single year's remuneration, with the intention that any subsequent allowance should be made dependent on the working of the first year. On a revision of the accounts for the last half-year of the first year, which came down to the 11th of October 1862, the amount paid in the shape of remuneration was ascertained to come to a greater sum than the Lord Chancellor considered necessary. Accordingly, in December 1862 the Lord Chancellor directed that the remuneration for the future should not exceed two-thirds of what it was formerly. In April last an instruction was issued to prepare a formal order to that effect; but owing to the illness of the official who had charge of these things, it had not been presented to the Lord Chancellor for his signature. It was, however, quite understood that Mr. Aldridge was not to receive more than £1,200 a year in all. The Lord Chancellor in this matter had acted under the authority given to him by the Bankruptcy Act. In reply to the last
1278
Question of the hon. Member, he (the Solicitor General) had to state that the Lord Chancellor made the order under the authority given to him by the Bankruptcy Act of 1861. He would take that opportunity of further stating that he held in his hand a letter from the three Commissioners in Bankruptcy, in which they stated that—
"They were of opinion that a more efficient officer than Mr. Aldridge for the duties that devolved upon him in the Court of Bankruptcy could not have been selected; and that his services had been most useful as a security to the Court and in the interest of the suitors."

SECONDARY PUNISHMENTS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. WARNERsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he intends to bring in, early next Session, a Bill founded on the Report of the majority of the Commissioners on Transportation and Penal Servitude; and, if not, what other steps will be taken by the Government for amending the Law of Secondary Punishments, with a view to render them more certain and efficient?
  SIR GEORGE GREY, in reply, said, he had already directed a Bill to be prepared embodying such of the recommendations of the Commissioners as involved a change of law, but it was too late now to do anything with it this Session. It would be brought forward early next year. As to the other recommendations of the Commissioners, which could be carried out under the present law by the executives Government, he had applied to the officials for information as to how far they were practicable.

THE DISTURBANCES IN NEW ZEALAND.

  QUESTION.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the Despatches lately received from New Zealand confirm the statement in a public journal, that the Governor of New Zealand has sent a request to the Governor General of India, asking him to send Sikh Troops to aid in suppressing the disturbances in New Zealand?
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, in reply, that no application had been made upon that subject by Sir George Grey, the Governor of New Zealand, to the Governor General of India. But Sir George

  1279
  Grey sent home by the last mail a communication to the effect that there was great reason to apprehend that the murder of the officers and soldiers which took place at Taranaki would become the signal for a renewal of the war, and a formidable attack by the natives on the European settlers. Under those circumstances, he made, with the advice of his ministers, an urgent application to Her Majesty's Government to increase the force in New Zealand by the addition of one European regiment, and of two regiments of Sikh troops from India, it being the opinion of military men in New Zealand who had served in India, that those troops would be remarkably well adapted for New Zealand warfare. Her Majesty's Government had had that application under their consideration, and in consequence of the critical condition of the colony had come to the decision that it ought to be complied with.

CLERGY DISCIPLINE,—QUESTION.
MR. F. S. POWELLsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is the intention of Government to introduce during the present Session a Bill for the Amendment of Clergy Discipline; and, if not, whether the subject is to be taken into consideration by the Government with a view to the introduction of a measure at an early date in the next Session?
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, in reply, that it was not his intention to introduce any Bill for that purpose this Session. A Bill had already been prepared upon the subject, but it would require careful consideration and revision; and he anticipated that the measure would be submitted to Parliament in an improved shape in the course of next Session.

CONVEYANCE OF MAILS IN MONTGOMERYSHIRE.—QUESTION.
MR. W. WYNNsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, If any arrangements have yet been made with the Railway Companies of the district for the transmission of Her Majesty's Mails through Montgomeryshire by Railway; and, if not, to which of the Companies the delay in the negociation is now attributable?
MR. PEELsaid, in reply, that a proposal had been received from the North Western Railway Company for the conveyance of the mails through Montgomeryshire.
1280
But that proposal was not considered of a satisfactory character, and had been referred back with suggested alterations. Negotiations were still pending upon the subject, and he hoped they would be brought to a satisfactory conclusion.

THE MHOW COURT MARTIAL.

  QUESTION.
  MR. CONINGHAMsaid, he rose to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, Whether he will lay upon the table of the House a Copy of the Warrant granted to the Commander-in-Chief in India authorizing him to confirm and carry into effect the findings and sentence of General Courts Martial on Officers; and also, what were the circumstances under which Lieutenant Adjutant Fitzimon was removed by the Military Authorities in India from the Adjutancy of the Inniskillen Dragoons; when was that removal reported to the Commander-in-Chief, and has it received the sanction and approval of His Royal Highness?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, in answer to the first Question of the hon. Gentleman, that he had no objection to lay upon the table a Copy of the Warrant. With regard to the second Question, he had to state that Lieutenant Fitzimon had not yet been removed from the Adjutancy of the Inniskillen Dragoons; and if the hon. Member would refer to the Army List, he would find that Lieutenant Fitzimon's name still appeared there as Adjutant of that regiment. It was true that that Officer had been suspended by Colonel Crawley, subject to the sanction of the Commander-in-Chief, who had declined to take any further action in the matter until the conclusion of the Court Martial on Colonel Crawley, which was to take place in this country. One of the most important points on which that Court Martial would have to decide was the difference between the statement of Colonel Crawley and that of Lieutenant Fitzimon; and he therefore thought that the Commander-in-Chief was perfectly right in not sanctioning in the mean time the suspension of the latter officer.
  MR. E. P. BOUVERIEsaid, it would be in the recollection of the House that two Memorandums in connection with this case had lately been laid on the table. After the first of these was made public, he had reason to believe that there was another Memorandum from the Adjutant General to the Commander-in-Chief in

  1281
  India on the same subject, and he invited his noble Friend the Under Secretary for War to produce it. Since then a Memorandum, marked "Privately sent to the Commander-in-Chief in India," had been laid on the table. That was a document which, being of a private character, he had never asked for, and which, in his opinion, the House was not entitled to see. He had been led to understand that there was another communication from the Adjutant General to the Commander-in-Chief in India, and he now begged to ask whether that was nut the case, and whether the private Memorandum had not been laid on the table through an inadvertence?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, it was perfectly clear from the statement of his right hon. Friend, that the Memorandum laid before the House was not the one he wished to see, and that he had never in tended to ask for a private document. At the time, he (the Marquess of Hartington) did not think the paper in question would bear out what the right hon. Gentleman had stated; but His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief was personally anxious, that as it had been mentioned, it should, although private, be laid on the table. There had been a great deal of correspondence between the military authorities at home and those in India on this subject, and he had no doubt that there was some letter in that correspondence such as his right hon. Friend had referred to; but it would be extremely inconvenient and unfair to publish one out of a long series of letters. The proper course would be for his right hon. Friend or some other Member to move for the whole Correspondence, and then it would be for the consideration of the Secretary of State whether it should be produced. He could, however, assure the House that no communication had emanated from the Horse Guards modifying, in any material point, the view promulgated by His Royal Highness in his first Memorandum.

THE INDIAN STAFF CORPS.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India. What are the qualifications required for the Staff Corps in India; and whether the selection for this service is made by the military authorities in that country, or the civil authorities in England?
  SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, in reply, that there were a great many services per-
  1282
  formed by Officers of the Staff Corps in India which had no relation to political matters. The qualifications for different services were, of course, different, but there was no general qualification for any particular services which applied to that description of service alone. The appointments in India on the Staff Corps were subject to confirmation by the Government at home; and if appointments were made which were considered by them to be in opposition to the regulations, they might be revoked.

NAVIGATION SCHOOLS.—QUESTION.
SIR HENRY STRACEYsaid, he wished to inquire of the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, Whether the intended regulations applying to Navigation Schools, to come into operation on 1st January 1864, cannot be so altered as to make it compulsory on the applicants for the rank of Master or Mate to acquire the subjects laid down as necessary to produce the results upon which the Teachers at the Navigation Schools are to be paid?
MR. LOWEreplied, that it was not in the power of his Department to make the alteration suggested. Examinations of Masters and Mates for Certificates of competency were in the hands of the Board of Trade. The examinations in Navigation Schools were appointed to be made by the Committee of Council on Education, for the purpose of placing those Schools in the same position as other certificated Schools; the pupils in them would be examined and the masters paid according to their proficiency. In his opinion there would, in the present state of nautical education, be great difficulty in carrying out the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman.

DANGEROUS EXHIBITIONS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. DOULTONsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the owners or occupiers of places of public resort are at present responsible for the provision of proper safeguards against injury to the lives or limbs of those performing in or frequenting such places; and, if no such responsibility at present exists, to inquire whether he is prepared to introduce next Session such an amendment of the Law for licensing places of public amusement as should empower the police or local authority to enforce such necessary protection?
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he apprehended that the occupiers of any place of public resort or amusement who undertook to provide the machinery or apparatus for dangerous or other exhibitions were clearly responsible for providing proper safeguards against injury to life or limb; and if any injury occurred through their culpable neglect, they would be legally responsible for the consequences. The question had reference, no doubt, to two lamentable accidents which had recently occurred, one at Cremorne Gardens and the other at Birmingham. When the accident occurred at Cremorne, the occupier of the gardens immediately announced his attention of prohibiting all such performances in future, and he hoped that the same course would be taken elsewhere. So long as the public desire existed for performances of this character, however much that desire was to be deprecated, he was afraid they would take place, and the Government had no power to prohibit them. But on several occasions on which performances were announced, in which there was evident danger and risk of life to the performers, the Secretary of State had addressed circulars to the occupiers and owners of the places of amusement warning them of the responsibility they incurred and the consequences which might result to them in case of loss of life. In general he was glad to say such remonstrances had been attended with the desired effect.

INDIA—CLAIMS UPON OUDE.

  QUESTION.
  SIR ARTHUR BULLERsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, The reason why the claims of the representatives of the Calcutta bankers, Monohur Doss and Dwarcah Doss, upon the Government and State of Oude, are to be referred for investigation in India; seeing that the agents of the claimants are in England, that the documentary evidence on which their claim is founded is also here, as well as all the official proceedings relating thereto, that the reference to an Indian Judge or other local functionary would be unsatisfactory and inconclusive, and would involve great unnecessary expense and personal inconvenience, and exclude the services of persons most cognizant with the facts and merits of the case; what is the nature of the inquiry proposed to be made, and whether it is to be limited, like the inquiry contemplated by the right hon. Gen-
  1284
  tleman's predecessors in office, Mr. Vernon Smith and Lord Stanley, to the question whether the claims submitted fall within the category of "public and bonâ, fide debts of the King of Oude;" or whether he proposes to leave it to the Indian Judge or Commissioner, whether he may be, to reopen the entire question, and to report his opinion as to the moral and equitable liability of the British Government; and whether, in finally dealing with these claims, he is prepared to adhere to the principles laid down by Lord Stanley in this House, when Indian Minister, that "the transfer of the Revenues of Oude to Great Britain did carry with it a liability for such debts of the former Government as were fairly and justly contracted?"
  SIR CHARLES WOODstated, in reply, to the long question of the hon. Member, that an inquiry was ordered by his predecessor to be made into the subject referred to, and he had merely acted ministerially in carrying out the instructions given by the noble Lord the Member for Lynn (Lord Stanley). He had given no directions whatever; in fact, as the responsibility of ultimately deciding what was to be done would devolve upon him, he had carefully abstained from going into the merits of any one of the cases.

PRIVATE BILL LEGISLATION.

  QUESTION.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he would beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, Whether, as Chairman of the Committee on Private Bill Legislation, as well as in his official capacity, he intends to take any' and what steps in order to give effect to the recommendations of the Committee, or to effect any other alteration in existing practice as to Solicitors' charges for Copies of Evidence, and also as to the ad valorem duties on Private Bills in the House of Commons?
  MR. MILNER GIBSONreplied, that the Committee passed several Resolutions, and the evidence taken before them had been printed, and would be laid before the House in a few days. The Government had thought it better not to propose any action upon these Resolutions this Session. Considering the lateness of the Session, and the fact that Members were daily leaving town, if action were now taken, it would be in the presence of only a small number of Members, which was very undesirable in making important changes affecting the practice of the House.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITH: Will they do so next Session?
  MR. MILNER GIBSON: I think it is highly probable.
  MR. WHALLEYsaid, he wished to know if the House was to understand that a Bill will be introduced next Session on the subject?
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, it was intended to introduce a Bill at the commencement of next Session to enable promoters of undertakings, when all parties were assenting, to carry out certain works, and accomplish certain objects by complying with the provisions of a general measure, such compliance to be certified by a Department of the Government.

AFFAIRS OF JAPAN.—QUESTION.
MR. LIDDELLsaid, he rose to inquire, Whether any application has been made to the Governor General of India for Troops to be employed in Japan; and, further, whether the Governor General has the power of ordering Troops for Foreign Service without the previous sanction of that House? He was induced to ask this question in consequence of what was now occurring in Japan, and of an announcement reported to have been made by Admiral Kuper to the British residents upon these islands that he was unable to afford them protection.
SIR CHARLES WOOD: I am not aware that any application of that kind has been made to the Governor General.

OUTRAGES IN RAILWAY CARRIAGES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BLAKEsaid, he would beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, Whether his attention has been called to a late murderous attack by a maniac on two fellow passengers in a Railway carriage on the North Western Line between Liverpool and London, whereby they received wounds seriously endangering their lives; and whether the Government intend taking any and what steps to compel the Railway Companies to provide means to enable passengers to obtain assistance in the event of outrage or accident?
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, his attention had not been called to the occurrence in question, otherwise than by reading an account of it in the newspapers. He understood the hon. Member to refer to the necessity of there being some means of communication available to passengers with guards. That subject had been mentioned
  1286
  occasionally by the Inspector of Railways as one worthy of consideration, but there were objections entertained in many quarters, and he could not say that the Board of Trade had in view any proposal. They had frequently sent circulars to Railway Companies, calling their attention to the necessity of having means of communication between guards and drivers, but he did not know that they had ever suggested means of communication between passengers and guards. It was not for him to say whether there should be such means or not, but undoubtedly the subject was well worthy of consideration.

INDIA—THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT.

  EAST INDIA REVENUE ACCOUNTS.
  Order for Committee thereon read.
  MR. GRANT DUFF: Sir, in bringing the subject of the transfer of the seat of the Indian Government before the notice of the House last year, I went at so much length into the question of the unhealthiness of Calcutta, and of the danger therefrom resulting to valuable European life, that I think I shall be justified in saying nothing about it on this occasion; more especially as little was proved by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster, and others, who took a view opposite to mine; except, what of course I never attempted to deny, that, namely, many have been known to survive a residence in that agreeable and salubrious capital. The truth is, that at Calcutta, as in most parts of India, all complaints are made much more dangerous by alarm. The more sensible part of the population is accordingly always in a tacit conspiracy to maintain that the climate is not so very bad, and my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster has evidently not even now got rid of the habit of asking, 'Who's afraid?' and of
  'Whistling up Lord Lennox' March
  To keep his courage cheery.
  I shall therefore confine myself entirely to the political reasons which seem to me to make in favour of a change in the seat of our Indian Government. In the first place, it will not be denied that this charming climate is at least somewhat enervating; that although officials and barristers are longer at their offices and in the courts than in England, the business done is much smaller; and the machine of government is perpetually working at half power. In the second place, Bengal is an exceptional country; there are few districts in

  1287
  India from which it is so dangerous for an English ruler to generalize. If ever any Governor-General imagines that the people of the North West will submit to half the ill-treatment to which the Bengalee will submit, we may have to face a convulsion, to which the mutinies were a joke. The permanent settlement, the indigo cultivation, the influence of the planters, and of the English colony in Calcutta, are all peculiarities of Bengal, which render it a very misleading residence for those who have to rule the gigantic assemblage of nations which we call by the collective name of India. The leading journal recently put this argument with great force, when it said, If we can conceive that France had been ever ruled, not from Paris, but from Nantes, and by a government imbued exclusively with the local traditions of Brittany, we shall get some idea of the effects produced by governing India from Calcutta.' The arguments in favour of Calcutta have been well summed up by Mr. Marshman. First, it is the pivot of the Ganges trade; secondly, it is on the estuary of a hundred rivers; thirdly, it would be too expensive to remove our records; fourthly, it would be impossible to remove our Mint, our Treasury, or our Financial Secretary; fifthly, we have at Calcutta the largest Anglo-Saxon independent community in India; and sixthly, Calcutta is not so far from being central as many people are accustomed to believe. To these observations I reply—first, I do not for a moment dispute that Calcutta must always remain an extremely important commercial city; the New Orleans of the Gangetic Delta, and the resort probably at no distant period of many more adventurous persons who desire to become quickly rich than it now holds; secondly, the very fact of its being upon an estuary makes it a great market, but an unhealthy seat of Government; thirdly, the sooner we remove our records the less expensive it will be; fourthly, with regard to the question of the Mint, I have been assured by some who ought to know that there would be some difficulty in taking away our Mint and our Treasury from Calcutta, but if so, these portions of the Governmental machine might be left there; fifthly, part of the Anglo-Saxon community would follow Government, and I am by no means sure that the influence of the Anglo-Saxon community in Calcutta, although it may have been of use in modifying some of the traditions of the Com-
  1288
  pany, is likely to be of permanent benefit to our Indian Central Administration; sixthly, I sincerely hope that we are not likely to extend ourselves much further towards China and the Eastern Peninsula, and I am sure that if fate forces upon us further conquests in those regions, Calcutta will not be the best centre from which to govern them, For the present at least, the great point seems to me to be to get our seat of Government away from Calcutta. If we do this, I care less whither we go. It is more than doubtful whether for the next ten years our Indian Government might not with great advantage be ambulatory. If, however, we select some one place, which of course we must eventually do, I am clear that it should be in Western India. Mr. Campbell, before the mutinies, proposed Deyrah-Mussoorie, and others have advocated Simla. Agra also has had its partisans; but to all these suggestions there is one sufficient answer: 'Cela nous engage trop,' as the French would say. No one can reasonably advocate the establishment of our seat of Government in any one of these places, unless he believes that England is to rule India as long as the Ganges runs to the sea. Whatever may be the favourite routes to India, when all the countries which lie between us and our Indian Empire are thoroughly opened up, they must all converge on some point in the Bombay Presidency. Whether we sail round the Cape or by the Mediterranean and the Red Sea, or travel by land, as many now living will probably do across Western Asia, we must, in the nature of things, first touch Indian soil at a point far distant from Calcutta; and even when the railway system is completed, the traveller from England must, after crossing the Indian frontier, undertake a journey across a miniature continent before Calcutta can be reached. Neither the Indus Valley nor Guzerat and the adjoining countries have any point to show which seems very desirable for a capital. We are driven, if we look in the map, continually further south, till we arrive in the neighbourhood of Bombay itself, and are brought to two points which have been frequently named as possible future sites of Indian Government, I mean to Bombay and Poonah. The respective merits of these I discussed at length last year, and need not say more at present than that the advantages of Bombay are sufficiently obvious, but that Poonah is superior to it in salubrity, in being less

  1289
  exposed to any attack from the sea, and in affording much less expensive sites for crecting new buildings. It is to the region, and not to the particular spots, that I wish to call attention. The different effects of the climate are sufficiently visible in the character of the inhabitants; for the most remarkable thing which has been done in modern times by natives of India was done by the men of the very district to which I am directing attention. I mean, of course, the foundation of that great Mahratta power which shook the throne of the Moguls, and measured its strength with that of England more than once, upon fields which were inglorious neither to the conqueror nor to the conquered. Let us suppose our empire continuously prosperous. What part of India, if we except the Himalayan range, possesses so many places where hard work may be done without injuring European life? Again, suppose our empire unprosperous, what part of India contains so many fastnesses where a small force of Europeans could defend themselves against overwhelming numbers, until reinforcements came across the sea? But whether we determine to fix our seat of Government in south-western India or not, at least let us determine to leave Calcutta; or, if we cannot determine even to do that, let us determine to call our Council together periodically in different places, until some one appears so peculiarly convenient as to warrant our making it the centre of our rule. There seems to be a much greater probability now than there ever has been yet that India will ere long send you back a fair percentage of men who may be useful in the public life of this country. She has sent, ere this, to our shores many hundred trained administrators; but they have generally wanted that breadth of culture which was necessary to enable them to take a foremost place in England. The men whom the competitive system gives you will have the inestimable advantage of early responsibility, which the older Indians had, and in addition they will have the not less important training in this country between eighteen and two or three and twenty, which the older Indians had not. It is not unreasonable to suppose that some of the very best of our servants will be attached to the Central Indian Government. Well then, let them work in as healthy localities as possible, if only that we may get more work out of them when they return to this country.
  MR. GREGSONobserved, that to a considerable extent the wishes of the hon. Gentleman were already practically carried out, for the Governor General had a kind of roving commission, going to Agra at one time and the upper provinces at another. It was very true, that if the seat of Government were to be selected for the first time, it might be possible to fix on a site more convenient than Calcutta; but it would be attended with very great expense to remove the whole of the establishments from Calcutta, and he did not think any sufficient reason had been shown for the change.
  SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, he would admit that the question had excited a good deal of interest in India, and many persons entertained the opinion that it was desirable that the seat of Government should be removed from Calcutta. But the hon. Gentleman who introduced the question had not thrown any great light on the subject. It, in fact, was a mere repetition of the debate of last year, and, after all, they were left considerably in the dark as to what the hon. Gentleman intended to propose. The only point on which he appeared at all to have made up his mind was, that the seat of government should, at all events, be removed from Calcutta, and, go wandering about India until it could find a place of rest. Now, a more inconvenient mode of proceeding than that he could not well conceive. Nothing could be more unwise than to leave Calcutta before they had determined where the new seat of Government should be. Calcutta had for many years been the seat of Government; all the public establishments were there, and great expense must be incurred if they were removed from year to year, and from place to place, until a more eligible site should finally be fixed upon. Such a scheme would be most extravagant and unwise. A plan had, indeed, been under the consideration of the Governor General for his Council to meet in some other part of India than in Calcutta during the ensuing autumn. There was no difficulty in that arrangement, but there would be the greatest possible difficulty in transferring the public establishments, with all the secretaries and clerks, from one part of India to another. He did not think such a roving commission as the hon. Gentleman proposed could possibly eventuate in any good whatever. It did appear to him a most unreasonable proposition, and till it was definitively settled where the new seat of Government should be, it

  1291
  would certainly be exceedingly unwise leave Calcutta.
  MR. LIDDELLsaid, he wished to remind the right hon. Baronet that he had not answered the Question he had put to him—whether the Governor General of India had the power of ordering troops upon foreign service without the previous sanction of that House? The question was very important with reference to what was happening in New Zealand and Japan.
  SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, he did not think that under ordinary circumstances the Governor General would do so, but under extraordinary circumstances no doubt he would exercise that power.
  MR. W. B. FORSTERconsidered that the subject to which the hon. Member for Northumberland (Mr. Liddell) referred involved a constitutional question of much importance, and had a most important bearing on the revenues of India. He thought that the answer of the right hon. Gentleman rendered it necessary that fuller information should be given to the House upon it. From what had happened in China and what he supposed was happening in Japan, as well as from what was about to happen in New Zealand, it appeared that the Crown had the disposal of a much larger army than was voted by that House. He did not object to the employment of Sikh troops in New Zealand, but it appeared that by little and little the Crown was getting the disposal of a much larger force than was voted by Parliament, and it was highly important that the relations in which we stood to the Indian army should in this respect be clearly established and understood. The subject was noticed when the Bill for amalgamating the Indian with the Queen's army was under discussion, and the difficulty was foreseen by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who introduced a clause to meet it. It was a high breach of the privileges of the people to maintain a standing army without the authority of Parliament, and the precise number of men of which the army was to consist was annually voted by the House. But if they permitted the employment, without remark, of Indian troops out of India, although there might appear reasons for it, the result would be to place at the disposal of the Crown an army of 100,000 or 200,000 men beyond the force directly sanctioned by the House.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he thought the matter of the greatest importance. He had put a Question to the noble
  1292
  Lord the Under Secretary for War, which he appeared unable to answer. He wished to know how the Sikh troops to be employed in New Zealand were to be paid. The Executive, it appeared, took upon themselves the responsibility to employ the troops, and that House had to lament and pay the bill. He hoped the noble Viscount would explain the views of the Government, not only on the constitutional, but also on the financial question.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I think the hon. Gentleman has considerably exaggerated the importance of the matter when he says the Government are taking to themselves the disposition of 200,000 or 300,000 men of the Indian army. The troops in India are paid out of the Indian revenue, and we cannot take them elsewhere without providing for them pay out of the revenue of the country; and therefore it is obvious, that although you may have a large number of troops in India, we cannot employ them elsewhere, or, at least, only in very limited numbers, and provided that the expense caused in so employing them can be met out of the sum already voted by Parliament for military purposes. What has happened in this case? Disturbances have unexpectedly broken out in New Zealand. We have reduced the number of troops in the Colony, confiding in the continuance of peace; and when these disturbances unexpectedly took place, the Governor felt, that for the safety of the European inhabitants, and for the interests of the Crown, an additional force would be required. He applied to us that three regiments, consisting of something like 3,000 men, should be sent from India to New Zealand. I think the Government would have been neglectful of their duty, and would have assumed a very great responsibility, if they had refused to comply with that requisition. We believed that upon a compliance with that request the safety of the lives and property of the colonists to a great extent depended. The Government, however, could only do so upon the condition that the additional expense caused by the transfer of that limited number of men from the Indian revenue to the Imperial revenue—if not met out of the amount already voted, or by the contributions of the Colony—should be submitted to Parliament next Session, when we ask the House to grant, as I have no doubt it will, the amount necessary to meet this additional expense. This is a very limited proceeding, arising from an urgent neces-

  1293
  sity, and which could not have been delayed without much danger.
  COLONEL SYKESobserved, that the Act transferring the Indian territories to the Crown absolutely prohibited Indian troops from serving out of India; but, in its passage through the House of Lords, an alteration was made to the effect that Indian troops should not be so employed "at the expense of the revenues of India." The result was to leave the control of 200,000 or 300,000 men at the disposal of the Government at home, to be employed in any part of the world. It was a very grave constitutional question, which the House ought to consider. We were now going to send Sikhs to slaughter the aboriginal inhabitants of New Zealand upon a land dispute, in which they were right and we were wrong.
  East India Revenue Accounts considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee).
  SIR CHARLES WOOD: I am happy to say that upon the present occasion I have a very easy, and, I trust, a satisfactory task to perform in stating the progress of Indian revenue and expenditure in the present and two preceding years. The accounts are rendered in the old accustomed form, and therefore it is not necessary for me to occupy any time in explaining them. The accounts with which we have first to deal are those of 1861–2, up to the 30th of April 1862, and the regular estimate for 1862–3. As to the year 1861–2, I am glad to say there has been a great increase in the revenue of India. When the regular estimate was submitted to the House last year, it was estimated that there would be a deficiency of some £600,000. I am happy to say, that although the expenditure has exceeded the estimate to the extent of £370,000, yet the revenue has increased to a larger extent—namely, £920,000, in round numbers. So the deficiency, instead of £600,000, will be only £50,000. The actual revenue was £43,829,000, the estimated amount being only £42,911,000. The actual expenditure was £43,880,000, the estimate having been £43,506,000, or an increase of £374,000; but the excess of revenue over the estimate, as I have said, reduced the actual deficiency to only £50,000. There are variations in the items which Jed to that result. There was a considerable increase in the land revenues of £862,000, a portion of which was, however, of a temporary character. There
  1294
  was a decrease in the revenue from salt—£547,000, not arising from a diminution in the quantity used by the natives, but because English salt has been substituted, to a large extent, for the salt manufactured by the natives, and the English salt having paid duty in the previous year the receipt did not appear in the accounts of the year 1861–2. There was a considerable increase in the expenditure for the army—£880,000, to discharge some arrears for the old mutiny, that had not been brought to account. Upon the other hand, there was a diminution in the cost of opium—£600,000. On the whole, the result is as I have stated. I think I may fairly congratulate the House upon the circumstance, that so soon after the mutiny we have arrived at a practical equality between Indian expenditure and Indian revenue. I have been sometimes accused of taking too sanguine a view of Indian revenue, and sometimes I have been accused of taking too desponding a view; but my only object has ever been to lay before the House what I believed to be a fair view of the prospects of the revenue, and it is satisfactory to find that the anticipations which I ventured to make as long ago as 1859, when I first assumed my present office, and again in 1860, when I had obtained some experience in it—that those anticipations have been fully borne out by the results. I said in 1859 I hoped, by judicious economy, we might, in two or three years, bring about an equilibrium of revenue and expenditure. In 1860 I ventured to state, that by reduction of expenditure and increase of taxation the equilibrium would probably be obtained in 1861–2. The view I then took has been verified by the event, for we are so near an equilibrium that the deficiency in that year is only £50,000 upon a revenue and expenditure exceeding 40 millions. That is all which it is necessary for me to say upon the accounts of 1861–2. I now come to what is called the regular estimate for the year 1862–3, which is an estimate of the public income and expenditure for the year made up shortly before the close of the year, and very nearly approaches correctness. The budget estimate of 1862–3, as transmitted from India, showed a probable surplus of £179,000, but it was my duty to state last year that I thought some items should be omitted and some inserted, and that after these corrections the result would be a probable deficiency of £800,000. But in this case, still more than in that of 1861–2, the estimate of reve-

  1295
  nue and also, to a lesser extent, of expenditure, were under the mark. It appeared clear, soon after the year had begun, that revenue was increasing more rapidly than had been estimated in April. As long ago as December last we received a despatch from India which showed that in all probability the revenue would be £1,018,000 higher than the estimate laid before the Council of the Governor General in the April preceding, and that the expenditure would be about £702,000 higher than had been estimated, thus reducing the anticipated deficiency by £316,000. But I am glad to say, that by the figures of the regular estimate it appears that the increase of revenue has been more extraordinary and the increase of expenditure has been less than was then expected. The regular estimate of 1862–3 gave a probable income of £45,105,000. The Budget estimate of April 1862 assumed a probable income of £42,971,000. In March 1863 the increase of revenue, compared with the estimate, was no less than £2,134,000. Of that sum, £1,550,000 is due to the increased revenue from opium, the whole amount which it is expected will be received from that source during the year being £7,850,000. In the salt revenue there is an increase above the Budget estimate of £280,000, which is most satisfactory, because it furnishes a strong proof of the prosperity of India. The land sayer and abkarry revenue shows an increase of £300,000. These are the main sources of increase which make up the £2,134,000. The expenditure in India is higher by about £440,000 than was anticipated in the Budget estimate; but, on the other hand, the expenditure in England has been considerably less. I wish I could say that the reduction of the expenditure in England was a real and actual reduction. I am afraid that is mainly due to the postponement of certain expenses, partly of some Admiralty claims, partly for the construction of the India Office, and partly for the construction of the electric telegraph cable through the Persian Gulf; but, so far as the year goes, there is a reduction of about £395,000. The result, therefore, is that the regular estimate of expenditure is £43,825,000, and the Budget estimate £43,779,000; the increase of expenditure, taking India and England together, is only £46,000; and, subtracting the expenditure from the revenue, a surplus of £1,280,000 is left upon
  1296
  the year. I am still more happy to say that I have not the least doubt that the revenue will exceed the regular estimate. Even in this country it is not easy to be correct in estimating revenue, and in India it is even less easy, the estimate of revenue made by Mr. Laing before he left India being more that £2,000,000 under the amount which it seems now probable will be received. But what is more material, as indicating the progress of the country, is a comparison of the estimate fir 1862–3 with the actual accounts of 1861–2. The revenue of 1862–3 may be taken at £45,105,000; that of 1861–2 was £43,829,000; so that the revenue of 1862–3, if the anticipations of the regular estimate are verified, will show an increase of £1,276,000, compared with the revenue of the preceding year. An increase of about £1,500,000 is due to the opium revenue; and the increased revenue from salt in 1862–3, as compared with 1861–2, is £770,000. The expenditure in India in 1861–2 was £37,245,000; in 1862–3 it amounted to £37,228,000, the reduction of expenditure in the latter year being only £16,000. The army has been reduced by about £1,215,000; but the opium charge is more by £544,000, and a larger amount of interest has to be paid, to the extent of £275,000. The decrease in expenditure is £55,000, taking England and India together; the increase of revenue is £1,276,000. This is the more satisfactory, because the reduction of the 10 per cent duty to 5 per cent had taken place, so that the revenue has kept up in spite of that reduction. I now come to the year 1863–4, which is the current year. This is what is called the Budget estimate, which is laid by the Government of India before the Council of the Governor General, before the commencement of each year. The revenue of 1863–4, before any reduction of taxation, is estimated at £45,306,000, and the expenditure at £44,490,000, leaving a probable surplus of £816,000. That being the state of the prospective revenue and expenditure, the Government of India thought it advisable to reduce taxation to a certain extent. Everybody knows that a sort of pledge was given that the income tax should cease at the end of the appointed period, and in order to show that they were honest in this intention, and to relieve the people of India from the pressure of a tax which is felt very severely, the Indian Government reduced the income tax by 1 per cent.

  1297
  At the same time they reduced the duty of 10 per cent upon the raw material of iron, a duty which I think ought never to have been imposed—and also the duty upon beer, one of the most wholesome beverages in India, and consumed there by Europeans. It is most desirable to extend the consumption of this beverage, so as to diminish that of spirits, which are much more deleterious. The reduction of the income tax and the Customs duties together amount to £335,000, leaving a probable surplus of £480,000 for the current year. In the estimate of revenue opium figures to a very large amount, the anticipated receipt from this source in the course of the year being no less than £8,000,000. The increased expenditure is upon public works, to the amount of from £400,000 to £500,000, but there is also a very considerable increase in the charge for the police force and for law courts—establishments intimately connected with the peace and tranquillity of the country. These items represent the principal increases in the expenditure of the year. The satisfactory condition of the revenue is, of course, owing to the general improvement and growing prosperity of the country. The reduction of expenditure is due, in a great measure, to the exertions made by the Government of India; and the Committee would probably like to see what these reductions have been during the last three or four years. The year of highest expenditure was 1859–60, when the gross expenditure was £50,475,000. Between that and the next year a reduction took place of £3,551,000; in the year following there was a reduction of £3,044,000; in the year which ended last April the whole reduction will be about £55,000; but, in the present year, owing mainly to the causes I have mentioued—namely, the larger grant for public works, police, and courts of justice, there will be an increase of expenditure amounting to £665,000, still leaving, after the reduction of the duties, a surplus of £480,000, Now, the great reduction, of course, has been in the military force. The highest charge for the military force was in 1858–9, and, comparing that with the last year, there will be found a reduction of from £25,500,000, to £14,500,000, or about £11,000,000. The charge is still considerably higher than it was before the mutiny, but that increase mainly results from the substitution of a much larger European force and the reduction of the native force. During the last year we have discontinued
  1298
  the Indian navy. That has been not from the slightest disregard of the merits and claims of this branch of the service, but because the state of things has very much changed from what it was in former years. In the early period of Indian history there was, in point of fact, no Indian navy at all, and the defence of India depended entirely upon the Royal Navy. Subsequently, the Bombay marine and the Indian navy were created, mainly for local purposes—the conveyance of troops, the suppression of the slave trade, and the prevention of piracy—and they performed these services admirably. But a considerable change has now taken place. Large French frigates now constantly visit those seas, and, with a view to the adequate protection of English interests there, it is indispensable that such a naval force should be there as could not be maintained by the Indian Government. The Indian navy was not calculated to meet or to cope with the vessels of first-rate European Powers. It was therefore thought desirable to reduce that force within smaller limits; but on learning that this was our intention, the officers, and the commodore who was at the head of that navy, expressed the opinion that if we were to reduce it to so small a force as was proposed, it would be hardly possible to keep up the spirit and the character of that force. We therefore determined that it would be far more advantageous to put an end to the service altogether; but it must not be supposed on that account that the officers, wherever they were employed, whether the Bengal marine in China or the Indian navy at Mohammera, did not perform the most distinguished services. The measure adopted did not originate in any doubt as to the admirable manner in which they discharged their duties, but it was thought desirable, simply for public reasons, not to continue the service. It may be interesting to the Committee to see a comparison of the year of highest charge and that of highest revenue. The charges were highest in 1859–60, when they amounted to £50,475,000, and lowest in 1862–3, when they were £43,825,000, being a reduction of £6,650,000 in the expenses of the Government. This reduction is certainly due to the exertions made by the Government in India; and I must say, in justice to the Financial Commission, at the head of which was first Colonel Jameson and then Colonel Balfour, that they deserve the greatest credit for their efforts to reduce

  1299
  any expenditure not absolutely required by public necessity. On the other hand, there has been an increase in the revenue from 1859–60 to 1862–3, in spite of some reductions, of £5,400,000. That is a satisfactory change, and shows the manner in which the resources of India have developed themselves. I do not suppose that we can effect much reduction in the civil establishments in that country. There will be some reduction, no doubt, in the interest of the debt, in the guaranteed interest on account of railways, and in what is called the loss by exchange. This is going on from year to year. On the other hand, there are some items of expense with respect to which we must expect an increase to take place. The great item in which an increase will take place is, of course, that of public works in India, which are necessary for so many purposes, and which can only be carried on by the Government. The first great cause of increased expense under this head will be for military works in an improved construction of barracks. In consequence of the Report of the Commission appointed to inquire into the sanitary condition of the Indian army, a question was put the other night for the purpose of ascertaining whether we were prepared to take any steps in reference to the mortality in the Indian army. I am sorry that that question was worded as it was, because I think that a careful examination of the documents contained in the Report would have shown that the general conclusion as to the mortality, though perfectly correct for a long period, was based on facts going so far back that they do not afford a very good index of the sanitary state of the Indian army at the present moment. There is not the least doubt that the habits of the soldiers were more intemperate in former years than now, and the rate of mortality which prevailed some forty years ago is no good criterion of the rate of mortality at present. If we look to Sir A. Tulloch's evidence, on which this statement is founded, we find that the conclusion arrived at is founded on accounts embracing four or five years of extraordinary mortality, which serve to swell up the average. For instance, during the Burmese war in 1824 and the two following years the mortality was 129 per 1,000, 157 per 1,000, and 158 per 1,000. In the year of the Cabul massacre the mortality was 107, and in the first year of the Sikh war 124 per 1,000. These few years swell the average in a wonderful way. Those were periods of war; but if we take
  1300
  periods of peace, the decrease of mortality is remarkable as we approach the present I time. In the period of peace before the Burmese war the mortality was 75 per 1,000; and in the next successive periods of peace the mortality was respectively 53 per 1,000, 50 per 1,000, 42 per 1,000, and 32½ per 1,000. During the mutiny in India, the mortality in twenty regiments which were sent from this country, but which were not in action, was only 34 per 1,000; and in eight regiments which were in India at the time, but not engaged, the mortality was only 30 per 1,000. But coming to the last year for which we have complete returns, the year 1861, I find that in that year in Bengal the mortality was 47 per 1,000, of which nearly one-half was owing to an outbreak of cholera; in Madras the mortality was only 12·8 per 1,000, and in Bombay only 20 per 1,000. That is by no means a higher mortality than prevails in more temperate climates. According to the Report of the Sanitary Commission in 1857 the mortality of the foot guards at home was 20·4, and of the infantry of the line 18·7, per 1,000. Referring to the rate of mortality in the West Indies, I find it stated at 60 per 1,000; in Ceylon at 38 per 1,000, in the Bermudas at 35 per 1,000, and in the Mauritius at 24 per 1,000. The rate of mortality, therefore, as stated in the Report of the Commission on the sanitary state of the Indian army, is not a fair representation of the ordinary mortality at present, sufficient allowance not being made for the casualties of the service, and for the deaths of persons suffering from wounds and diseases contracted in service. The ordinary mortality in India in times of peace is nothing like that which has been stated in the Report, and I think it right to make this statement, because some alarm might otherwise exist in the public mind. It is not, however, to be supposed that we will relax in the least in our sanitary precautions, for it is incumbent on us to take every means for the preservation of the lives of our troops in India. Another source of increased expenditure is the carrying on of works of a re-productive character. The total sum to be applied to public works in the year 1863–4 amounts to £5,237,200, and in-eluding the guaranteed interest on railways to £9,237,200. On this point. Sir C. Trevelyan, in his financial statement for 1863 4, made this further statement—
  "The Government desires that it may clearly

  1301
  be understood that any funds that can be expended with advantage on cotton roads, on works of irrigation or navigation, or on any other useful works, will be granted during the ensuing year. There will be no difficulty as far as money is concerned. The only limit will be the impossibility, in particular cases, of getting value for the outlay."
  I can assure the House that for some time past there has been no check whatsoever as far as money goes. As regards railroads, if hon. Gentlemen will look at the Report laid on the table by Mr. Danvers, they will see that some railroads are completed, others are approaching completion, and that others are progressing rapidly. The whole amount now opened is 2,500 miles; 747 were opened last year, and 759 in 1861. The East India Railway is very nearly completed, with some small breaks, and I am glad to say that under the direction of Mr. Turnbull the works have been admirably executed. The Great Indian Peninsula—one of the greatest works ever accomplished—is rapidly progressing. The Bhore Ghaut incline, which surmounts an elevation of 1,800 feet in fifteen miles, was opened in April last. The scenery there is most beautiful; it really is almost worth while going so far to see the magnificent works which have been erected there. If any one is disposed to go, by this time next year he would have an opportunity of seeing works equally great on the sister incline—the Thull Ghaut. The amount of the estimated expenditure on these great lines is £60,000,000. Of this, £56,000,000 has been sanctioned. £48,000,000 has been raised, and £46,000,000 has been spent. The opening of these different means of communication from one part of India to another will be of the greatest possible advantage to that country. As I have mentioned Mr. Turnbull, I ought also to mention Mr. Berkely, the engineer of the Great Indian Peninsula line, who unfortunately was not spared to see the result of his skill and labour. I have been charged with having over rated the value of railroads, and neglected other means of communication; but it does so happen, that though I sanctioned the opening of the Godavery, the project for irrigation on the Irawaddy, and that in Berar, a light branch railway company supported by many gentlemen from Manchester, and other works, it never fell to my lot to sanction the construction of any of these great lines of railway. When the railways are once commenced, the more rapid-
  1302
  ly they are pushed on the better. We guarantee the interest, and until the receipts begin to come in, of course that is so much out of pocket. I have therefore been most anxious for the completion of those which had been sanctioned by my predecessors. The House will be glad to hear, that whereas in 1861–2 the traffic returns were only £390,000, in 1863–4 they are estimated at £868,000. That, of course, is deducted from the guaranteed interest which we are liable to pay. I need not go into topics which have already been made the subject of discussion here this Session—such, for instance, as the sale of waste lands. On that question I will only refer to one assertion made—that there had been no applications to purchase waste lands during my tenure of office, whereas there were many applications for the purchase of waste lands before I came into office. I have made inquiries, and I find the statement is totally inaccurate. Applications were made to the East India Company to know whether there were lands for sale, by persons who required first to inspect maps of the district, so that they might select their lots. Of course, there were no maps which would enable them to do that; and hon. Gentlemen will see that these complaints of the want of a survey are quite inconsistent with the violent attacks made against me for requiring a previous survey. I see in some papers we have recently received from Madras that they have carried out my instructions, and insist upon nothing more than marking out the boundaries, and special care being taken that there is no encroachment on lands belonging to private persons. So far from there being no demands for the purchase of land, I find that there has been a great demand in almost every part of Madras, and in four districts alone for no less than 80,000 acres. But these lands are not available for the growth of cotton, they are better suited to the production of tea, coffee, and similar plants. I should mention also that we have lately introduced into India the culture of the cinchona, or bark plant. An enterprising gentleman, who is at present a clerk in the India Office, was sent to South America for some plants, carried them out to India, and plantations of them have been established in various parts of Madras, with every prospect of their flourishing and becoming a very important feature. With regard to cotton cultivation, on a recent occasion I stated what had been done and what might be

  1303
  done, and to what extent the natural demand would induce the ryots to cultivate cotton to a larger extent. The only matter in which I have had reason to think that Government interference might be useful is, that we have since learnt that a considerable drawback has been the want of gins—for those sent out from Manchester did not answer the purpose. We have sent instructions to the Bombay Government to extend the sphere of Dr. Forbes's operations, who is the superintendent of the gin factory, and to employ other officers for a similar purpose in other parts of the country. When the question of measures for increasing the production of cotton was discussed here, no practical suggestion of any sort or kind was made differing from what has been actually done, nor have I received any from the gentlemen from Manchester whom I have seen. I should be glad of any suggestion, though I myself do not believe it is possible to offer any. I believe the Government have done all than can be done, but I can assure my Manchester friends that the Government will spare no possible exertions to stimulate the production of cotton. It may be remembered that a matter which used to excite frequent discussion here was the question of the salt duty. The Government of India were asked to do first one thing and then another; they left the matter alone, and the result is this:—In 1842–3 the native salt was 4,700,000 maunds, and the English salt 892,000 maunds—altogether 5,592,000 maunds. In 1862–3 the native salt had fallen to 1,800,000 maunds, while British salt had risen to 6,054,000 maunds—in all 7,854,000, a total increase of 40 per cent. The importation of English salt in the twenty years had increased sevenfold. The natives at first had great prejudices to overcome, but at last they had come to prefer clean salt to dirty salt. To give an illustration of the advantage of railways, I may mention that of 1,220,000 maunds of salt sold at the Madras depot, as much as 1,000,000 went by rail into the interior. I may refer shortly to the Indian debt, which has been reduced by about a million in India and by one million and three-quarters in England, and we propose to make some changes in regard to debentures. About £5,000,000 of debentures become payable in October, and £3,000,000 in April next. We deem it, however, very desirable to create stock at a lower rate of interest than is now paid, and we have therefore resolved to
  1304
  issue some new stock at Four per Cent redeemable at the end of twenty-five years. It will be offered in the first instance to the holders of debentures which are about to expire; and if they will not accept it, they will of course be paid off. Thus I shall either establish a considerable amount of Four per Cent stock, or reduce the debt by paying off existing debentures. The great object we have in view is to place the credit of the Indian Government on a sound footing. The best way to do that is to prove that we are acting in good faith, by never borrowing except when it is really necessary, and by paying off our debts whenever we have the means to do so. We have shrunk from nothing that appeared to be desirable for the improvement of the country, and finding ourselves in the possession of a surplus we have thought it best to apply it to the reduction of the public debt. I trust that the statement I have made will be regarded as Satisfactory by the Committee. Throughout the length and breadth of India we hear of a progress and prosperity which must be deeply gratifying to all who have the interests of that country at heart, and from all quarters I receive assurances of the contentment and loyalty of the people. Although the material improvement has been owing to the development of the natural resources of India, still I believe that the measures which have been proposed by the Government and passed by Parliament have contributed not a little to this very satisfactory state of things. The natives have been admitted to the highest positions. They have been placed in the Council of the Governor General, on the Bench, and in other situations of high trust and dignity. The people are now, I hope and believe, convinced that India is governed by us for the benefit of the great mass of the population. In referring to these results I should not be doing justice to my own feelings if I did not express my obligations for the assistance I have derived from my Council and the support which the House has uniformly afforded to me. In conclusion, I now beg to move the following formal Resolutions, both as regards the legislative measures which I have submitted for its sanction, and for its general approval of the administrative measures in India, which have been at various times brought under discussion within these walls:—
  "1. That the total net Revenues of the Territories and Departments under the immediate control

  1305
  of the Government of India for the year ended the 30th day of April 1862, amounted to £3,217,369 sterling, and the Charges thereof, for the same period, other than Military Charges, amounted to £2,991,607 sterling.
  "2. That the total net Revenues of the Bengal Presidency, for the year ended the 30th day of April 1862, amounted to £11,066,945 sterling, and the Charges thereof, for the same period, other than Military Charges, amounted to £2,134,301 sterling.
  "3. That the total net Revenues of the North-Western Provinces for the year ended the 30th day of April 1862, amounted to £5,993,549 sterling, and the Charges thereof, for the same period, other than Military Charges, amounted to £1,806,575 sterling.
  "4. That the total net Revenues of the Punjab, for the year ended the 30th day of April 1862, amounted to £2,673,785 sterling, and the Charges thereof, for the same period, other than Military Charges, amounted to £1,257,805 sterling.
  "5. That the net Revenues of the Territories and Departments under the immediate control of the Government of India, of the Bengal Presidency, of the North-Western Provinces, and of the Punjab, together, for the year ended the 30th day of April 1862, amounted to £22,951,648 sterling, and the Charges thereupon, including the Military Charges, amounted to £15,558,194 sterling, leaving a surplus available for the general Charges of India, of £7,393,454 sterling.
  "6. That the total net Revenues of the Madras Presidency (Fort St. George), for the year ended the 30th day of April 1862, amounted to £5,925,140 sterling, and the net Charges thereof, for the same period, amounted to £5,905,809 sterling, leaving a surplus available in the above Presidency, for the general Charges of India, of £19,331 sterling.
  "7. That the total net Revenues of the Bombay Presidency, for the year ended the 30th day of April 1862, amounted to £6,844,274 sterling, and the net Charges thereof, for the same period, amounted to £4,538,446 sterling, leaving a surplus available in the above Presidency, for the general Charges of India, of £2,305,828 sterling.
  "8. That the total net Revenues of the several Presidencies, for the year ended the 30th day of April 1862, amounted to £35,721,062 sterling, and the Charges thereof amounted to £26,003,449 sterling, leaving a surplus Revenue of £9,718,613 sterling.
  "9. That the Interest on the Registered Debt of India, paid in the year ended the 30th day of April 1862, amounted to £3,134,897 sterling, and the Charges defrayed in England, on account of the Indian Territory, in the same period, including Guaranteed Interest on the Capital of Railway and other Companies, after deducting net Traffic Receipts of Railways, amounted to £6,634,344 sterling, leaving a deficiency of Indian Income for the year ended as aforesaid, to defray the above Interest and Charges, of £50,628 sterling.
  COLONEL SYKEScongratulated his right hon. Friend (Sir Charles Wood) on the satisfactory Report which he had been able to make as to the state of India, and particularly in respect to its financial condition. The right hon. Gentleman de-
  1306
  served much credit for his policy in admitting the Natives to positions of honour and trust, in confirming the princes, nobles, and gentry of India in their hereditary rights, and enabling them to hand their principalities and estates down by adoption. That single act had done more to inspire confidence in the people of India in the British Government than any other thing that had been done by the Government within his memory. He also gave the right hon. Gentleman credit for his policy in disposing of the waste lands for the public benefit; but the power of the Government was limited in this respect—as these lands belonged to the village communities, and it was only lands lying beyond village boundaries, with few exceptions, to which the Government could fairly lay claim. The financial prospects of India must cause great satisfaction to his right hon. Friend, for during the mutiny, and subsequently, they were a cause of uneasiness; for though India never had cost England hitherto one shilling, there seemed a probability of England being necessitated to come to her relief. But his right hon. Friend might recollect that in 1859, he (Colonel Sykes) put a pamphlet into his hands on the Past, Present, and Prospective Financial Condition of British India, in which a strong opinion was expressed that the annual deficits must be made to disappear by vigorous but prudent retrenchments in the military expenditure; and happily these views had been realized by the indefatigable and judicious labours of Colonels Jamieson, Balfour, and Burn, respectively, of the Bombay, Madras, and Bengal armies, constituting a Military Finance Commission, who by their reductions had converted a deficiency into a surplus in a shorter time than he (Colonel Sykes) had ventured to hope for. Not only his hon. Friend owed a debt of gratitude to these able officers, but the taxpayers of India were equally indebted to them, and the country would expect that the great services of these officers, now that the Military Finance Commission was abolished, would be suitably recompensed. He (Colonel Sykes) could have wished that his observations had here terminated with expressions of approval; but the Report of the Royal Sanitary Commission, at the head of which was Lord Stanley, upon the health of the European troops in India, called for some observations in a tone unfortunately not commendatory. The Report of the Commission reviewed the vital

  1307
  statistics for a period exceeding eighty years, and he greatly feared that the soundness of its conclusions was not to be disturbed by the happy accident of a recent diminished mortality. Such favourable anomalies as had been relied on by his right hon. Friend had often occurred in the death-rate since the year 1800. The Commissioners reported that every 100 men sent to India requited eleven recruits annually to keep up the number. An army of Europeans in India, numbering 85,856 men, required 10,000 recruits annually, one-half the recruits died in five years, and the recruits of the year lost 10·75 per cent within the year. No less than sixty-nine per 1,000 of our troops had perished in India every year; and a company out of every regiment was sacrificed every twenty months. Those companies faded away in the prime of life, leaving few or no children, and they had to be replaced at a great cost by successive shiploads of recruits. It was shown, in a table prepared by Dr. Farr, that of 100,000 men sent to India only 43,344 remained in the ninth year, and that in the twentieth year there were only 9,604, out of the 100,000, which 9,604 died in that year at the rate of 12 1–10th per cent. This was a lamentable destruction of men between the ages of twenty-one and forty-five years of age, and these results were the average of the experience of nearly a century; but notwithstanding these circumstances, we had been increasing the drain of men from this country. In 1856 the number of commissioned officers of European regiments in India was 5,996, and the number of non-commissioned officers and men 39,108. In 1861 the number of commissioned officers was 8,324, and the number of non-commissioned officers and men 75,759, the increased number of Europeans therefore 40,979. The consequence of the increase in the number of European troops in India was an increased sacrifice of human life amounting to 4,023 annually; that was to say, whereas before the mutiny 45,104 men and officers, at the rate of eleven per 1,000 to supply vacancies, including invaliding, required 4,310 men annually, in 1861, with 86,083 men and officers, 8,333 men were required to fill vacancies, including invaliding, 4,023 more than were required in 1856. This lamentably increased waste of youthful British blood and sinew was occasioned by our distrust of the loyalty of the remaining Dative troops in India—a distrust for which
  1308
  there was no just grounds if we weigh carefully the conduct of the great majority of the native troops during the period of the mutiny of the Bengal army. Fourteen regiments of the Bengal army were not led astray by their comrades, and remain embodied to this day in the Bengal army. The Madras army remained loyal to a man, and in the Bombay army there were only two regiments in which a disposition was manifested to mutiny, and the majority of the men in these two regiments were of the same high caste—Brahmins and Rajpoots—and drawn from the same locality as the Bengal sepoys. They had the testimony of the right hon. Gentleman himself, that the native princes and gentlemen generally remained loyal, and the people at large showed little sympathy for the mutineers. By what troops had we won India? The British had never been one to seven as compared with the Native troops in action. The European troops had been, in fact, auxiliaries, and for a century our sepoys had loyally fought for us. Was it fair, then, to withdraw our confidence from men who had heretofore done us such good service? He was greatly afraid also that the conversion of the old Native veteran soldier of India into a military policeman, which Was the prospect before him as an irregular, would plant in the hearts of those soldiers a feeling of deep dissatisfaction. They would look upon their new position, as irregulars, as a degradation, and it would needlessly estrange them from the Government. In a recently published pamphlet, Major-General George Malcolm, a distinguished Indian officer, said that the service was becoming less popular with the Natives, and was rapidly losing its respectability. The financial result of the great increase of the European army in India was also a very important one. In 1856 the military charges in India, including the Indian navy, amounted to £11,463,775, whereas in 1862 they were £14,368,093, showing an increase of £2,904,318. That was in spite of the reduction in the native army, which in 1856 consisted of 235,221 men, and in 1861 of 137,804 only. The saving by the reduction of the Native army was £1,948,340, but the increased charge for European soldiers was £4,023,000, so that the substitution of Europeans had occasioned an annual increased charge of £2,040,660. Again, in 1856 the home charges amounted to £3,374,179, while in 1862 they were £5,209,264. Each

  1309
  European soldier in India cost £18 12 s. 8d. per annum, exclusive of £13 3s. for barrack accommodation, but including all extra charges. The cost of a European soldier in India was about £104 per man. The Native soldier did not cost more than two rupees, or 4s., for barrack accommodation; that was to say, he was allowed two rupees per annum hutting money, and be hutted himself or built his own but in the lines. Complaints had been made of the defective barrack accommodation for the European soldier; but in truth in some parts of India a barrack was a palatial edifice, and the utmost attention was paid to the comfort of the soldier. Ventilation was effected by large fans being suspended and kept in constant motion by natives employed for the purpose. In the not winds, fragrant grass mats were placed at every opening and kept watered, and the wind passing through got cooled. The amusement of the men was also attended to by supplying them with racket courts and tool-shops, and they were at some stations supplied with plots of garden ground to cultivate, but unhappily the precautions to preserve their health were rendered ineffectual by an uncontrolable amount of intemperance and venereal disease. He thought he had now shown, that on the ground of humanity as well as of finance it was desirable that a great diminution should take place in the number of European troops in India; and he trusted that the facts he had stated would not be lost sight of, but would save hundreds of the families of the labouring classes from the constantly-recurring pang of the death of a young relative amongst the European troops in India.
  MR. VANSITTARTsaid, there was no great inducement for any one to take part in the discussion, for be had observed that while the hon. and gallant Officer was making his speech there were not more than sixteen Members present. It was not his intention, therefore, to occupy the House for more than a few moments. One of the most satisfactory features connected with the financial statement of the Secretary of State was that it was unaccompanied by a narrative of one of those painful controversies between himself and the Commissioner of a minor Presidency, or between himself and the Indian Minister of Finance, which in so much detail had, on former occasions, formed part of his annual expositions. The Indian Government might also be congratulated on the
  1310
  condition of its finances, and on its transition from chronic insolvency to restored public credit. That result, he believed, was mainly due to that indefatigable public servant Mr. Laing, who lost no time, on succeeding to the late Mr. Wilson, in remedying some of the mischief which that gentleman inadvertently occasioned by his endeavour to assimilate the taxation of India to that which prevailed in this country. Foremost among the objectionable taxes imposed by Mr. Wilson was that most odious of all imposts, the income tax. Looking to the flourishing state of the Indian revenue, and considering the fact that those people residing in this country who had money remitted to them from India—of whom he was not one—were subjected to a double income tax, it was to be regretted that Sir Charles Trevelyan did not sweep the tax away altogether, instead of dealing with it in a peddling way by making a reduction of one penny.
  SIR CHARLES WOOD: I find that I made a mistake; the reduction is one per cent.
  MR. VANSITTARTsaid, that a reduction of one per cent did not make much difference in such a tax. He was persuaded that the income tax might have been dispensed with altogether if Sir C. Trevelyan had retained the salt monopoly for a short time longer. During his stay in India he had never heard a single word of complaint from the natives against the salt tax, and he was afraid that the imposition of a heavy excise duty upon the manufacture of salt would make the natives believe that we had been actuated solely by a desire to promote British interests, for it was quite impossible that the native salt could compete with Cheshire salt. It was satisfactory to know, however, that the Indian Government had been able, not only to remit taxation, but to reduce expenditure by many millions. The Home Government should also take care to co-operate with the authorities in India, and endeavour to effect a corresponding reduction in the expenditure in this country which had frequently been denounced as excessive. He had no further observations to make, except, that although, no doubt, the utmost tranquillity prevailed in India, and railways were being rapidly constructed there, he yet hoped that Her Majesty's Ministers would not fall into the same fatal error as they committed in 1856. It would be well for them to pause before, in order to carry on certain military opera-

  1311
  tions in New Zealand and Japan, they reduced the European force in India to a point which would again imperil the safety of our countrymen and country women who were scattered over the numerous and remote stations of which India was composed.
  MR. GREGSONsaid, he could not see how the native manufacturers of salt in India were placed in an unfavourable position as compared with the Cheshire salt manufacturers, who had to transport their commodity over 15,000 miles of sea. The duty on salt was 3¼ rupees, or equal to 6s. 6d. per maund. The invoice cost of that article was 4d. per maund, and the import duty on it amounted to about 1,700 per cent. He hoped that the Government would take an early opportunity of reducing the duty on salt, for the benefit both of the people of India and the manufacturers. It was essential that that great population should be supplied with such a necessary of life at a very small price. He rejoiced to have the admission of the hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeen that 97,000 natives had been relieved from service in the army, and had found employment in other and more peaceful pursuits. [Colonel Sykes: "No!"] At all events, the hon. and gallant Member sought to show that the natives of India were more disposed to engage in agriculture than to enter the army. The right hon. Gentleman's Budget was substantially a prosperity one. The accounts, however, were only brought down to April 1862. Surely, with the rapid communication existing with India, it might have been possible to bring them down to a date at least six months later. With regard to the income tax, he could not help thinking that it would have been better if the Indian Government had not yielded to clamour in reducing that tax before the expiration of the period for which it had been imposed. He would also warn the right hon. Gentleman against relying upon the continuance of so large a revenue from opium as seven millions. A few years ago the tax on opium produced only three or four millions, and it must always be a precarious source of income. The surplus was very satisfactory, but he found that the increase of expenditure had kept up a very even pace with the increase of revenue. He quite approved what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman in respect to surveys. It might not be Expedient that the surveys made in India should be conducted on the high scale
  1312
  adopted for England, but accurate maps ought to be prepared, which would give the requisite information to persons desirous of purchasing land there. With regard to encouraging the cultivation of cotton or any other article in India, what was wanted was that the growers should have a reasonable prospect of fair and steady remuneration for their produce. He was glad the import duties had been reduced, and he hoped he should be supported when next Session he called attention to the fact that sugar—one of the most important products of India—was taxed, not 5 or 6, but 50 or 60 per cent.
  MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he would not have addressed the House but for the speech of his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Aberdeen (Colonel Sykes), who seemed to have forgotten the whole lesson of the Indian mutiny when he complained of the increase of the European force in that country. No doubt the mortality in the Indian army had been great; the mortality in our army at home had also been great; but he trusted, by the adoption of proper sanitary measures, it would be greatly reduced. Increased security was given to India by keeping up there a powerful European force. The results which had been anticipated on that account were already beginning to appear. The natives of India, instead of looking to employment in the native army, were betaking themselves to agriculture, and that in itself was a most hopeful symptom. He congratulated his right hon. Friend on the growing prosperity of India. That was mainly owing to the encouragement of public works, which gave increased employment to the people. He trusted, therefore, that the Government would not only continue that system but do what they could to encourage private enterprise in works of irrigation and other permanent improvements. Such a course would promote the employment of native capital, and be an additional security for peace. When Government undertook any work the natives merely looked on, but in private enterprise they would be induced to join, and thus a new interest in the welfare of the country was created. Companies and individuals, by leading them to invest their money in public works, also did a great deal to promote the permanent peace of the country. He was glad to learn that there was to be an increased grant for education. The natives had expressed a great desire for such a grant,

  1313
  and he believed the measure which his right hon. Friend had introduced for an improved system of education in India was one of the greatest social benefits to that country that had ever been adopted. He hailed with great satisfaction the results of Parliamentary Government for India; and he trusted his right hon. Friend by continuing the same wise policy which he had hitherto adopted, would not only save the revenues of India, but secure the confidence and affection of the natives, which would be a great source of strength to the country.
  MR. BUXTONsaid, he hoped the Government of India would continue to give their attention to the question, whether the European force maintained in that country might not be still further reduced. His hon. and gallant Friend (Colouel Sykes) had given the weight of his great experience in favour of that reduction; but the European force in India had mounted up from 45,000 to 83,000 or 84,000 men. The native army, which it was conceded was the only source of danger, had been greatly reduced. The railways had doubled our military power; we had now also the telegraph; the arsenals and depots were in the hands of European troops, and we had far better artillery than before. The Enfield rifle was generally introduced among our troops, and we had therefore in every way far better means of quelling an insurrection, and far less reason to apprehend one. A further reduction in the number of European troops might, then, with safety be effected. He was glad to hear that the statistics did not bear out the distressing reports that had reached this country. But still the mortality had been most serious, and it was deplorable to think how many of those who did return from India suffered for the rest of their lives from disease contracted in that climate. Again, as each soldier was said to cost £100, the reduction of the European force would save the revenue of India, and thus enable the Government to apply themselves still more vigorously to public works.
  MR. BAZLEYsaid, he believed the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, showing the financial success of his measures, and the enlightened policy he had enunciated, would be received by the country at large with feelings of great satisfaction. He was glad that some hope was held out to Lancashire, which had been suffering great distress. They had been
  1314
  deprived of the raw material, which had supported in comfort the great mass of the manufacturing classes in the north; but, without the aid of the Government in affording facilities for the supply of cotton from the East Indies, he feared the calamity and distress felt in that district would be greatly prolonged and increased in intensity. He therefore entreated the right hon. Gentleman to do everything in his power to develop the resources of India, and thus relieve the industry of Lancashire. He thought the Indian accounts might fairly be presented to the House sooner than almost the last week of the Session. He would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he should introduce a new item into the accounts, to enable the country to judge of the magnitude of the investments in reproductive works. He believed that such a statement would produce greater confidence to the public, and induce them to place their capital in Indian investments. With the railways in progress, about sixty millions had been invested in the means of communication, but, instead of 4,500 miles of railway, he believed that ten times that amount was really required in that country, besides works of irrigation, and the improvement of river navigation. If the policy so ably enunciated by the right hon. Gentleman were practically adopted, it would, no doubt, greatly advance the prosperity as well of India as of this country. He therefore hoped the right hon. Gentleman would take every step in his power to emancipate the cotton trade from the necessity of relying upon slave labour for their supplies of raw material. Allusion had been made to the force employed in the suppression of the slave trade, but he did not think a wiser economy could be practised than that of suppressing slavery by superseding the work of the slave by free labour. India, he had no doubt, was capable of producing the supply of cotton that the English manufacturer required; and by allowing land to be taken at reasonable prices, and by affording the irrigation to which the Secretary of State had referred—for irrigated land yielded four or five times the crops of lands which had not that advantage—he believed that such result would be promoted.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he was surprised, after the debates that had taken place during the Session, to hear the hon. Member for Manchester suggest that it was in the power of the Government of India, through any measures they could adopt, to provide

  1315
  for the wants of Lancashire by increasing the growth of cotton. Past debates had proved the utter futility of such a notion. It was true that great allowances must be made for persons who were Buffering under such dire distress, and perhaps it was too much to expect from them a rigid adherence to the principles of free trade when a departure from those principles might seem to afford a chance of relief from such a calamity. But such suggestions were really calculated to mislead the people of Lancashire. The growers of Cotton in India were receiving four times the price they had been able usually to realize, and no inducement or premium which the Government could offer to the agriculturists would be so likely to stimulate the growth of cotton as a quadrupled price. What would be the use of the Secretary of State offering premiums if such increased price had no effect; and why should he send agents through the country when there were purchasers in plenty at those advanced prices? Such suggestions had a tendency to mislead the people of Lancashire into a belief that there was a feeling on the part of some person connected with the Government of India to deprive them of the raw material which they so anxiously desired. He saw it stated about a year since that there were 50,000 bales of cotton in Central India, if anybody would buy them. That appeared to him an unjust reflection upon the Gentlemen connected with the cotton trade. The hon. Member for Manchester said that that cotton did not exist, but in the course of six months a public meeting was held in Lancashire, and then the 50,000 bales had magnified to five millions of bales, which were to be obtained if it were not for some extraordinary operations on the part of the Government of India to prevent its reaching this country. It had been put forth to the people of Lancashire that the Secretary of State was in a conspiracy to deprive them of the raw material, and such heavy charges were made against him that a Motion for his impeachment might have been looked for at the beginning of the Session. But nothing of the kind took place, and it all resolved itself into a complaint that the right hon. Gentleman had not arrived at a standard of manners which was recognised in Lancashire as the proper standard. He would, however, remind the Committee that in India the cotton agriculturist at his best was only about where the cotton grower in the United States
  1316
  would abandon the cultivation. In India 100 lb. of clean cotton per acre was looked upon with great satisfaction; but if the production in the United States was only to reach that amount, the growers would abandon the land, and remove to fresh and unexhausted soil. In India the soil was much of it indifferent in quality, and the best of it had been exhausted by a thousand years' cultivation, while there was no virgin soil of the richest character ever known in agriculture to remove to as was the case in the United States. For that reason India was not capable of producing the almost unlimited quantity which America could in the event of circumstances creating a demand. Comparisons were made of the charge of conveying cotton to the ship in India and in America, and it was said, by way of contrast to the assumed cheapness of transit in America, that the cost of getting the cotton on board in India was a penny per pound. But some cotton was grown near the coast in India, and there that charge was almost nothing; and the case was exactly the same in America, according as the cotton grew on the banks of the Mississippi, or at a long distance from any water conveyance. On that point charges were made against the Indian Government, though there was really nothing in those charges. Another suggestion offered to the Government, that the resources of India should be applied in improving the water communication by the great rivers of India, was still more unfortunate. The great rivers of India could not be dealt with like the perennial rivers of this country. They were subject to enormous floods from rain, when they would sweep everything before them. It was childish to talk of improving the Ganges for example, which in its course would take away a man's estate at night, and land it somewhere else in the morning. These rivers came scouring down their beds with immense force for hundreds of miles after the rains; and then for six months not a drop of rain would fall, and, instead of being perhaps forty or fifty feet deep and a mile broad, nothing was to be seen but a stagnant piece of water. Of course, as engineers said, money might do anything; but millions of money would be needed to make one of these rivers navigable. The hon. Member for Stockport pinned his faith to the Godavery, and wished the Government to authorize the outlay of large sums in improving the navigation of that river. Now, the Godavery had a large

  1317
  delta, and its course lay through a hilly region above. No doubt at the delta the navigation of the river was capable of improvement, because the country was flat; but the great problem put before the Government was to make the river navigable in its course through the hills. The more the scheme was investigated, the more impracticable did it appear. Men of great judgment in India—except the engineer who had charge of the works—were now persuaded that there could be no greater waste of the public resources than the attempt to make that great mountain torrent, running through a large extent of wild, jungly country, without population, a navigable stream; and they were seeking how with a decent amount of self-respect, they could retire from the agitation promoted by the hon. Member The Government had done enough to satisfy such demands, and must come to the conclusion that their works could not be carried with advantage beyond the delta of the Godavery. Eighteen years ago he formed an association in Bombay for the purpose of inducing the Government to guarantee the funds requisite for making a railway from that port to the great cotton-producing districts of India. At that time gentlemen in Lancashire did not interest themselves much in these proceedings, and were satisfied to continue their dependence upon the United States for cotton. Nevertheless the association pursued their inquiries, and were ultimately able to take by the hand a company, and propose to it those lines of railway which in the course of a few years would be completed. Gentlemen in Lancashire made it a reproach that they were steeped in Indian railways. Now, railways were the greatest boon that had been or possibly could be conferred upon India. It was sometimes said in this country that our free-trade policy was the sole source of the increased enterprise and wealth and industry of England. But he should be prepared to maintain, in the face of all the representatives of Lancashire put together, that railways had done four or five times as much in developing the wealth and industry of this country during the last twenty-five years as could be done by any number of fiscal or financial measures. He believed that they would produce the same great results in India. Talk of fiscal remission of 1d. or 2d. as bringing about a great development of trade; why, for every 1d. or 2d. thus
  1318
  reduced a railway lessened the cost of goods by 1s. or 2s., by reducing the cost of conveyance. When, therefore, it was said that nothing had been done for the improvement of India and the development of her resources, his answer was that the Government had done immense things by aiding the construction of thousands of miles of railway there through districts which otherwise, for all commercial purposes, would have been practically inaccessible. And they were beginning to feel the effect of what had been done in the improved revenue which was now being produced in India. It had been suggested that the production of cotton was kept back by the terrible state in which the Government kept the owners of land. Now, India had received for her cotton and agricultural produce in recent times some £10,000,000 more than she formerly did, and yet the land revenue of 1862 was estimated at £250,000 less than in 1861. That went to show that the production of cotton was not checked, as had been alleged, by the state in which the occupiers of land were kept by the Government, but that the agricultural interest of India had derived the sole advantage, from the increased demand for their produce. He would say, therefore, as a broad proposition, that there was nothing now in the land tenure of India which interfered in any way with the productive industry of the people. He was not there to defend the past, for no one was more anxious to see the changes which had taken place, and he was glad that the Government of India had in their own public documents emphatically stated that they had no right whatever to the soil of India; their claim was to a revenue as well settled as the income tax in this country; and as long as that was paid, the occupiers of the land were the owners in fee simple, and had a right to do with it as they pleased. That principle was to his certain knowledge upheld in the courts in India, and, when forgotten, on appeal by the Privy Council in this country. It might be thought that the Secretary of State had said the contrary; but though the form of expression might be different, he had no doubt the right hon. Gentleman would admit that in substance his statement was correct.
  Turning to the revenue he regretted very much, that while there was an improvement in the revenue of India, there was not a corresponding improvement in the condition of the people, Some people seem to think

  1319
  that the consumption of ardent spirits or substitutes for spirits was beneficial to the people; but it was remarkable that the two great religious communities into which the inhabitants of India were divided—the Hindoos and Mohammedans—were so satisfied of the injury to health and morals from alcoholic drinks that it was a fundamental principle with them not to drink any, though there were low-caste Hindoos and Mohammedans who did not hold themselves bound by that obligation. He was sorry to see that the revenue from abkarry had considerably increased. Unfortunately the Government saw in it a great source of revenue, and he feared they were disposed to encourage its consumption. Coming next to the assessed taxes, he could not help feeling how difficult it was for England to govern India and do justice to the great body of the people. The income tax was obnoxious to the Europeans in India and other classes who were best able to pay it, and the consequence was that that tax, which was a most just one when not carried too low, was made a subject of agitation by those who could unfortunately best make themselves heard; and he feared the Indian Government had not the moral courage to resist the pressure which would be brought to bear, and to maintain the tax as it ought to be maintained. He should regret if the tax were taken off the rich, but should rejoice if persons of small incomes were exempted. What was to be thought of our administration when we were increasing the tax upon salt in order to reduce the tax upon the incomes of the rich? The tax on salt in this country was a most obnoxious one, and was, he believed, the first of the indirect taxes that was repealed. In times past the people of Cheshire used to feel a great anxiety about the sufferings of the people of India from the tax upon salt, but somehow or other since arrangements had been made by which salt from Cheshire was imported into India, though at a considerable duty, that great anxiety had subsided, and was not likely, after the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, to be ever revived. There never had been a salt monopoly in Bombay as it existed in Calcutta, and therefore his hon. Friend (Mr. Vansittart) was hardly justified in the remarks which he had made on this subject. Salt might be produced in Bombay cheaper than it could be in or ed from Cheshire; and as soon as the railways by which salt could be taken from the coast were completed, the people
  1320
  of India would be supplied by their own production, and it would not be necessary to import it. He could not but regret that the salt duty was to be kept up to so large an amount, as it pressed very severely upon the poorest people of India. When he saw the efforts which were made to induce the Government to remit the taxation of the rich, and when that could not be done except by increasing the duty upon salt, he felt considerable misgivings. In connection with the question of opium, the House was in great danger of running into an extreme the opposite of that into which they had fallen on former occasions. It was the first time they had a very considerable surplus; and when that went forth, there would, he feared, be a disposition on the one hand to increase the expenditure of India, and on the other to yield to the demands of powerful parties for a remission of taxation. The right hon. Gentleman would do well to remember that the revenue from opium was derived from an agricultural product which was sold only to a foreign consumer, and was therefore exposed to the double contingency of the seasons in India, and the political condition of China. They had witnessed the failure of the potato crop in Ireland and the vine crop in France; and it was therefore the duty of the Government to regard the revenue from opium as precarious, and not to indulge too much in a feeling of security, seeing that so large a portion of the general revenue depended on that single item. He was glad to see that the military expenditure had come back to its normal condition. Having read very carefully the Report upon the sanitary state of the European troops, he thought there was great truth in the observations of the right hon. Baronet that its conclusions were derived too much from mixed causes, which ought to have been carefully sifted and separated. Within the last two or three years—indeed, ever since the mutiny—the circumstances of the army had been undergoing such rapid and successive changes that general conclusions must necessarily be fallacious. He was glad that the anomalous and expensive Indian navy had been put an end to. It was a force much petted by the East India Company, but it was absurd to prevent officers of the regular navy from taking their turn of service there, and acquiring information as to coasts and harbours which would prove valuable in case of war. He rejoiced in the gradual but thorough

  1321
  amalgamation of India with this country, and at finding that the Indian statement, once a subject of standing contention, was now a subject of universal peace and congratulation, and that those who were disposed to indulge in gloomy anticipations had thought it imprudent to attend and justify them.
  MR. BAZLEYsaid, he wished to assure the hon. Member that much of the information with which he had favoured the Committee was incorrect. He also felt bound to protest against the calumnies regarding Lancashire which the hon. Gentle man had uttered.
  SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, he was glad to perceive that, on the whole, satisfaction was generally expressed with the statement it had been his duty to submit to the Committee. In reply to the observations which fell from different hon. Members, he desired to say that those who knew India best were of opinion that no great reduction of military strength below the existing amount could safely be made at present. The sanitary condition of the troops had very greatly improved; but, of course, every pains would be taken still further to diminish the rate of mortality. It could not be said that the salt monopoly had been put down; it had put itself down, the Government finding that it was no longer of pecuniary advantage. There had also been concessions as to the land revenue, and a large expenditure upon public works. These combined advantages, it was hoped, would largely improve the condition of the people of India; but it was evident that the Government must look for a return, in some shape or other, for the contributions thus made towards the advancement of India. That return, he believed, would be obtained in the increased amount of land brought under cultivation. In the importance of extending education among the native population he quite agreed; large grants had been appropriated for the purpose by Sir C. Trevelyan, whose interest in the subject was well known. The exertions of the railway companies in the Presidency of Bombay to complete the railway communication were most active. They would soon have lines running directly into the cotton district. Of the Godavery, unfortunately, every fresh survey increased the estimate of the outlay requisite to improve its navigation; but there could be no doubt that outlay on this route would be attended with advantages, and he
  1322
  did not shrink from any expectations on that score which he might heretofore have held out
  MR. AYRTONasked when the Act of the Legislative Council would be laid on the table.
  SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, that there was no provision that these Acts should be laid on the table, but that they were, he believed, all in the library.
  Resolutions agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow, at Twelve of the clock.

BRITISH COLUMBIA BOUNDARIES BILL (Lords)— [Bill 187.]

  COMMITTEE.
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE, in moving that the House should go into Committee on the Bill, stated, that its object was to extend the boundaries of British Columbia to the north, so as to include a tract of country in which there were indications of rich gold veins, and to extend till the end of next Session the Act of 1858, under which the Colony was constituted. Hitherto the executive and legislative government of British Columbia had both been carried on by the Governor; but within the last few months, Her Majesty had exercised the power which was reserved to her by the Act of 1858, and had by Order in Council created a Legislature. His noble Friend the Secretary of State, having to decide whether he should introduce representation into the system, had, considering the circumstances of the country, in which there was but a small fixed and a large fluctuating population, many of the settlers not being British subjects, decided that for the present such a step would not be expedient. The Order in Council created a legislative council, on the model which had been established with success in other Colonies, and more closely following the legislative council of Ceylon than any other which he could mention. That council would consist of fifteen members—five of the principal officials of the Colony, five district magistrates, taken from different portions of it, and five independent members, whom the Governor was instructed to select from different districts of the Colony, with the view of choosing such gentlemen as might be pointed out by their respective neighbours as deserving the confidence of the population, and capable of representing their interests and views in

  1323
  the legislative council. Another important change which it was proposed to effect was that the Colony should be completely separated from Vancouver's Island, and should be ruled by a resident governor of its own. That was a point on which he was ready to admit considerable difference of opinion prevailed. His noble Friend at the head of the Colonial Office had felt anxious to unite the two colonies if possible, believing that an increase of their strength and resources would be the result, as well as an enlargement of the field from which the members of a united Legislature should be selected. The obstacles, however, in the way of the adoption of that course were found to be insuperable, as it was thought that the interests of the two Colonies were different, and in British Columbia there was a strong feeling, if there was but one Government, their interests might be sacrificed to those of Vancouver's Island. It had therefore, upon consideration, been deemed the wisest course to take to give each Colony a separate governor. He had every reason to think that the arrangement proposed, which was avowedly of a temporary charcter, would give great satisfaction to British Columbia, and would, on the whole, meet the views of the most enlightened portion of the colonists. It must not, he might add, be supposed, that under the comparatively rude government under which she had hitherto existed, British Columbia had not made considerable improvement. The progress of that colony had, on the contrary, been most remarkable. In the midst of a motley population, there had been a singular observance of law and a remarkable absence of crime. The miners appeared to be well satisfied with the mining laws under which they worked, and which gave them a large power of making regulations for their own benefit; and the land system, moreover, which had been introduced, had given great satisfaction to the permanent settlers. The original price of land in Vancouver's Island was fixed by Lord Grey at £1 an acre, which was well known to be the Australian charge; but that price it had been found impossible to maintain in the face of the competition in the United States, where land was sold at a dollar an acre. He was therefore happy to say that the £1 an acre system had been put an end to, and that land could now be obtained in British Columbia on as easy terms as to price and immediate occupation as was the case in the neighbouring territory of America. He might further observe,
  1324
  that the success which had attended the exertions of Governor Douglas in the construction of roads had been most remarkable. In all young Colonies the construction of such works was of great importance, but in no colony was it, he would venture to say, of such vital interest as in British Columbia, as the gold regions were separated from the coast by mountain ranges which could be only traversed by roads, the Fraser being in that part of its course unfit for navigation. Impressed with the conviction of the necessity of roads. Governor Douglas had devoted the whole available revenue of the colony to the purpose, and the consequence was, that there was now no less than 1,000 miles of road being constructed, penetrating into the interior of the country, and bringing the necessaries of life within the reach of the mining population at comparatively reduced prices, instead of those famine prices which had until lately prevailed, and which had the effect of driving miners back to the coast to avoid actual starvation. The effect of those measures had been to encourage the immigration of miners, and also the taking up of land for the purposes of permanent settlement. Another result had been that the revenue of the Colony had risen during the last year by about £100,000, and thenceforward the Colony would, be hoped, disappear from the Votes of that House, as no more money from this country would be wanted. In fact, he behoved there never had been a colony which cost this country so little as British Columbia. An event had lately happened which had excited much attention in this country, and would have a great influence on the future prospects of the Colony. There had been a transfer of shares from the greater number of the old proprietors and directors of the Hudson's Boy Company to new proprietors and new directors, and among the objects aimed at by the new company was the construction of postal and telegraphic communication between British Columbia and Canada, across the Rocky Mountains, to which his noble Friend the Secretary of State attached the greatest importance. The Government hoped and believed that the company, under its new direction, would not lose sight of that great object; and they had the assurances of the eminent chairman, Sir Edmund Head, that their attention would be directed to the settlement of the country, and to opening communication across the Continent. The last letter of the company

  1325
  announced that they had directed a very able and energetic gentleman, Mr. Watkin, to proceed from Canada to the Red River, to make himself acquainted with all the circumstances of the country, and to report on his return as to the best means of carrying out the great scheme of passenger communication between Canada and British Columbia. He thought they might look forward to a not very distant time when British Columbia would be far more accessible than at the present moment, when the British element in the population would rapidly increase, and when it would be one of the most powerful and prosperous, as it was already one of the most interesting Colonies under the British Crown.
  MR. WYLDsaid, it was very late in the Session to deal with a measure which was of so much importance in view of the great events which were happening in America, and which must have an effect upon our own possessions. He was glad the Bill was to remain in operation only for one year, because he was sure the Government of Vancouver's Island could not last longer. Although the hon. Gentleman had given the House such a glowing account, the fact was, that the success of the colonies of British Columbia and Vancouver's Island had not been as great as it would have been under better management and a better constitution. The Hudson's Bay Company had exercised too much influence over the Colonial Office; and, as an instance of it, of the fifteen members given by the present constitution to Vancouver's Island twelve were the nominees of the company. In the two Colonies of British Columbia and Vancouver's Island the population, instead of increasing, had decreased. The total population was 12,000, and it was proved that although large numbers went temporarily to search for gold, they did not become settlers and colonists. The grievances of the people were such that they had sent two delegates, Mr. Cameron and Mr. Maclure, to this country, with a petition which the governor had not transmitted; and although, in the technical language of the Colonial Office, these gentlemen were not sent "officially," they represented the largest public meeting ever held in the island. The maladministration of the finances of the Colony had been unparalleled, and there had been defaulters in almost every department. The amount of their defalcations was enormous. In
  1326
  1858 a gold commissioner absconded with many thousand dollars; in 1862 the postmaster absconded with large sums; then the treasurer of the colony was convicted of embezzlement; a bankrupt draper from Perth, who had been insolvent in Demerara, having been appointed Chief Justice, was arrested for debt and mysteriously liberated, and had escaped to the adjoining American provinces; and the chief police clerk had run away with a large sum of money. There was hardly an official who did not retain a large grant of land for his own benefit. The people were loyal, and there was a strong feeling in favour of the Sovereign of these realms; but the people saw a better Government under the United States in neighbouring territory, and far less corruption. He gave credit to the Duke of Newcastle for the attempt to form a road to the Pacific. There was no scientific man who would not feel interested in the proposed line of communication which it was intended to effect across the continent, and the communication with China; but he thought those communications should never be carried out by the Hudson's Bay Company, who had ever sacrificed the public to their own interests. The pretensions of the company, he believed, were not legally sustainable. As he understood, the noble Duke at the head of the Colonial department proposed to grant to the new company a million acres on a portion of the land proposed to be traversed by the telegraph, but he was undertaking a great responsibility, seeing that the country along the Red River was occupied by hostile Indians. He was afraid, if the Colonial Office guaranteed this extent of country to the new company, that it would lead to great trouble and expense, and probably to Indian wars. In putting an end to the Hudson's Bay Company the noble Duke had done good suit and service. The deputy chairman of the Hudson's Bay Company was the sole agent for the fur traders of New York. The company was connected with the Credit Mobilier, and with the German settlers in America, and he thought they ought not to have the sole power of granting licences to trade over the extensive territories dealt with in the Bill.
  MR. AYTOUNsaid, he objected to the Bill chiefly on the ground of the effect it would have on the interests of the tax payers in this country. He believed the Bill formed part of a great scheme for colonizing the western portion of North America, and for

  1327
  forming a great road to connect the Atlantic with the Pacific. He believed that this intercolonial railway, as a commercial enterprise, was one of the wildest dreams that had ever entered into the brain of a railway engineer. The projected line passed through a most difficult country, and the work would be of a most expensive character, much more expensive than the estimate. The country was almost uninhabited, and the food for the workmen would have to be carried to them from a great distance. But even if it were carried out, it would not be a remunerative undertaking. When the St. Lawrence was closed in the winter, there might be a considerable number of passengers; but when the river was opened, there would be very few, and at no time would there be any goods. In Case of war, it would be perfectly easy for an enterprising American general to cut the railway in two, so that in a military point of view, it would be of little use. The finances of the Colony were not in a position to bear so expensive a guarantee; and if the intercolonial railway were carried out in the manner projected, it would be a great burden on the Colony. Looking, moreover, to the tendency in the Colony to treat these works as Imperial matters, he was afraid that the burden of the guarantee for such a work, carried out at the persuasion of the Colonial Secretary, might sooner or later be thrown upon this country. Anything which tended to burden Colonial finances must be a disadvantage to the mother country. As to the Pacific road, if it were constructed, he did not see of what advantage it would be to Canada, to Columbia, or to England. He thought the construction of such a road was premature at present, for it would have to pass through a country to a great extent without population. It might be said that this would be opening up new territory, but he did not see the necessity of the people of this country spending their money in that way. At least, we ought to wait till Canada and the other Colonies were more fully peopled before we threw away money in opening up new fields of emigration. Canada, for instance, although eight times the size of Scotland, had less population. Such a measure ought not to have been brought in at so advanced a period of the Session, when there was not sufficient time for its consideration, and when the attendance of members was so scanty. At present our military expenditure on behalf of the Colonies was very large, and was rather in-
  1328
  creasing than diminishing, and the new country which was proposed to be colonized would add to that outlay, as we should probably be brought into conflict with the Indians,
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1 (Repeal of 1st Section of 21 & 22 Vict., c. 99).
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, the Bill was merely for the continuance of an existing Act and the annexation of a tract of country to the North of Columbia, and did not require much discussion.
  MR. MASSEYsaid, the hon. Gentleman should confine himself to the clauses of the Bill, as in Committee he could not make a general statement on the Bill.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
  Clause 4 (Alteration of Boundaries).
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, he would move to expunge the clause, to which he did not attach any importance. It had been inserted as a matter of convenience, in case it should be found necessary to make any correction in the boundaries of the Colony.
  Motion agreed to.
  Clause struck out.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported, with an Amendment; as amended, to be considered To-morrow, at Twelve of the Clock.

FISHERIES (UPPER SHANNON).

  REPORTS MOVED FOR.
  COLONEL DICKSONin calling the attention of the Government to Mr. Bateman's Report on the River Shannon, said he would submit that the sum of £283,000 estimated by that gentleman as the cost of certain improvements connected with that river, should be granted out of the public funds, inasmuch as a great increase had taken place in the taxation of Ireland, and a great diminution in that of England since the time of the Union. There was great distress in Ireland, and the proposed works on the Shannon, besides being remunerative in themselves, would afford employment to a large number of people. On that ground alone, he thought the Government should not hesitate to undertake them. The hon. and gallant Gentleman concluded by moving for Copy of the Reports made by the Inspector of

  1329
  Fisheries and by Mr. Forsythe, C.E., to the Commissioners of Public Works relative to the defective state of the Fish Ladders on the Upper Shannon from Athlone to Boyle.
  MR. PEELsaid, he was ready to admit the value of the Report, which quite justified the selection of Mr. Bateman by the Government to draw it up. The matter in dispute was the inundations from the Shannon, and it was alleged that the inundations were aggravated by the works of the Shannon Commissioners; but Mr. Bateman reported that that was not so, but that, on the contrary, the effect of these works was to mitigate them. The expense of the works necessary to remedy the evils complained of, was about £250,000. It was not the intention of Government to propose that the costs of these works should be defrayed by the country; but if done at all, they should be done at the cost of the proprietors of the land. He had no objection to produce the papers.
  Motion agreed to.
  Copy ordered,
  "Of the Reports made by the Inspector of Fisheries and by Mr. Forsythe, C.E., to the Commissioners of Public Works relative to the defective state of the Fish Ladders on the Upper Shannon from Athlone to Boyle."—(Colonel Dickson.)

HOLYHEAD HARBOUR.—RESOLUTION.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he wished to call attention to the Report of the Select Committee on Holyhead Harbour, and to ask whether the Government intended to act upon that Report or not. It would be recollected that the Chancellor of the Exchequer took exception to the appointment of the Committee, indulging in some warmth of feeling on the subject, and he had now to state that in Committee the President of the Board of Trade adopted a most extraordinary course. When the hon. Member for Glasgow submitted a Report to the effect that the present arrangements at Holyhead were sufficient, the right hon. Gentleman was one of the only two Members of the Committee who supported that view. The course thus taken was directly contrary to everything the Government had said or done during the last two years. Both in 1861 and 1862 the Government acknowledged that great inconvenience was experienced at Holyhead, and promised to provide a remedy. He therefore called upon the Government to redeem the pledge they had repeatedly given that they would make
1330
that landing-place fit for the accomodation of passengers.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That, in the opinion of this House, the Recommendations made in the Report of the Select Committee on Holyhead Harbour ought to be adopted."—(Colonel Dunne.)
MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, there was this good reason why the Government should not give a positive assurance as to the carrying-out of any particular plan—namely, that the evidence on which the Report of the Committee was founded had not been printed, and they ought to have an opportunity of reading that evidence, to ascertain whether it entirely bore out the Committee's recommendations. The Government, however, had no wish to evade any obligations which they had undertaken in this matter, but, on the contrary, it was their intention faithfully to fulfil them. They had a distinct legal instrument setting forth what it really was that the Government had undertaken. They had stipulated to provide the necessary piers and the access to them for nothing else but the mail service. The great Piers formerly contemplated were intended to provide for the transatlantic steamers; but when the proposed line of communication was given up, these piers became unnecessary for the requirements of the mail packets. His own opinion certainly was that the accommodation existing at the present time was not sufficient, but still it was found that the inferiority of the pier, as compared with those at Kingston, did not cause a delay of more than thirty seconds in landing the mails. It had also been found that during a strong northerly gale the vessels were able to come alongside the wooden jetty. It was not possible to enter into pledges and promises. The real complaint was that there was not accommodation for passengers, and on that point the Government had given no pledge whatever. Still he hoped that when the alterations, which had been contracted for by the Government, were made, good accommodation would be given to passengers. He hoped, therefore, that the Motion would not he pressed.
COLONEL DICKSONsaid, that promises had been so often given and disregarded in respect to these improvements, that Irish Members were anxious for some distinct pledge that they would be carried out forthwith.
MR. LAIRDsaid, that £70,000 had been asked by the Government for these works, and they were entitled to expect that the sum should be expended. The

1331
Committee recommended a plan which would only cost £35,000, and his hon. and gallant Friend was entitled to ask from the Government some pledge that they mean to do something efficient.
MR. PEELobserved, that the estimate of £70,000 was for the whole works connected with the harbour of Holyhead from the beginning, £45,000 of which had al-ready been voted in previous years.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he thought the manner in which the pledges of the Government had been disregarded in this matter was disgraceful.
Question put, and negatived.
House adjourned at one o'clock.

MINUTES.
Public Bills—First Reading—Consolidated Fund Appropriation *; Indemnity * (No. 246); Land Tax Commissioners' Names * (No. 247); Pauper Lunatic Asylums * (No. 245).
Second Reading—Poisoned Grain, &c. Prohibition * (No. 243); Removal of Prisoners (Scotland) * (No. 200); Railway Clauses * (No. 238); Waterworks Clauses * (No. 239); Turnpike Acts Continuance, &c. * (No. 240); Expiring Laws Continuance* (No. 241); Petty Sessions (Ireland) * (No. 242).
Committee—Trustees (Scotland) Act Amendment * (No. 53); Nuisances Removal Act (1855) Amendment * (Nos. 226 & 249); Union Relief Aid Acts Continuance * (No. 231); Turnpike Trusts Arrangements * (No. 233).
Report—Trustees (Scotland) Act Amendment *; Navy Prize Agents *; Union Relief Aid Acts Continuance *; Turnpike Trusts Arrangements *; Nuisances Removal Act (1865) Amendment *.
Third Reading—Stipendiary Magistrates * (No. 222); Fisheries (Ireland) (No. 236); Fortifications (Provision for Expenses) *(No. 225); Public Works and Fisheries Acts Amendment * (No. 201); Vaccination(Scotland)*(No. 230); Exhibition Medals [H.L.] * (No. 234); and severally passed.

TIGHT ROPE ACCIDENT AT BIRMINGHAM.—OBSERVATIONS.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, he thought it was high time that the attention of the Government and of Parliament should be called to the dreadful accidents that had occurred so often of late from walking on the tight-rope. Within the last six months two persons had been killed, and a third so mutilated that he believed she had never been able to leave her bed since. If any proofs were wanted of the demoralizing effect of such exhibitions, their Lordships had only to read the account of what had occurred at Aston-park the other day. Not only did the fête go on after the accident, but it was deliberately determined by the Com-

1231
mittee that it was to continue, and a most unfeeling scene took place immediately after the death of the unfortunate woman. It had been said there was no law by which such things could be stopped; but he felt quite certain that they could, by the intervention of the police, who had power to prevent all improper exhibitions. The feats on such occasions would be quite as extraordinary if performed at ten or fifteen feet from the ground, and would not be dangerous. But he was informed the morbid feeling of the public was such, that if the rope were only ten or fifteen feet from the ground, no one would go to look at the performance. If that were so, it was clear that the danger to life was that which constituted the attraction. Somehow or other he thought that the Government might find means to prevent the repetition of these horrors, which shocked all civilized society, and, if continued, must greatly demoralize the lower classes.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he agreed with every word which the noble Earl had said as to the disgraceful character of these exhibitions, and regretted the morbid curiosity out of which they arose. His noble Friend was, however, slightly mistaken as to the power of the Government in these matters. All that the Home Secretary could do was to warn the authorities by whose permission these exhibitions took place of the dangerous nature of the performances, and to tell them that they exposed themselves to any legal responsibility which might attach to them in case of accidents. In many instances such warnings had been given, and had been attended to by the proprietors of the establishments at which the exhibitions were announced to take place. More than this the Government had not power to do, under the law as it now stood. Any alteration of the law must require grave consideration. For his own part, he thought that we must rely mainly upon public opinion for the suppression of these dangerous performances, and that an expression of strong condemnation in that House and elsewhere would have a more beneficial effect than the enactment of minute regulations.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsaid, that his noble Friend had done well to bring this subject before their Lordships. The whole interest in these exhibitions arose from the tremendous danger to which
1232
the party performing was exposed. If the rope was stretched only three feet from the ground, and plenty of sawdust was put underneath, he did not believe that you could find five persons in England who would pay to see the performance. He knew that there were great difficulties in the way of legislating upon this subject; but the Government did sometimes interfere—as, for instance, when Blondin proposed to wheel his daughter across the rope at the Crystal Palace. He (the Earl of Shaftesbury) called the attention of the Home Secretary to the matter; Sir George Grey wrote to the managers of the Crystal Palace, and this part of the exhibition was abandoned. These exhibitions demoralized the whole population. He concurred with his noble Friend (Earl Granville) in thinking that public opinion, strongly and constantly directed, would prove far more effective for the suppression than legislation, and there was no means so powerful for the direction of public opinion as that the press should comment with becoming severity—as he was happy to say that they appeared willing to do—upon these exhibitions, and that, whenever they occurred, they should be discussed both in that and the other House of Parliament. If that were done, he hoped that in time the tastes of the people would attain a greater refinement, and that they would show a greater regard for the limbs and lives of their fellow creatures.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that the instance which his noble Friend had mentioned was one of those to which he had alluded. In that case the Home Secretary had warned the directors of the Crystal Palace that they might be responsible for any accident which might occur, and in consequence the exhibition which had been announced did not take place.

ALKALI WORKS REGULATION BILL [H.L.]
Report from the Committee of Reasons to be offered to the Commons for the Lords disagreeing to One of the Amendments made by the Commons to the said Bill; read, and agreed to; and Bill, with the Amendments and Reasons, returned to the Commons.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Ordered, That on Friday and Monday next the Bill or Bills which are entered for Consideration on the Minutes of the Day shall have the Precedence which Bills have on Tuesdays and Thursdays: (The Chairman of Committees.)
FISHERIES (IRELAND) BILL—(No. 236.)

  THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  THE EARL OF DERBYpresented Petitions from certain persons owning fisheries in Ireland and representing a large number of persons similarly interested, complaining that this Bill did not contain any clause saving chartered immemorial rights. This was the first case, he believed, in which a Bill had been introduced into Parliament which proposed to abolish, without any compensation or even inquiry, the chartered rights of individuals, or rights which had been held from time immemorial. The Bill would utterly destroy those rights and interests without offering anything in the shape of compensation. With regard to the weirs, the Bill required the owners of them, upon application being made to them, to make free gaps in their weirs. It appeared that this question of gaps was by no means a new question in Ireland, for the question of requiring free gaps in the weirs had been the subject of legislation in Ireland more than a century ago. Such weirs, however, as had been used from time immemorial were exempted from the operation of that Act. The owners of Irish weirs founded their claim to exemption from such a requirement upon immemorial usage and grants from the Irish Parliament, and the Government, when the Bill was introduced into the other House, declared it was their intention to preserve ancient rights and interests. Up to a late period, therefore, the parties interested believed that they would be protected by the Legislature. The attempt to set aside these rights without compensation was made on a sudden, without notice, in a thin House, and only succeeded by a very small majority. Under these circumstances he thought it would be a great injustice to deprive by a Bill of this kind persons of their rights without any inquiry or previous notice—rights over property amounting to something like £300,000 a year; whereas the English rights, which were protected by Act of Parliament, did not extend beyond the value of £20,000. He should be sorry to see this Bill thrown out altogether; but he trusted, if they passed it, that their Lordships would, at all events, introduce a clause into it which would protect the
  1234
  rights of those who had hitherto held them under a charter or according to immemorial usage. If their Lordships took that course, they would be enabled to gain time for the more mature consideration of the measure, and for ascertaining its operation, and in the next Session of Parliament the subject might be again deliberately discussed. The Bill, he thought, would greatly improve the value of the Irish fisheries on the whole, and he thought it possible that some persons who now viewed the Bill with serious apprehension would not suffer the amount of loss which they anticipated from its operation. But he should much regret the passing of the Bill without some such provision as he suggested, believing that it would have the effect of inflicting a serious blow upon the authority and character of their Lordships' House, which had heretofore jealously guarded private interests when any attempt was made to invade them. If this Bill, then, were allowed to pass into a law in its present crude and unjust form, he was of opinion that the confidence of the public in the justice of their Lordships' House would receive a blow from which it would not soon recover. Having said so much, he would now lay the Petitions upon the table.
  LORD CRANWORTHpresented a Petition from a gentlemen who had purchased a fishery, held under charter, in the Encumbered Estates Court, thereby adding a Parliamentary to his previously valid title. He had not worked the fishery last year, on account of circumstances explained in the Petition, and therefore, although the same engines as he was now using had been in use for several years previously, his property would be swept away under the terms of this Bill, because those engines had not been actually used in the fishery last year. He maintained that this was a case of extreme injustice, and it was but a specimen of hundreds which would be made known if there had been time to forward Petitions. He should not again go over the ground over which he had on a former occasion travelled; but believing the more useful the measure turned out to be in a public point of view, the more injuriously would it on future occasions operate, as furnishing a precedent for the invasion of private rights, he should move that it should be read a third time that day three months.
  LORD ST. LEONARDSsaid, he thought

  1235
  it had been clearly shown that the Bill involved an invasion of the rights of property which could not be justified, and he should therefore vote against the third reading.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYobserved, that the discussion was somewhat irregular, as the Bill was not then before them. To make their proceedings regular, he then moved that the Bill be read a third time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.
  LORD CRANWORTHsaid, as the subject appeared to him to be exhausted, he would not again go over the objections urged against the Bill. The question lay in a nutshell—namely, whether their Lordships would consent to the passing of a measure which would destroy rights of property that had been enjoyed from time immemorial, and which had been repeatedly recognized in our statute book. He believed that nine out of ten of the public in Ireland to be affected by it were utterly ignorant of the nature of the Bill. Pursuant to notice, he moved as an Amendment, that the Bill be read a third time that day three months.
  Amendment moved, to leaveout ("now") and insert ("this day three months").
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he could not agree in the representations of the Bill which had been made by the noble and learned Lord. In his opinion, property in a salmon fishery was, primarily, a right to capture salmon in certain places, but not to capture it in those places by every possible mode. Salmon was a fish about which there was this peculiarity—that the whole race must, for the purposes of propagation, come to a certain point on the coast; and as what was termed the "run" of the fish was perfectly well known, it was quite possible that, by the aid furnished by the progress of mechanical invention, any one proprietor who had a share in the right of catching the fish in a particular river might be enabled to catch the whole of the fish which came into it. If, therefore, the right of property was pushed so far as to admit of that being done in the case of one individual, the rights of others would be destroyed; indeed, acting on the principle which was so zealously maintained by noble and learned Lords in that House especially, it was quite as wrong to limit the time during which fish might be caught as to restrict the mode in which it should be taken. He remembered well,
  1236
  for instance, that a noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond), who was known to be the largest salmon proprietor in the three kingdoms, objected, as he had a perfect right to do, to a provision in the Bill relating to Scotland, because it deprived him during every week of the salmon-catching season of so many hundreds of fish worth so many shillings. If it was wrong to rob a man of £500 a year, it was equally wrong, in principle, to rob him of £5, as it was quite in the power of one man, by an abuse of his rights, to deprive another of rights to which he was equally entitled. It could hardly be deemed unreasonable to interfere with the mode of catching the fish, seeing that the use of stake and bag nets had the effect of depriving many proprietors of their rights to capture salmon in their fisheries.
  LORD CHELMSFORDsaid, he thought that the extent of the in justice which the Bill would inflict was hardly yet known to their Lordships. There were two distinct rights of fishery which ought to be kept separate—the rights of the owners of chartered weirs or of weirs existing from time immemorial, and the rights of owners who fished by stake and bag nets. The former were by law now entitled to compensation if an opening were made in their weirs. But this Bill proposed to give the Commissioners power to open gaps in weirs without the slightest compensation. It was admitted, however, that they were entitled to compensation; and what was said to them was—"We are going to remove a number of stake and bag nets, and your fisheries will thereby become the more valuable." Thus it was that the promoters of the Bill played off some proprietors against others. But it was further said, "Your rights were granted by Act of Parliament, and by Act of Parliament they may be repealed." But it was not the fact that all those rights were granted by the Act of 1842. That Act preserved all pre-existing rights; it did more, it sanctioned and confirmed them. But would it be said, that because rights were granted by Act of Parliament, therefore Parliament had a right to take them away? That he utterly denied. Suppose that Parliament had once improvidently and improperly conferred rights upon individuals, still Parliament could not deprive them of those rights without giving proper compensation. These rights of fishing by stake net and bag net had been dealt with like other descriptions of property. They had been the subject of sale

  1237
  and transfer; they had been purchased for large sums of money, and had been charged with jointures and annuities. This question of the stake and bag net fishing was totally distinct from that of the weirs. In many instances the owners of stake nets and bag nets would be entirely deprived of their property. He certainly felt that this Bill had been introduced at a period of the Session when it was quite impossible that it could receive a degree of consideration equal to its importance, or that the rights and interests of those who would be affected by it could be deliberately considered. And if their Lordships were brought into this predicament by the late period at which this Bill was introduced, that they were unable to consider fairly and justly the mode in which these rights ought to be protected, it was desirable that the Bill should not be allowed to pass this Session; but that next Session there might be officially introduced a Bill which should, if they pleased, largely benefit these fisheries, but which should not obtain that advantage by that sacrifice of private interests and rights. The noble and learned Lord cited a passage from Blackstone which he considered singularly applicable to the present case. That writer says—
  "So great is the regard of the law for private property, that it will not authorize the least violation of it; no, not even for the general good of the whole community. If a new road, for instance, were to be made through the grounds of a private person, it might perhaps he extensively beneficial to the public, but the law permits no man or set of men to do this without consent of the owner of the land." [Book i., chap. 1.]
  The learned writer proceeds to say that the legislature not only would, but in many cases did, interfere with private rights for the public good, but how did it do this? Not by stripping men of their rights, but by giving them a full indemnification by way of exchange. The public was now considered as an individual treating with another individual by way of exchange; and even this power was exercised by the Legislature with great caution. He trusted their Lordships would not compel some future editor of our great commentator to obliterate this passage, or to add a note in which he would be compelled to say that in the year 1863 Parliament reversed all these principles, and held that it was entitled arbitrarily to strip an individual of his property and substitute "robbery" for "exchange." He trusted their Lordships would accede to the Motion of his noble and learned Friend.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEsaid, in reply to an observation that had fallen from his noble and learned Friend below him (Lord Cranworth), that any man of education who did not know this question thoroughly by this time must have the misfortune to be both deaf and blind—for the newspapers and every rank of society in Ireland were full of it. The noble and learned Lord talked about the rights of these people, and about the lady whose jointure was charged upon these rights of fishing; but he felt satisfied that if this or some such Bill did not pass this Session or next, there would be no rights to preserve, for all the salmon fry in the Irish rivers was being rapidly destroyed. So far as rights depended upon the capture of fish, they would speedily be destroyed. The Bill, he maintained, was a compromise between one set of owners and another. The persons about whose rights the noble and learned Lord was so eloquent would not, he thought, be very grateful to him if he should succeed in throwing out the Bill, for they knew very well that the measure would be as beneficial to them as it would be to everybody else.
  THE EARL OF WICKLOWsaid, he was glad to hear that the noble Marquess had the grace to confer another year upon these proprietors, and he hoped that next Session a Bill would be introduced with all the good provisions of this Bill, and excluding all the objectionable features. It seemed to him a most extraordinary thing that the provisions of the Bill which had been so strenuously opposed by the Government in the other House, and which had been forced upon them only by small minorities, should be so strongly supported by the Government in that House. The very fact that the Government in one House was at issue with the Government in the other was sufficient to render it advisable to pause for another year before passing the Bill. Something had been hinted about giving compensation to these owners in the shape of an increased quantity of fish; but if the quantity of fish were to be so much increased as was anticipated by this Act, there would be a corresponding diminution in the price, and the value of the compensation would not be very great. He should support the Motion of his noble and learned Friend.
  LORD KINGSDOWNsaid, that he felt so strongly on the subject of this Bill, not as to its policy or impolicy, but as to

  1239
  its justice or injustice—that he could not consent to give a silent vote on this occasion. As far as the objects of the measure went, he entirely sympathized with them. He believed its object to be to increase and protect the breed of salmon, and to give a fair share offish to the upper proprietors on the rivers. He also thought it might promote fishing by rod and line, instead of a wholesale slaughter of the salmon by means of nets. In these ends he entirely concurred, and he believed that the Bill would accomplish them. But it was said that the rights of individuals interfered with these objects, and public interests rendered it necessary that these private rights should be sacrificed. Be it so; but upon what terms? Surely upon the same terms upon which all other private rights were abrogated? The rights of fishing were as much rights of property as the acres in any of their Lordships' parks, and they were just as much entitled to compensation if they were taken away. He was told that these persons would profit like the rest of the world in the increase of fish. That might be so; but let their Lordships suppose a railway carried through the park or the mansion of either of them; and when he asked for compensation, that he was told, "You derive compensation like everybody else from the increased advantages of travelling with greater speed and safety." These rights had been in existence for six or seven centuries; they had been granted by royal charter; they had been created by Act of Parliament. If they were to be abrogated, could it be held that the owners were not entitled to compensation? This principle had never yet been adopted, and he trusted it never would. The noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Somerset) had given him notice that he intended to take a house of his (Lord Kingsdown's). He was very much annoyed at the intention—but the noble Duke had not yet gone so far as to say that he did not intend to pay him for it. He was still more affected by the reasons that had been assigned for this measure. The doctrine that private property must be sacrificed to public good was nothing more than pure communism. If ever the saying "Thank God we have a House of Lords!" was sincerely used, he thought it might be invoked with some reasonable expectation and hope by the owners of these rights of fishing. Here, at least, they trusted to find the sanctuary of law and justice. It was said that lawyers
  1240
  made bad legislators; but this was not a question of policy at all. It was a question of right or wrong, of justice or injustice, of honesty or robbery. He rejoiced to follow the noble example of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, whose prompt and vigorous denunciation of the Bill had done him the greatest honour—honour to himself, and honour to the profession to which he belonged. He was not surprised that the lawyers should be found united in opposition to the Bill; for with what face could they sit as the representatives of their Lordships and administer justice to the suitors at their Lordships' Bar, if they consented to a measure which was an outrage upon all justice?
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, that a considerable fallacy pervaded the arguments of the noble and learned Lords who had supported the Amendment. They had endeavoured to draw a closer analogy between one description of property and another than the facts at all warranted. The fact was, the Bill was more a matter of regulation than of prohibition. The noble and learned Lords spoke of taking away property vested in the owners of stake nets by the Act of 1842; but in reality there was a specific clause in the Bill (Clause 4) which secured in the enjoyment of his rights every man that was legally possessed of a stake net during the fishing season of 1862. Of course, if the noble and learned Lords meant an inchoate right—a right which was not actually exercised last year—he was prepared to contend that what an Act of Parliament gave in 1842 an Act of Parliament in 1863 might fairly say should not be continued, if it had not been actually made use of. Besides, the Act of 1842 appended important conditions to the permission which it gave in certain circumstances to erect stake nets. First of all those nets were to be subject to any regulations or restrictions that the Commissioners of Fisheries might impose for the encouragement or the preservation of the breed of salmon. In the second place, the stake nets were not to interfere with the common right of fishing which all Her Majesty's subjects had on the coast; and, that by the way, was a restriction which had actually been enforced. In the third place, they were not to interfere with the navigation—a condition which they had very generally overlooked. With regard to weirs, it did seem a reasonable thing that compensation should be given in cases

  1241
  where gaps were made, and where the owner of the weir had an indefeasible right tinder charter. The Bill, as proposed by Her Majesty's Government, did contain a clause to that effect, but it was struck out by the House of Commons, and their Lordships had decided on a division against its re-insertion. He (Lord Stanley of Alderley) voted with the majority, and against the other Members of the Government on that question, only because their Lordships could have provided no satisfactory mode for providing the amount of compensation if the Amendment on which the question had been raised in their Lordships' House had been carried. The measure was a compromise, and there never had been a greater unanimity amongst the Irish Peers than with regard to it. He trusted, therefore, that the House would not reject a measure which had cost so much labour, and which was calculated to do so much good.
  LORD WENSLEYDALEexpressed his disapproval of the Bill in its present shape.
  LORD CLONCURRYsaid, it was much to be regretted that the noble and learned Lords were not as well acquainted with the natural history of the salmon as they were with law. He believed, that if the opinion of all the owners of weirs, bag nets, and stake nets in Ireland were taken, it would be found that they were anxious the law should step in and regulate the mode of capture. Every one knew that it was necessary to permit a certain number of fish to pass to the upper waters to breed; but under the existing law every man said, "What is the use of my abstaining from taking all the fish I can? If I don't take them, my neighbour will." All the supporters of the Bill wanted was to increase the supply of salmon for the benefit of the public. At present salmon was an article of food denied to the middle classes of Ireland,—an extravagant luxury to which they would no more think of treating themselves than they would to turtle. He himself was the owner of a stake net on the coast eight or nine miles away from a river, and therefore not likely to injure the fishing, but for all that he would not think of opposing the Bill.
  VISCOUNT LIFFORDprotested against the doctrine which had been laid down by noble and learned Lords. All the supporters of the Bill asked was, that the encroachments of various kinds which had been legalized by the Act of 1842 should be put an end to.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, the vote he felt it his duty to give was one which he should give with great reluctance. He entirely concurred with many of the objects contemplated by the Bill. He by no means thought that the present fishing laws were in a satisfactory state, and he believed that many of the objects of the Bill were desirable, and that much of its machinery was calculated to secure them. But he regretted that he was compelled to the conclusion at which he had arrived, that he could not reconcile it to his sense of justice to withhold his assent from the proposition of the noble and learned Lord that the Bill should be read a third time that day three months. He would give his vote in the earnest hope, that if the proposition were carried, another Session would not pass over without a Bill being undertaken to effect the beneficial object contemplated by this measure, and at the same time avoiding the injustice with which this Bill was so strongly tainted. On the one hand they had the inconvenience of postponing the measure to another Session of Parliament, and on the other they had the positive and absolute objection that they were inflicting a grievious injustice upon a number of persons who had had no opportunity of stating their case, and showing how injuriously they would be affected by the Bill. There was this also to be taken into consideration—that their Lordships were entering on a course which that House had never yet sanctioned—namely, taking away private property for the public benefit without giving compensation. He might say, further, that he would have been more indisposed than he was to vote against this Bill if he had not observed during its progress that many of its supporters had steadily set themselves against making any concession, or assenting to the removal of any of the objectionable features it contained.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, the Bill would confer an immense benefit upon Ireland, but he admitted there were provisions in it which he should be glad to see amended. For some of those Amendments he had voted, but the majority of the House was against him; but he regretted that he should not be able to give his vote for the Motion for the Proviso, of which his noble and learned Friend (Lord Cranworth) had given notice. The rights which some noble Lords were so anxious to maintain were, under the present system

  1243
  diminishing in value, and it was quite clear that something should be done. He should be glad to see compensation given, but he could not refrain from voting for the third reading.
  On Question, That ("now") stand Part of the Motion? their Lordships divided:— Contents 40; Not-Contents 25: Majority 15.
  Resolved in the Affirmative.
  Bill read 3a accordingly, with the Amendments.

  CONTENTS.

  Somerset, D.

  Clarina, L.

  Sutherland, D.

  Cloncurry, L.

  Foley, L. [Teller.]

  Ailesbury, M.

  Gardner, L.

  Hunsdon, L. (V. Falkland.)

  Airlie, E.

  Cottenham, E.

  Keane, L.

  De Grey, E.

  Lismore, L. (V. Lismore.)

  Desart, E.

  Devon, E.

  Llanover, L.

  Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

  Manners, L.

  Methuen, L.

  Mont Eagle, L. (M. Sligo.)

  Ducie, E.

  Effingham, E.

  Mostyn, L.

  Granville, E.

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

  Orkney, E.

  Saye and Sele, L.

  De Vesci, V.

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  Hawarden, V.

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

  Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)

  Lifford, V.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Melville, V.

  Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)

  Abercromby, L.

  Talbot de Malahide, L.

  Clandeboye, L. (L. Dufferin and Claneboye.)

  Wynford, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Westbury, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Wicklow, E.

  Calthorpe, L.

  Bath, M.

  Chelmsford, L. [Teller.]

  Exeter, M.

  Churston, L.

  Normanby, M.

  Congleton, L.

  Cranworth, L. [Teller.]

  Beauchamp, E.

  Denman, L.

  Cardigan, E.

  Kingsdown, L.

  Chichester, E.

  Monson, L.

  Derby, E.

  Redesdale, L.

  Ellenborough, E.

  Templemore, L.

  Lonsdale, E.

  Tyrone, L. (M. Waterford.)

  Malmesbury, E.

  Saint Germans, E.

  Wensleydale, L.

  LORD CRANWORTH LORD CRANWORTH moved to insert the following Proviso, which, he said, was similar to that contained in the English and Scotch Acts:—
  "Provided also, that nothing in this Act contained shall interfere with any Eights held at the Time of the passing of this Act under Royal Grant or Charter or possessed from Time immemorial."
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid, that as he and those who voted with him had been accused of robbery, he wished to say a few words as to the grounds upon which he should vote. These rights by charter and immemorial usage referred only to rights of fishing in certain places, but could not confer the right to use for catching fish engines which had not been invented when the charter was granted or the usage began. An Act of the Irish Parliament, moreover, passed in the 10th Charles I., long after most of the charters were granted, and, of course, long after the commencement of immemorial usage—declared against all fixed engines of every sort in all the rivers in Ireland. This being so, his opinion was that in 1842, so far from there being a right to use fixed engines, such use was in defiance of that law. The present Bill did not take away any right of fishing, but only altered the mode of fishing, the same as had been done in England and Scotland. If the noble and learned Lord should succeed in carrying the Amendment, he (the Earl of Donoughmore) should feel it his duty to move the rejection of the Bill, which would then have become nothing but "a mockery, a delusion, and a snare."
  On Question? their Lordships divided:—Contents 23; Not-Contents 34: Majority 11.
  Amendment negatived.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE moved to restore Clause 20 (Weekly Close Time for Stake Nets, &c).
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, that this question had been already determined by their Lordships, and therefore he could not support the Motion.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURYopposed the Motion.
  On Question? their Lordships divided;—Contents 12; Not-Contents 37: Majority 25.
  Resolved in the Negative.
  Protest against the Third Reading of the Bill.
  "DISSENTIENT:
  "1. Because, although by the 5 & 6 Vict., c. 106, sect. 18, it was declared and enacted, that any person legally possessed of or entitled to a Several Fishery in or along any Estuary in Ireland, might erect within the Bounds of such Fishery any Bag Net or other fixed Net for the taking of Salmon; and although the Right so declared

  1245
  and enacted is a valuable Right, and has been enjoyed and exercised by the Owners of such Fisheries ever since the passing of the said Act, yet this Bill takes it away in all Cases as to Bag Nets and in many Cases as to other fixed Nets without giving Compensation to the Persons thus deprived of their legal Rights.
  "2. Because, in other respects, the Bill infringes the legal Rights of Owners of Fishers Without giving them Compensation.
  "3. Because this Bill affords a dangerous Precedent for the Sacrifice of vested Rights in order thereby to obtain supposed public Benefits.

  "WESTBURY, C.

  "ST. GERMANS.

  "CRANWORTH.

  "KINGSDOWN.

  "WENSLEYDALE.

  "MONSON.

  "CHELMSFORD.

  "DENMAN."

  "DERBY.

  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREproposed an Amendment on Clause 24, limiting its operations to the oases of rivers which did not exceed 100 yards in width.
  THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORDopposed the Motion.
  Amendment negatived.
  THE EARL OF AIRLIE THE EARL OF AIRLIE moved the following Proviso:—
  "Provided always that nothing herein contained shall prevent any person having a bag net or engine now in use, and in respect of Which licence duty has been paid, from continuing the use of the same during the remainder of the present season."
  Motion agreed to: Proviso added.
  Bill passed.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter before Five o'clock.