Sitting of 19 June 1863

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—on Poor Relief, appointed, and nominated.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee *—R.P.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Inclosure (No. 2)* [Bill 167].
Committee—Alkali Works Regulation (Lords) [Bill 135]—R. P.; Fisheries (Ireland) [Sir Robert Peel]* [Bill 137]—R.P.; Harwich Harbour (on re-comm.) [Bill 159]; Removal of Irish Poor [Mr. Villiers]* [Bill 140]; Mutiny (East India) Act Repeal [Bill 166]; Local Government Supplemental (No. 2)* [Bill 165].
Report—Harwich Harbour [Bill 176]; Removal of Irish Poor [Mr. Villiers]* [Bill 140]; Mutiny (East India) Act Repeal [Bill 166]; Local Government Supplemental (No. 2)* [Bill 165].
Third Reading—Militia Pay* [Bill 163]; Charitable Uses* [Bill 164], and severally passed; Watchmen in Towns (Ireland) [Bill 102], negatived.

ALKALI WORKS REGULATION BILL (Lords)— [BILL 135.]

  COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  On Motion that the Preamble be postponed,
  MR. H. A. BRUCEsaid, that as the second reading of the Bill had been taken without discussion, he wished to make a few remarks in explanation of its object and leading provisions. The Bill had come down from the House of Lords, where it had been introduced upon the recommendation of a Select Committee of that House, which had examined witnesses, and found that great injury was occasioned by the noxious vapours which arose not only from alkali works, but from certain other manufactures. They also found that in the neighbourhood of St. Helen's and other towns trees and vegetation were injured and occasionally destroyed, that residences were rendered uninhabitable, that cattle suffered so that the quality of their milk was affected, and they cast their young. One gentleman, who had himself been a manufacturer, stated that his own health had suffered from a residence

  1163
  near these works. The leading manufacturers had exerted themselves to neutralize the bad effects produced by the emission of noxious vapours. Some years ago means were discovered of condensing the gas from alkali works. Those means were adopted by the principal manufacturers, but not by all, because the process was rather expensive, and only one-third of the muriatic acid which was produced could be advantageously disposed of. The only check on the mischief done by these works had hitherto been either by an action for damages brought by persons on the ground of injury done to them, or else by indictment. In the case of an action for damages, it was necessary to prove that the injury done was by some particular work. In the infancy of the manufacture it was not difficult to furnish proof of this kind, because the works were not congregated in one neighbourhood, and the chimneys were lower than at present. In the course of time, however, the works increased in the same district, higher chimneys were constructed, and the smoke was dispersed over a wider area. It therefore became difficult to trace the injury to any particular establishment. The other legal remedy was by indictment, but those who resorted to this process were bound to show not only, as in the action for damages, the source from which the injury proceeded, but also that the injury was of so public a nature that it might be fairly considered a public nuisance. That also was a difficult, expensive, and uncertain remedy. Various clauses had been introduced into recent public Bills, in which ineffectual attempts had been made to carry out the object sought by the present Bill. The causes of these failures was fully explained in the Report of the Committee of their Lordships' House, and that Commute consequently came to the conclusion that special legislation was necessary. Great numbers of the leading manufacturers acquiesced in the proposed legislation, and agreed that a special enactment was necessary, which should be applicable solely to the alkali trade. It was said with truth that other works did as much injury as alkali works, and it was asked why there should not be a general measure applicable to other trades. The reason was that in these particular works an undoubted remedy had been discovered, which could not be said with the same certainty of other works. The manufacturers themselves had first
  1164
  endeavoured to correct the evil, but they failed because they could not obtain the co-operation of every member of the trade. Under these circumstances the present measure had been introduced in the House of Lords. It proposed that inspectors should be appointed, and that all alkali works should be carried on to the satisfaction of these inspectors, but there was nothing to empower the inspector to direct any alteration in the process of the manufacture. The Bill provided for the registration of the works, and that the inspectors should have power to enter them at any time during the night or day, in order to examine into the efficiency of the apparatus for the condensing of the gas. It was also enacted, that all offences under the Act should be adjudicated upon by the Court of Quarter Sessions. It might be objected that that might not be an entirely impartial tribunal, and the Government were prepared to consider, when they came to the clause, a proposal to give a power of appeal. He would admit that the Bill was to a certain extent new, because it instituted for the first time an inspection for the protection of property, and not for the safely of workmen. The Government would therefore be willing to consider any suggestions for securing the manufacturers against improper interference.
  MR. HUSSEY VIVIANsaid, that the Bill proposed to institute a control over one of the largest and most important manufactures of the country, the statistics of which could not be expressed by hundreds or even by thousands, but only by millions. The alkali manufacture consumed 1,761,000 tons of raw material, and produced 280,000 tons of finished goods, of the yearly value of £2,500,000. The capital involved in the trade somewhat exceeded £2,000,000. The hands directly and indirectly employed in the trade were 19,000, and the question therefore involved the maintenance of nearly 100,000 souls. The wages paid were £871,750 per annum. The trade gave employment to a large quantity of shipping, for the estimated tonnage of the raw materials and finished goods was 2,500,000 tons. Some of the most important and most necessary articles of life were dependent for their cost on the production of alkali. Next to oil and tallow the most essential ingredient in the manufacture of soap was caustic alkali. It was also the raw material of the heaviest cost in the manufacture of glass, which consisted of alkali and sand fused

  1165
  together. Alkali was also an important element in the manufacture of paper from other material besides rags. The use of straw, for example, depended on a solution of silica by caustic soda, which was the chief means of using vegetable fibres. Alkali was also largely used as a cheap soap, and as bleaching powder in cotton bleaching. Petitions in favour of Amendments to the Bill had been agreed to by the Chambers of Commerce of various towns, and also by bodies and trades indirectly interested. He mentioned these facts in order to invite the assistance of the Committee in introducing such clauses as the manufacturers deemed necessary for their protection. The alkali manufacture was, in fact, a peculiar trade. The cheapness with which alkali could be manufactured depended on the locality. Four elements entered into the composition of alkali—salt, pyrites, coals, and limestone and chalk. There were very few localities in the kingdom in which these several products were found in close proximity. An additional tax of only 1s. per ton would impose a tax of £100,000 on the transport of the raw materials, and would increase the cost of production of all the necessaries of life into which alkali so largely entered. It was, therefore, desirable that the trade should continue to be carried on in the especial localities adapted for it. If, however. Parliament introduced clauses to drive the trade from the most suitable localities into other districts, the additional cost of transport would involve an increased cost of production. The manufacturers had met the Bill justly; they did not object to legislation, but there were some Amendments which they desired should be introduced, and he hoped that the Committee would give a fair consideration to them. The Amendments which he intended to propose for the protection of the manufacturers, had for their object the providing due notice of the ground on which the manufacturers had rendered themselves liable to penalties, and, further, that they should have the power of appealing from the local tribunal to a higher court.
  MR. E. P. BOUVERIEsaid, he entertained great doubt as to the policy of the measure. It was an entire novelty in legislation. The Bill attempted to deal with one particular trade—and that a very extensive one—when still greater evils were produced by the noxious vapours created by other manufactures, which were left untouched. For that purpose it introduced
  1166
  something like a system of excise without the excuse of raising revenue. The nuisance which they proposed to suppress had of late years diminished, in consequence of the discoveries of science; and he did not see why parties complaining of any damage or inconvenience from alkali works should not be left to their present legal remedy. In deference, however, to what seemed to be the general feeling in favour of the Bill he would not move its complete rejection; but he would propose in Committee that its operation should be limited to a few years, so that Parliament might before long have an opportunity of again considering the question.
  LORD STANLEYsaid, he wished it to be understood that this was by no means an Act for the exclusive protection of the landed interest, as was sometimes asserted, but that it was one for the protection of the health and comfort of the inhabitants residing in the towns and neighbourhood where these works were carried on. It had been said that things were mending, but the facts were exactly contrary; for every year matters were getting worse and worse. In the neighbourhood of St. Helen's vegetation had disappeared, the farmers had been driven further and further from these works, and the actual destruction of agricultural property was increasing every year. The right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. E. P. Bouverie) asked why they should not rely in that case upon the old legal remedy? Now, the fact was, that that remedy had been effectual in former times, when those works were thinly scattered over certain districts; but in the present day, in consequence of the number of manufactories adjoining one another, it was hardly possible to prove that a nuisance proceeded from any one of them in particular, and the law thus became inoperative. He would only further remind the Committee, that a majority of the trade had given their assent to the remedy for the evil which the Bill would afford.
  MR. HEADLAMsaid, it was very much to the credit of the alkali manufacturers, that they were ready voluntarily to subject themselves to these inconveniences for the public good. The House would do well to go on with the Bill, but the clauses would require careful consideration, as the measure was certainly one of an exceptional character.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYsaid, he wished to remind the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock, that Parliament

  1167
  had given more stringent powers for the suppression of smoke than any which the present Bill would confer.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, that if he had entertained any doubt as to the necessity for the Bill, it had been removed by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hussey Vivian), who had shown the extent of the alkali manufacture, and the tendency of these undertakings to congregate together, and thus cause a condensation of the mischief. A worse tribunal than the Court of Quarter Sessions, however, for the prosecution of offences under the Bill, could not be selected. It was a matter not connected with the peace of the country, and was a sort of thing entirely beyond their cognizance. At the same time, the nuisance complained of was of such a nature that Parliament ought to try to meet it by legislation.
  LOUD STANLEYsaid, it was open for the Committee to consider whether the County Court could not be substituted for the Court of Quarter Sessions. The judge of the County Court might, if necessary, have the assistance of the jury.
  Preamble postponed.
  Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
  Clause 3 (Interpretation Clause).
  Mr. DOULTONsaid, that the Clause provided that alkali wash should mean every wash in which muriatic gas was evolved. He would move, however, as an Amendment, to leave out all the words after "wash", and to insert the words "for the manufacture of alkali and the sulphates of soda and potash."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 4 (Conduct of Alkali Works).
  MR. PULLERsaid, he would move to insert the word "reasonable" so as to require that the condensation of the gas should be effected to the reasonable satisfaction of the inspector.
  MR. BRUCEsaid, he thought the word would be surplusage.
  Amendment by leave withdrawn.
  MR. HUSSEY VIVIANsaid, the Clause provided, that if any alkali work was not carried on in such a manner as to secure the condensation of not less than 95 per cent of the muriatic gas evolved, the owner of the work should be deemed to be guilty of an offence and be subject to penalties. He wished to move an Amendment in order
  1168
  more clearly to define the offence. The proportion of 95 per cent seemed enormous; but so perfect was the process that that amount of condensation would be secured. He would move to insert the words "on its being made to appear to the court before which any information or complaint in respect thereof shall be heard or determined, that 95 per centum at least of the muriatic gas evolved in such work has not been condensed."
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. PULLERsaid, he would then move to leave out the word "each," the effect of the Amendment being to render the manufacturers not liable, as the clause enacted, for "each" such offence.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. PULLERsaid, he would then move to leave out the words "and in respect of a continuous offence, after notice from the inspector, to a penalty not exceeding £30 nor less than £5, for every day during which the alkali work is carried on in contravention of this section," and to insert, "provided always that no such owner shall be convicted of more than one such offence in respect of any one day, nor of more than one such offence committed previous to any conviction."
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. HUSSEY VIVIANsaid, he wished to move that a proviso be added that no penalty be imposed unless the Inspector should produce before the justice of the peace who was about to issue a summons a certificate in writing of the facts on which he founded his opinion that 95 per cent of the muriatic gas evolved in the alkali works is not condensed therein, and serve a copy with such summons.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he thought that a curious Amendment. He should oppose it, on the ground that it was really furnishing the defendants with the whole of the evidence on which the case against them was founded.
  MR. BRIGHTsaid, it was admitted that the proposed legislation was novel, and that the alkali manufacturers had met the wishes of noble Lords in another House with fairness and liberality. He would therefore advise the Committee to accept the Amendments they suggested.
  MR. HEADLAMsaid, he trusted the Committee would agree to the Amendment, because it was desirable that full information should be given of the grounds on

  1169
  which the Inspector founded his opinion. It was also desirable that the Inspector should carry on his work with a feeling that he was responsible for his actions.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he agreed that the manufacturer should know the charge he was called upon to meet, but he did not think that sticking it into the summons would do it.
  MR. COXsaid, he must submit that the Inspector who made a complaint ought to know exactly the facts on which he had founded his opinion.
  MR. H. A. BRUCEsaid, he had no objection to the introduction of the words proposed to be added, on the understanding that, in case he should hereafter think they would fetter the actions of the Inspector, he should be at liberty to introduce words to prevent such an effect.
  MR. PULLERsaid, he would then move the addition of a proviso to the effect, that if an owner of alkali works should prove that he had used due diligence to comply with the Act, and that the offence complained of had been occasioned by the fault or neglect of his agent, servant, or workman without his knowledge, consent, or connivance, it should not be compulsory on the court to convict the owner. The object of the proviso, was to secure to the manufacturers that they should not be made the victims of their workmen; and that if the manufacturers really desired to carry the Act into execution, neither any designed act on the part of the workmen nor their negligence should subject the employer to penalties.
  MR. HUSSEY VIVIANsaid, it was an alternative proposition to one of which he had given notice, and the manufacturers preferred his.
  MR. H. A. BRUCEsaid, he hoped the hon. Member would withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 5 (Registration of Alkali Works).
  MR. BRIGHTsaid, that it was proposed that in every register there should be inserted the name in full of the owner, the name of the parish or township in which the works are situate, and the name or names of the articles intended to be produced at the works. It was necessary sometimes to make changes in chemical preparations, and if the words were retained, the manufacturer would be liable to a penalty for the introduction of every new article, however small, in accordance with the
  1170
  varying changes of trade. He proposed, therefore, to leave out the words, "the name and names of the articles intended to be produced at the works."
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. PULLERsaid, no penalty was imposed for non-registration. He would therefore move the insertion of words imposing a penalty of not less than £5 nor more than £10 for every day during which the works should be carried on without registration.
  MR. BRIGHTsaid, he thought the penalty of £10 was excessive.
  MR. JACKSONmoved, as an Amendment, that the penalty should not exceed £5.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.
  Clauses 6 and 7 were also agreed to.
  Clause (Duties, and Powers of Inspector).
  MR. H. A. BRUCEsaid, he would move the insertion of words directing that notice should be given to the owner of works carried on in contravention of the Act of the commission of the offence, as soon as conveniently might be after the commission of such offence.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to; as were also Clauses 9, 10, and 11.
  Clause 12 (Recovery of General Penalties).
  MR. HENLEYsaid, the whole cause required much consideration. The court was to be both judge and jury at once, and in his opinion the magistrates in Quarter Sessions would form a very undesirable tribunal to decide the questions which would arise under the Act. It was no part of their ordinary business to inflict penalties. In the county of Lancaster, in which the Act would mainly come into operation, there were not less than 600 magistrates. How many were to sit in judgment on these cases, and what would become of the Court if the case were to last a whole day, or more than a day? Would it not be supposed by the public that magistrates would take part in the judgment who had not heard the evidence?
  LORD STANLEYsaid, he was ready to admit that Quarter Sessions was not perhaps the best Court that could be devised for trying these cases. But he should state, that although there were 600 magistrates in Lancashire, there were not more

  1171
  than one hundred who practically took part in criminal business. The county was divided into five divisions for criminal business, and the number of magistrates who would hear those cases would vary from five or six to twelve or fifteen. They would be as competent to deal with these cases as any non-professional persons could be. As to magistrates passing in and out of court, he believed that they scrupulously abstained from interfering in criminal cases unless they had heard the whole of the evidence.
  MR. BRIGHTsaid, he doubted whether the manufacturers interested in it would be satisfied with the clause. If they were satisfied, they did not understand their own interests, because the complaints could not be referred to a more objectionable tribunal. The complaints would be more frequently brought by landed proprietors, than by any other classes, and they formed a large portion of the magistracy who presided at Quarter Sessions. He thought it was most likely that there would be a temptation in these cases for a larger number than usual to attend, and that the magistrates would feel not a judicial but a personal interest in the decisions under the Act. He would suggest that the County Court would be a better tribunal. He confessed, that if he were an alkali manufacturer, he would certainly prefer to have his case brought before the County Court, and let the judge have a jury, if necessary, to assist him, Nothing could be more monstrous than to place the interests of the manufacturers under the judicial management of the Quarter Sessions, and subject them to the confusion that must arise. Perhaps it would be well to postpone the determination of the question, and within a week the House might be able to adopt some more satisfactory proposal.
  COLONEL WILSON PATTENsaid, it it might seem invidious that cases in which manufactures were specially interested should be tried before the magistrates at Quarter Sessions. The hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright) would find, however, that out of the 600 magistrates in Lancashire, 400 were connected with manufactures, and 200 only were connected exclusively with land.
  SIR MATTHEW RIDLEYsaid, that as a magistrate himself he was unwilling to be invested with such a jurisdiction. He thought there were grave objections to that mode of proceeding.
  MR. JACKSONsaid, he must avow that he was in favour of leaving the jurisdiction of the cases under the Act with the County Court. At the same time, he would recommend that the consideration of the clause be postponed.
  MR. HUSSEY VIVIANsaid, the transfer of the jurisdiction to the County Court would be acceptable to the manufacturers. At the same time, they desired that the decision on such important matters should not be left to one court, but that there should be a power of appeal.
  MR. COXsaid, he thought the best way would be to negative the clause when it was put, and then the Government might bring up a clause giving the jurisdiction to the County Court.
  MR. H. A. BRUCEsaid, it would be open to any hon. Member, on the Report being presented, to move the omission of the clause and the substitution of another, making the County Court the tribunal. It must be remembered, however, that such a proposal would give the County Courts a jurisdiction of a new kind. At present, the County Court had no power to impose penalties. It was impossible for the Government to substitute the County Court, without considering the question more fully than it was possible to do at the present moment.
  MR. LIDDELLremarked, that the County Court would be the better tribunal, as a considerable number of the magistrates belonged to the manufacturing classes.
  MR. BRIGHTsaid, he begged it should not be supposed that he brought any charge against magistrates; but they were likely to feel a strong personal interest in the subject; and if he were a landed proprietor, he would rather not have such matters brought before him. If they had another tribunal, the law would be more satisfactorily carried out. If the landed proprietors were in a minority, they might complain that the cases were brought before a tribunal where the majority were manufacturers.
  LORD STANLEYsaid, he did not think they were then in a position to decide upon the matter.
  MR. BRIGHTsaid, he would move that the Chairman be ordered to report progress, and they could then let the matter stand over for a week to give the Government an opportunity of considering the question. In the mean time they might have representations from the gentlemen

  1173
  immediately concerned in the Act, namely, the manufacturers, which would enable them to agree to a proposition that would be satisfactory.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he preferred that the proposal should come from a private Member. He doubted whether it would be expedient to take the jurisdiction from the Courts of Quarter Sessions.
  MR. COBDENsaid, that the noble Lord (Lord Stanley) had told the Committee that what they were going to do was with the consent of the alkali manufacturers He (Mr. Cobden), however, was warranted in saying that the manufacturers would unanimously oppose the measure unless it were accompanied with the Amendments suggested by the trade. Considering how fairly, he might even say with how much docility, the trade had received the novel legislation comprised in the Bill, they ought to be treated with the greatest consideration. If the trade had resisted this special legislation, and if they had appealed to Parliament to strengthen its general legislation for abating nuisances, he believed that the House would have sided with the manufacturers. He remembered a large establishment near Newton, with a tall chimney 200 or 300 feet high. The proprietors of those alkali works were prosecuted successively and successfully by the landed proprietors, until they blew up their large chimney with gunpowder. That proved that the landowners were not altogether powerless under the present law. He had no hesitation in saying, that if the Committee placed the jurisdiction in Quarter Sessions without appeal, the Bill would be unsatisfactory to the trade, and would be resisted by them in every possible way. He wished, therefore, to ask the Government if they would consent to postpone the clause and bring in a proviso for giving the jurisdiction to the County Courts?
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he did not understand that the trade would accept a clause giving jurisdiction to the County Court Judges without appeal. The Government were in favour of Quarter Sessions, but they were prepared to give some appeal from Quarter Sessions.
  MR. BRIGHTsaid, that after the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman be would not press his Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. COBDENsaid, he had no doubt that the very influential gentlemen representing the trade in London would in the
  1174
  course of a week be able to give an opinion on the subject that would assist them in coming to a decision. Probably they might wish to have an appeal to have the cases uniform, without, reference to the tribunal that had decided in the first instance, though in the case of the Quarter Sessions Court they might wish to have an appeal for other reasons which he (Mr. Cobden) would not go into. The complaints under the Act would not impose much business on any court, and they could not have many appeals.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he did not wish to have two trials on the merits, but it was very necessary to have some uniformity of decision. The best, way to get at the facts was by a jury. He had a weakness for juries. The parties could then go to a court of law to see if any evidence had been improperly let in, and to set the law right. But the Court of Quarter Sessions was constituted the judge and jury, and, what was worse, the Bill gave the court an original jurisdiction.
  MR. E. P. BOUVERIEsaid, he wished to ask why, instead of enacting pecuniary penalties, there should not be an indictment at Quarter Sessions. The evidence of the inspector could be made satisfactory proof that 95 per cent of muriatic gas had not been consumed, and that might betaken as conclusive evidence of a public-nuisance. The Quarter Sessions could then act in the regular manner.
  SIR DAVID DUNDASsaid, that the matter to be heard would probably involve some scientific facts in chemistry which would be better tried by a single judge in the County Court than by several magistrates at Quarter Sessions.
  Question put, "That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 111, Noes 67; Majority, 44.
  Clause agreed to; as was Clause 13.
  MR. HUSSEY VIVIANsaid, he would move a clause enabling the owner of any alkali work who might be charged with an offence under the Bill, to have the workman through whose negligence it may have occurred brought before the court; and on proof that the workman had committed the offence, the workman should be liable to be fined instead of the owner.
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYobjected to the clause. The Bill was framed with a view exclusively to the proceedings of the manufacturers.
  MR. PULLERsaid, he would move as an Amendment words to the effect, that if the master should show that the infraction of the Act was caused by the negligence of any workman or agent, it should not be compulsory on the court to convict the owner.
  Clause (Owner to be liable for Offences in the first instance,)—(Mr. Hussey Vivian,) brought up, and read 1o.
  Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 87; Noes 61: Majority 26.
  House resumed.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again on Thursday next.

THE INTERNATIONAL EXHIBITION BUILDING.—QUESTION.
VISCOUNT-ENFIELDsaid, he wished to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it be true that in a Report sent in lately to the Treasury the value of the materials composing the Exhibition Buildings are there estimated at but £30,000, less the cost of their pulling down and removal, and of making good the site; and whether there will be any objection to laying such Report upon the table of the House previous to a Vote being asked of £80,000 for the purchase of such buildings.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, in reply that the question was one which he might answer with a dry negative. Such an answer would not, however, in all probability, be satisfactory to his noble Friend, because it was plain that he must have been misled as to the nature of the Report to which he referred. He would therefore tell him how the matter really stood. No Report of ah official character, or drawn up by any person employed by the Government for the purpose of making an estimate of the removable value of the materials of the Exhibition Building had been sent to the Treasury. At the close of the Exhibition it became the duty of Mr. Bowring, the very able Secretary of the Commissioners of 1851, to frame a statement with the view of placing before the Commissioners their exact financial position in relation to the transactions into which they had entered. At a subsequent date Mr. Bowring drew up another statement, which was intended to place before the Government as many of the facts relating to the Commissioners of 1851 as
1176
were material, with regard to the letter which the Commissioners had addressed to the Government inquiring whether they meant to renew their proposal of last year for the purchase of the land. Mr. Bowring, in making his statement, did not in the slightest degree presume or intend to form an accurate estimate of the nature of the materials. He gave a rough sketch of what he conceived would have to be paid if the intention of getting possession of the building was carried into effect. He stated the minimum value of the materials at £30,000. He had not done yet. The maximum value Mr. Bowring set down at £200,000. It was therefore at some point between £30,000 and £200,000 that he thought the contractors would be entitled to fix their demand. He cautiously added—
"It is only fair to the contractors to say that they estimated the net value of the old materials at a considerably higher sum. The bricks in the annexes have been sold by them at prices which, if realized for the bricks in the main building, would produce a net sum of £18,000."
He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) need not remind the House that besides the bricks there was the timber, the glass, and the iron, which were very valuable, and which would realize a very large sum of money. The estimate on which the Government proceeded was a very different one. It was an examination carefully made by professional persons during many days. It should, he might add, be borne in mind, that nothing was more open to discussion than the particular point at which the removable value of the materials of a building should be fixed. No positive standard could be taken in the matter. It must depend mainly on the market for the materials. That market must depend on their nearness or distance, and a fundamental element in the whole question was the time within which the parties would be compelled to clear the ground. The contractors were under no obligations to take down the building in the shortest possible time; and there was scarcely a probability of the Government getting the command of the ground for the purpose of raising any new structure before the summer of 1865 at the earliest.

OFFICERS OF ARTILLERY IN INDIA.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, Whether or not it be the fact that instructions

  1177
  have been issued by the Home Authorities to those in India with the view of preventing Officers of the Indian (now Royal) Artillery from being withdrawn from their Regiments for Staff, Civil, or other detached employment under the several Local Governments, for which, before being transferred under the authority of the Horse Guards, they were, by the Regulations of the Indian Service, equally eligible with Officers of Cavalry and Infantry?
  SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, in reply, that no instructions had been sent out; but no doubt the tendency would be to employ fewer Artillery Officers in the manner indicated by the hon. and gallant Member, because there were now numerous Officers of Cavalry and Infantry who were unattached, whereas the services of the Artillery Officers were wanted with their Corps.
  COLONEL SYKES: But there is no prohibition?
  SIR CHARLES WOOD: No.

THE KNOUT IN POLAND.

  QUESTION.
  MR. SCULLYsaid, he rose to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Is it true that the Russian General Mouravieff has issued an ordinance proclaiming that the penalty of the Knout will be inflicted on all Polish ladies dressed in mourning?
  MR. LAYARDsaid, in reply, that he had no official information in respect to the alleged punishment of Polish ladies dressed in mourning, by the infliction at the hands of the Russians of the knout, and he was therefore sorry that it was not in his power to contradict the statement in the morning papers.

VACCINATION OF SHEEP.

  QUESTION.
  SIR JERVOISE JERVOISEsaid, he he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether any information can be given of the result of experiments as to the effect of vaccination on sheep, or any particulars of the professional services in examining sheep arriving in Irish ports, with a view of preventing the spread of small-pox among them, for which objects a Vote of £434 10 s. is pro posed in Class VII., Vote 14, Miscellaneous Estimates?
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, in reply, that part of the money had been expended upon experiments, and part in the inspection
  1178
  of sheep arriving at the ports of Ireland. The experiments had not yet been completed; but when they were, the results should be laid upon the table of the House.

THE RIVER SHANNON.—QUESTION.
COLONEL FRENCHsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary of the Treasury, If Mr. Bateman's Report on the River Shannon is to be in the hands of Members this Session?
MR. PEELsaid, the Report would be shortly laid before the House.

PAROCHIAL SCHOOLMASTERS IN SCOTLAND.—QUESTION.
MR. DUNLOPsaid, he wished to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, Whether, with a view to the Revised Code coming into operation in Scotland, the recent addition to the 52nd Article, as to the deduction of Salaries arising from endowment, the legal Salaries of Parochial Schoolmasters in Scotland are meant to be included under the provision in that addition?
MR. LOWEreplied, that the legal salaries of parochial schoolmasters were not intended to be subjected to the operation of the Minute with reference to endowments, inasmuch as they more resembled the contributions of charitable persons who were living than endowments; with this advantage, however, to the heritors that the assessments were made by a responsible public levy, and spread over the parish, instead of trusting, as in England, to the generosity of one man to make up for the parsimony of another.

THE MALWA FIELD FORCE.

  QUESTION.
  LORD STANLEYsaid, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for India, Whether it is true that the Private Soldiers of the Malwa Field Force, which afterwards formed the first Brigade of Sir Hugh Rose's Division, will receive about £40 each from the Dhar Prize Money, this booty having been granted exclusively to the actual captors; and whether it has also been proposed to allot to these Troops a share of the Banda and Kirwee Prize Money on the principle of constructive capture; and, if so, whether the Law Officers of the Crown have concurred in that suggestion?
  SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, he believed that the private soldiers would, as

  1179
  stated by the noble Lord, receive about £40 each from the Dhar Prize Money. In reply to the second Question asked by the noble Lord, he would only state that the decision of the Question rested with the Treasury; but what that decision would be he could not say.

PORTPATRICK HARBOUR.

  QUESTION.
  MR. CONINGHAMsaid, he would beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, Why the Portpatrick Railway Company have been allowed to repudiate that portion of their reciprocal agreement with the Treasury by which they were pledged to extend their Railway to Glasgow, so as to connect the North of Ireland with that city; and if, in that case, it is advisable to ask for an additional grant of five thousand pounds beyond the sum originally agreed upon and reported as necessary to fulfil the engagement entered into by former Governments?
  MR. MILNER GIBSONreplied, that he was not aware that the Railway Company referred to had been allowed to repudiate any agreement that it had entered into with the Government. He believed the facts were these:—At the commencement of 1856 the Treasury proposed that there should be two lines of railway to Portpatrick, one going north to Glasgow, the other going east to Dumfries, and that Portpatrick Harbour should be improved and adapted to vessels carrying on the mail service to Ireland. As the Government undertook to improve the harbour, they insisted on a Clause being inserted in the Act of the Portpatrick Railway Company's Bill which prohibited the declaration of any dividends until the Company brought within a certain time as far as the harbour its line, which runs east to Dumfries. The Company had completed its arrangements, and therefore the Government had proceeded to improve the harbour.
  MR. CONINGHAM: By what influence is the traffic from this country to Ireland forced to go to Portpatrick?
  MR. MILNER GIBSON: I am not aware of any influence of that nature. I found that successive Governments had bound themselves by engagements from which it was impossible to escape; and as I am in a position to carry out the project, I think it is my duty to proceed with the improvement of the harbour.

SUPPLY.
Order for Committee read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

POOR LAW RATING AND ASSESSMENT.

  RETURN MOVED FOR.
  MR. HUBBARDsaid, that, pursuant to notice, he rose to call the attention of the House to the state of the law for rating to the relief of the poor, and to move for Returns in connection with the Union Assessment Committee Act. Previous to the year 1836, the system of assessment in various parishes was conducted on the principle of assessing the property at the lowest possible value. In fact, every one endeavoured so to assess himself as to relieve himself as much as possible from the common burdens. In that year, however, under the guidance of the right hon. Member for Stroud, a Bill was brought in for the purpose of regulating parochial assessments, the first and most important clause of which laid down two principles—that there should be a definite rule for the ascertainment of the gross estimated rental, and that a just scale of deductions should be fixed in order to arrive at the net ratable value. That Bill, however, though admirable in intention, did not provide the necessary machinery; and consequently, in 1862, another Bill was introduced containing the necessary powers. The action of the various provisions being somewhat uncertain, instructions were from time to time issued by the Poor Law Board. But there was one point on which it was still necessary that the various local authorities should have some idea in common, with a view to harmonious action, and that was as to the deductions which ought to be made on particular classes of property, so as to reach the net ratable value. Various county meetings had been held with that object; and although they had not any positive legal status, they operated beneficially in bringing together the chairmen of committees and eliciting opinions. It was remarkable how these opinions varied at different meetings. In Worcester, under the auspices of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Droitwich (Sir J. Pakington), the county magistrates and chairmen of committees adopted, as the scale of deductions to be allowed, 2½ per cent

  1181
  on land simply, on land with buildings 7½ per cent, on houses 15 per cent, and on cottages of less than £6 value 20 per cent. That scale every one would admit to be fair and moderate. But in the county of Norfolk they proposed to deduct on land from 1 to 5 per cent, on land with buildings 5 to 15 per cent, on houses 10 to 15 per cent, and on cottages 15 to 35 per cent. The enormous difference between these two scales must he apparent to every hon. Member. In Buckinghamshire the county of Norfolk was outstripped, for there it was proposed to allow from 5 to 20 per cent upon land and buildings—a proposition which was obviously absurd. These county meetings, having no official status, and no practical power, the different union committees in many instances exercised an independence of action, and adopted scales more justifiable according to their notions. In the Union of Buckingham, the Committee adopted the following scale:—On land, according to the extent and nature of the fences and buildings, from 1 to 10 pet cent; on houses generally, 10 to 20 per cent; on cottages under £6 value, from 10 to 25 per cent. Practically it was found that where a range of allowance was sanctioned, every one almost took the highest figure, and eventually most of the land with buildings and house obtained an allowance of 10 per cent; land with buildings, but without a house, obtained 5 per cent; and land without buildings obtained 2½ per cent. The result of the new assessment, so far as he had been able to ascertain it, proved the great necessity of this revision. The Returns for the Union of Buckingham showed that in 1856 the rental assessed was £68,665. There had been an increase of 38 per cent, or £25,782; so that in 1863 the net ratable value was £94,447, the gross estimated rental was £105,494, while the deductions, averaging 10½ per cent, amounted to £11,047, showing a net amount of £94,447. With regard to individual parishes, the disproportion between the old and new assessment were most extraordinary. Whilst the average increase in ratable value was 38 per cent, the increase under the average in one parish was 19, in another 28, in another 20, and in the borough 26; while the increase above the average was in one parish 52, in another 52, in another 64, and in another 68. These statements showed that the old assessment was fraught with exaggerated inequalities. And there
  1182
  was another point deserving the attention of the House, because it affected an important class of property—the tithe rent charge. A letter had been directed to the Poor Law Board by the clerk of the Buckingham Union, which stated that—
  "The Act for enclosing the common fields of the parish of Thornborough (passed in the year 1701) directs payment to the vicar of certain corn rents in lieu of tithes, such payment to be made free and clear of all manner of parochial taxes whatsoever, and also from all other taxes now imposed, except land tax. The Committee are desirous of knowing whether the operation of the private Act of 1797 has been to exonerate altogether from local taxation the value of the tithe corn rents of Thornborough, or whether it has been to transfer to the tithe-payers the liability antecedently resting on the tithe-owner. Assuming the net annual value of the parish of Thornborough to be £1,500, of which the corn rent free of rates is £150, and the value of the other ratable property to be £1,350, ought the parish to be rated on £1,500, or on £1,350? As a parochial Act solely, it is obviously immaterial, since to produce the same amount the smaller sum would be assessed to a higher ratio; but with reference to union and county contributions the parish would be a gainer by its assessments being levied on £1,350, and it would then, in virtue of a private Act, have received a partial exemption from a liability to a common fund."
  To that the following answer was returned by the Secretary:—
  "I am directed by the Poor Law Board to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 23rd ult. The Board direct me to state that it appears to them that the corn rents referred to are wholly exempt from the liability to be assessed, and therefore the amount cannot be taken into consideration, either by the entry of it as a separate item in the valuation lists, nor by an addition to the assessment of the other property in the other parishes."
  If that was the true state of the law, it ought to be altered, for nothing could be more unjust than that a parish making an arrangement with a vicar by which in lieu of his ratable tithes they covenant to pay him a corn rent free of rate, should escape a liability to assessment as touching the tithe surrendered to them, and he trusted the attention of the Law Officers of the Crown would be directed to the subject. Some of the parishes had made returns omitting the tithe rent-charge and others had included it. The Union Committees were in this position, that they did not know of which return they ought to approve.
  Then there was another matter of considerable importance, which related to clergymen and the question of curates' stipends. There was no doubt that the clergy had been paying a much larger

  1183
  proportion of parochial taxation than they ought, and they were now desirous of obtaining the most ample redress which the law contemplated. In the year 1859 the Poor Law Board obtained the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown upon the subject, and in the May of that year they issued a circular with regard to the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench in the case of "The Queen v. Goodchild and others." That circular said—
  "With reference to the subject of allowance on curates' salaries, the Court of Queen's Bench considered two subjects. One was a claim made by the incumbent in respect of the value of his own personal labour and services. The Court decided that no deduction could be allowed upon this head. The second was a claim for the salary of the curate. Upon this claim no universal rule was laid down; but the Court decided that in some cases the salary is not, while in others it is, to be allowed. It is not to be allowed where the curate is merely a substitute for the incumbent, as where he is non-resident—or, being resident, from sickness, infirmity, or any less creditable cause, does not perform his own duty personally, but employs another person instead. It is to be allowed where, from the vast size or population of the parish, one man's labour is entirely insufficient for the duties necessary to be discharged by the incumbent. Where the bishop of the diocese has required, under the statutes giving him the authority, the appointment of a stipendiary curate, and the incumbent, performing his duty, employs a curate in obedience to such requisition, an allowance is, according to the judgment of the Court, to be made in such case. So also the Court held that in cases where (the bishop not being legally empowered, or not being called upon to interfere) the incumbent from a sense of duty appoints a curate himself, devoting all his own time and attention to his cure, a reasonable allowance is to be made in respect of the curate's stipend."
  Nothing could be more vague or unsatisfactory than such regulations; and how was it to be expected that a country overseer should be able to decide on some of the nice points which were involved? Last year, however, upon occasion of an application for information to the Poor Law Board, the Board issued another circular to the following effect:—
  "The Board direct me to state that it would be inconsistent with their practice to express an opinion with reference to any particular case, but they forward for your information a copy of a circular issued by them on the 9th of May 1859, explaining their general views on the subject of the assessment of tithe commutation rent-charge to the poor rate. The Board, at the same time, desire to call your attention to the recent decisions of the Court of Queen's Bench, with regard to the deductions for a curate's salary, and to payments charged on behalf of district ministers and others. It will be seen that these decisions materially modify some of the views expressed in the circular."
  Thus it appears that the instructions,
  1184
  already vague enough, were subject to further modification; and this was the present condition of the subject. He certainly thought the law ought not to be left in that state of uncertainty.
  There was another matter which had been brought under the notice of the House by petition. Complaints had been made as to the state of the law with regard to the assessment to the poor rate of woodlands and mines. With regard to the former the state of the law was very peculiar. In the Act of Elizabeth, as mention was made of salable underwood, it had been concluded that all other description of wood was exempt, and so the law now remained. Now, nothing could be more absurd than such an interpretation. Salable underwood had been defined to be wood growing from a re-productive stool or stem: an ash tree of any size growing singly from its stem is exempt, but five ash poles growing from a common stem are ratable. Land devoted to the growth of chesnut hop-poles yields a ratable produce. Land occupied in the growth of larch poles escapes the rate. Upon what ground could that state of the law be justified? In regard to mines the law was just as extraordinary. The mention of coal mines in the reign of Elizabeth had led to the exemption of all other mines; so that coal mines were ratable, whilst lead, iron, copper, and tin were exempt. Again, stone quarries that were under the ground and invisible were exempt, whilst the same minerals, when gathered from the surface were assessed, as being the produce of the land, and came under the operation of the Poor Law. Another curious refinement was, that if a landowner reserved a royalty in the raw produce of a mine, the raw produce was ratable; but if it were reserved in the same mineral in a wrought or manufactured state, or if it were reserved in money value, then the produce was exempt from taxation. This question had been pressed on his attention by the Petitions that had been presented to the House; but still the subject had not escaped previous notice, and these exemptions had been uniformly condemned—first, by a Committee of that House on the Poor Laws in 1818; again, in 1843, by the Commission of Inquiry into the State and Administration of the Poor Law; and again in 1857 by another Committee of that House. With regard to the last anomalies which he had referred to, he had not mentioned them with the idea of forcing on a consideration

  1185
  of those subjects at present, for he should be sorry to add just now to the labour of those connected with the Poor Law Board, who were overwhelmed with work of an exceedingly anxious nature; but he would recommend his right hon Friend (Mr. Villiers) to turn his attention to the points connected with corn rents and curates' stipends. The matter was too important to be allowed to drag on year after year without on attempt being made to remedy some of these anomalies. Without wishing to pre judge the action that might be taken by different unions, and because it would In-useful to see how the law had been interpreted in different parts of the country, he wished to move for a Return of all parishes (being part of a union) in which the corn rents for tithe were exempt by Act of Parliament from parochial taxation, showing the amounts paid for such corn rents in the last year; and also for a Re turn of the Resolutions passed by the several unions fixing the deductions to be made from the "gross estimated rental." under the heads of "land," "land and buildings," "woodlands," "houses," and "cottages under £6 value." It might be said it did not matter what amount was de ducted; that ail was fair if the parties in the same union agreed among themselves, and that all unions in the same county could not be expected to act on the same inter pretation; but if the Legislature had pass ed a measure declaring that certain facts ought to be stated, they ought to be stated, and it was not satisfactory that they should be misstated because the parties agreed not to state them fairly. The hon. Member concluded by moving for the Returns.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "there be laid before this House, a Return of Parishes (forming part of some Union) in which the Corn Kent is exempt by Act of Parliament from parochial taxes, and showing the amounts of such Corn Rents as were paid last year; and Copy of the Resolutions of the several Unions in England as to the deductions from 'Gross Estimated Rental,' In order to obtain the 'Net Ratable Value,' under the various heads of 'Land,' 'Land and Buildings,' 'Woodlands,' 'Houses,' 'Cottages under £6 Rent,'"—(Mr. Hubbard,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he hoped the right hon. Gentlemen would consider the matter
  1186
  well before he agreed to the last part of the Return, as, in his opinion, the hon. Member, in asking for the resolutions of the assessment committees, was asking too much. He did not think any hard rule could be laid down on the subject, as there was a wide difference even in the same parish in the value of properties classified under the same heads. A small farm of fifteen or twenty acres might have some ramshackling timber on it, and the farmhouse might be of the same description; but the deductions allowed in that case could nut be applied to a farm of 1,000 acres, with well constructed buildings. In many cases the assessment committees might not have come to any formal resolutions, and a bare return of what had been done, without any explanation, would place the assessment committees in a very unfair position. Very different deductions would haves to be made in the case of cottages of good substantial brick, and structures of wattle-dab or cob, with clay walls and thatched roof. Chinese exactness in such matters was quite unattainable, and they must he content with an approximation.
  MR. THOMPSONsaid, that if the assessment committees were to furnish the Returns at that moment, they would not only be useless, but would mislead. If the hon. Gentleman postponed his Motion, the Returns would not only be more complete, but there would be ample time for legislation next Session.
  SIR BALDWIN LEIGHTONsaid, he thought it would be most desirable to have the Returns. He believed it was more in theory than in practice that differences existed as to the cost of repairs. He could not, however, but complain of the anomalous principles on which rating was enforced. For instance, a distinction was drawn between a brickwork where the clay was taken from the surface, and where it was procured from below ground; and open quarries were charged, while all mines, except those of coal, were exempted. He held that these cases ought to be treated alike. A large portion of Norfolk and other counties was not under the Act, which, as it was a very good one and worked well, ought to be applied to all parishes.
  MR. DODSONsaid, he saw no advantage in giving the last Return asked for at that time, for it would be incomplete. It would be much better to wait for half a year longer. It was much better, in

  1187
  his opinion, to leave the matter in the hands of the local authorities than to lay down any hard and inflexible rule of assessment. He believed that all other minerals than coals were excepted because coals alone were mentioned in the act of Elizabeth, and that timber other than salable underwood was exempted for the same reason.
  MR. C. P. VILLIERSsaid, that having taken a chief part in passing the Parochial Amendments Act through the House, and having taken great interest in its working, he had no reason to complain of the discussion of that evening, because it showed, not that the Act had not worked satisfactorily, but that its operation had exposed anomalies in the rating which had existed for centuries, and thus proved the necessity for the measure. He did not understand the hon. Member for Buckingham to call upon him to correct those anomalies, which had been acknowledged by all the courts of justice, and which were nowhere more apparent than in the cases cited by the hon. Gentleman, of mines and salable underwood. The question arose from the construction which had been put upon the Act of Elizabeth. Expressio unius, exclusio alterius est, was the principle adopted by the courts; and as collieries were specifically mentioned in the Act, that was held to imply the exclusion of all other mines. He could not collect whether the hon. Member was satisfied with the decision of the Poor Law Board as to the mode in which assessment committees and overseers were to obtain the correct ratable value of property. Overseers now knew from the circular quoted by the hon. Gentleman that to arrive at the ratable value they were to make certain deductions from the estimated rental; and, consequently, the only question which remained was, on what principles those deductions were to be made. It was possible that great differences existed throughout the country in the amounts deducted from the estimated rental for repairs, but he was afraid he could not produce the resolutions of the assessment committees. In the first place, the unions are upwards of 650 in number, and he was not at all certain that they had generally agreed to resolutions on the subject. Some had, no doubt; but very few of the resolutions had reached the Poor Law Board, and still fewer stated the principle on which they were founded. He had ascertained, moreover, that even
  1188
  where resolutions had been passed, the assessment committees had not in all cases adhered to them. In the greater part of the unions the assessment committees had not come to any positive decision. On the whole, though he admitted that full information ought be procured, he thought the hon. Member should delay calling for the Returns for some time, especially since it would not be easy, perhaps not quite right, to enact a law requiring assessment committees to make their deductions on a fixed principle. If the Returns were to be ordered, then assessment committees might jump to the conclusion that there was to be fresh legislation on the subject, and might at once suspend their proceedings, which would be attended, not with any advantage, but probably with some little mischief. The hon. Member had found fault with the decision of the Poor Law Board exempting corn rents received by clergymen from the rate, and had asked whether they had taken the advice of the Crown lawyer on the point. The rule of the Board was, when they had any mistrust of their own opinion, to refer to the Law Officers of the Crown; but when other people mistrusted their opinion, they did not think it necessary to ask the Law Officers whether they were wrong. It was open, however, to the hon. Member to take any opinion he liked, or, indeed, to introduce a Bill on the subject. The cases of the exemption of corn rents must be extremely rare, and he did not really know where they were to be found. He could not therefore have a Return prepared without more definite information. As to the deduction to be made on account of the stipend which an incumbent paid to his curate, the law had been rendered clear and explicit by the decision of the Court of Queen's Bench. Where a curate was appointed, not as a substitute for, but as am assistant to the incumbent, there must be a deduction; but no deduction was to be made where the duties of the parish were not too onerous for one man, or where the incumbent was not resident. Only two cases had been brought tinder his notice in which the question had arisen, and the matter was one, therefore, which he did not think could be much in doubt. In conclusion, he had simply to express a hope that the hon. Gentleman would postpone his Motion for the Returns; and he could assure him, that if before the end of the Session sufficient progress should have been made by the assessment committees,

  1189
  and he found that full and satisfactory Returns could be procured of the rules on which they had acted, he should himself move for those Returns.
  MR. PUGHsaid, he was glad to hear that the right hon. Gentleman was not yet disposed to take any action in the matter, as the time was not come for the required Return. The great desideratum in these cases was uniformity, in counties at all events, if not over a wider area. In his opinion, that uniformity would he much more likely to be attained if time were afforded for considering the various reports sent up from all parts of the country by the assessment committees.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

GREENWICH HOSPITAL.

  OBSERVATIONS. QUESTION.
  MR. LIDDELLsaid, he rose to call attention to the Report of the Royal Commission upon Greenwich Hospital, presented to Parliament in May 1860, and to put some Questions with respect to it. Those Questions had reference, in the first place, to reforms which the Admiralty required the authority of the House to enable them to carry out; as, for example, the effecting any change in the constitution of the hospital or remodelling the governing body; end, in the second place, to matters in which the Admiralty could, proprio motu, effect a change, such as the improvement of the internal management and economy of the institution. The constitution of Greenwich Hospital rested mainly on the Act of 1829. It was an establishment which possessed large funded property, and the control of its estates, funded property, and financial affairs, was vested in a Board composed of five members, two of whom were Commissioners ex officio—namely, the Paymaster General and the First Commissioner of Works. Of the three remaining Commissioners two were at that time civilians, and one, he believed, a naval officer. The internal management and discipline of the hospital, the superintendence of the infirmary, wards, and schools, was intrusted by law to a body of officers, at the head of whom was the governor and under him the lieutenant-governor, assisted by a staff of officers consisting of fifteen gentlemen, all of whom belonged to the naval profession. The government of the institution was, he might add, a double government, and would, he thought, upon
  1190
  investigation, be found not to be free from the defects inherent in such a system. Those defects he understood mainly to be the absence of responsibility and occasional conflict of authority, and a general supine-ness of action. A Commission had in 1859 been appointed by the Crown to inquire into the management of the whole affairs of the establishment. That Commission had entered at great length into the inquiry, and had made one of the ablest and most carefully prepared Reports which had ever been presented to the House of Commons. The Report was presented to Parliament in the early part of 1860, and the recommendations which it contained might be summed up under four heads. The Commissioners recommended an entire change in the governing body of the Hospital, a material reduction in the staff of officers, a large reduction in the domestic establishment, with a view to its more economical and more efficient working, and lastly, that some provision should be made for the wives and families of pensioners. So impressed did the Government appear to be with the justice of these recommendations, that they introduced a Bill into each of the two Houses of Parliament in 1861, which embodied those recommendations almost in their entirety. On the back of the Bill which had been introduced into the House of Commons were the names of the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty and his able coadjutor, Mr. Whitbread. The Bill which had been introduced into the House of Lords passed through several stages, and Amendments were made in Committee, but from that time to the present no more had been heard of that measure for amending the constitution of Greenwich Hospital. No one knew why it was withdrawn. The Bill, in the first place, provided that for the future the governing body should consist of two ex officio Commissioners, the Paymaster General and the First Commissioner of Works; the other three to be appointed by the Lords of the Admiralty, and to be called the Civil Commissioner, the Admiral Superintendent, and the Medical Commissioner. These appointments were to be made for five years, to secure that persons filling them should at all times be capable of fulfilling the duties attached to the office. At the end of that time these persons were to be re-eligible. The Bill further provided that the offices might be reduced in number. It effected a very important reduction in the staff of

  1191
  officers, which it provided should consist in future of one captain, one commander, three lieutenants, and such a number of warrant officers as the Lords of the Admiralty might think necessary. He was the more anxious to address his inquiries to the Government at the present moment on account of some recent appointments which were thought to be antagonistic to the Report of the Commissioners and the Bill of 1861.
  It was possible that some misapprehension might exist as to these appointments, and, if so, it was desirable that the Admiralty should have an opportunity of explaining what reform they had effected. The first appointment to which he should refer was that of Sir Richard Bromley, who had been appointed second Civil Commissioner, although the Bill of 1861 provided, in accordance with the recommendation of the Commissioners, that there should be only one such officer. He admitted that Sir R. Bromley was an eminent and valuable public servant; but his services had been rendered not to Greenwich Hospital, but to the country at large, and he ought to have been rewarded out of the public treasury, and not out of the funds of the hospital. If he had retired from the public service on account of ill health, then he ought not to hare been made a Civil Commissioner at Greenwich, an office which required to be filled by a person of good health and perfect efficiency. It might, however, be said that Sir R. Bromley had been sent to Greenwich as a reformer, to introduce necessary reforms and cut down expenses. If such were the grounds of his appointment, he could only say that the Government ought to have accompanied his appointment with such a change in the constitution of the hospital as would have enabled him to carry out those reforms which he was expected to effect. It was absurd to send any one to introduce reforms and leave him trammelled with the cumbrous machinery of the old system. They could not, therefore, look upon the appointment of Sir R. Bromley as that of a reformer, because he was encumbered by the double government spoken of and a machinery which Sir James Graham had said had never worked well since 1820. If that machinery did not work smoothly as at present constituted, was it to be expected that it would work any the better for the introduction into it of a new wheel that would travel at a greater amount of velocity than any wheel in the old machinery
  1192
  —for that was precisely the position of Sir Richard Bromley?
  The next point related to the officers. The Report of the Commissioners recommended, and the Bill of 1861 provided, that the number of officers should be largely reduced; but that reduction had not been carried out, and the officers now occupied no less than one-fourth of the building, and drew largely upon the funds of the hospital. That was a question of great delicacy, and it was one upon which he wished to speak with some reserve, or rather deference for the strong professional feeling which existed on the subject. A relative of his own, indeed, had expressed to him a strong opinion on the matter; but he considered he was performing a public duty, and was not actuated by any private feeling in the course he was taking. He was aware that there was a strong feeling in favour of retaining Greenwich as a place of comfortable retirement for old invalided officers of Her Majesty's navy. He looked upon that institution in a different light. Of course, there ought always to be an efficient staff, but he thought that there was no necessity for so large a staff as one consisting of seventeen officers. At that moment they occupied one-fourth of the building, and drew largely on the resources of the hospital. He wished to do full justice to the claims of the officers, but he felt compelled to examine a little closely the grounds on which they based their claims. He thought, in the first place, that the officers appointed to Greenwich Hospital should be in such a state of health as would enable them to perform their duty. The claim of officers to admission to Greenwich Hospital as a place of retirement rested on this ground, that for a series of years a large payment was made out of the prize money into the chest of Greenwich Hospital. By the Act 46 Geo. III., passed in 1806, and by a subsequent Act of Parliament passed in 1814, those payments were made legal, or rather that portion of the prize money was ascertained by law for the purposes of Greenwich Hospital. It amounted in 1814 to £5 per cent, in 1806 to a less amount; but it might be taken for argument's sake that there was paid to the chest of Greenwich Hospital up to the year 1829 a portion of all prize money amounting to about 5 per cent. Without stopping to inquire whether that prize money could properly be considered the property of the officers, which he was not prepared to admit, he would only point

  1193
  out, that as these payments ceased in 1829, the numbers of those who had a claim to admission on that ground must be but small and rapidly diminishing. But if the claim of the officers to admission on account of that legal assignment was valid, he was prepared to set up another of which they had never heard a word in that House—namely, a claim on behalf of the merchant seamen The House was, perhaps, not aware that by an Act of Parliament passed in 1695, in the reign of William III., sixpence per month was deducted from the wages of every merchant seaman and paid into the chest of Greenwich Hospital. Those payments had also ceased, but they ceased subsequently to the payment of the percentage on prize money. In 1835 the Consolidated Fund undertook the payment of £20,000, towards the funds of the hospital in lieu of the merchant seamen's sixpences. If therefore the officers' claims were valid on account of the payment of a portion of the prize money, the merchant seamen's claims were equally valid on account of the payment of their sixpences, and equal justice ought to be done to them. There was another very important consideration in reference to officers' claims, which was this. In 1728, exactly a hundred years before the payment of prize money into the hospital chest ceased, by an Order in Council a sum equivalent to the half-pay of all the officers employed in Greenwich Hospital was paid into the chest of the hospital, and applied to its purposes. When the Admiralty appointed officers to Greenwich Hospital, they actually paid it a sum equal to the half-pay of the officers; but since a very recent period, he thought 1840, or a little earlier, the officers, in addition to the salaries they received as officers in Greenwich Hospital, received their half pay from the Crown. Greenwich Hospital did not gain that half-pay, as it did a hundred years back, but was obliged to pay salaries and emoluments to the officers besides losing their half-pay He did not grudge the officers anything which the Crown might choose to bestow upon them, because any reward which our naval and military officers earned by long and distinguished services that House would cheerfully pay; and he would even go be yond that, and say that he thought it was the practice of the Government to reward our distinguished officers somewhat too niggardly; and if a proposition were made to increase those rewards, he believed it would be cheerfully acceded to in that
  1194
  House; but he objected to the Crown transferring its obligations to its own servants from the public treasury to Greenwich Hospital. That was the sum and substance of his objection to this large staff of officers being maintained out of the resources of Greenwich Hospital.
  He would give the House an instance of the encroaching tendencies of public Departments, which were always apt to shuffle off on other shoulders whatever liabilities they could get rid of. In 1859, if he mistook not, while the Commissioners were still sitting, the Admiralty made a proposition to the Commissioners of Greenwich Hospital, to understand which it was necessary to remember that every pensioner on admittance to Greenwich Hospital relinquished all claim to pensions he might previously have enjoyed. The proposition of the Admiralty was, that the Commissioners should pay at once out of their surplus incomes to the in-pensioners half of their surrendered out-pensions, and eventually to the officers of the hospital as well their half pay as their salaries. The Commissioners very properly replied that the proposed scheme would be a misapplication of the property held by them in trust for specific purposes of a great national charity. The proposition therefore dropped. He only quoted it to show how ready the Admiralty were to transfer obligations from the Treasury to Greenwich Hospital. The House had lately heard much of the propriety of taxing charities, but the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was met by such an outcry that he was induced to abandon it without going to a division. No proposition, however, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had ever made and abandoned for the taxation of charities, approached in magnitude this sweeping proposal on the part of the Admiralty. He then came to another point. The Bill of 1861 adopted the recommendation of the Commissioners in respect to the reduction of the domestic establishment of the hospital; and without going into any long argument on that point, he would state that in the Report of the Commissioners of 1859 there was an instructive comparison of the cost of domestic management of the hospital in the years 1805 and 1859. At the former date the cost of maintaining 2,410 pensioners and 144 nurses, being widows, was £69,206 per annum. The establishment charges, including under that head the salaries of civil and military officers,

  1195
  clerks, servants, repairs, &c., in 1805 were £21,837 a year. In 1859 the number of pensioners, 1,676, was less by 30 per cent than the number in the former year, and the cost of maintaining them, together with 100 nurses and 71 sick attendants, was £50,910 per annum. That was £18,296 less than in 1805. But what did the House suppose were the establishment charges in 1859? No less than £48,667, or £26,830 more than in 1805. The Return proved that while the expenditure upon the individual pensioners had not increased during fifty-five years, and while the aggregate number of pensions had diminished 30 per cent, the cost of the establishment had considerably more than doubled. At the same time, owing to the admirable arrangements of the manager of the estates of Greenwich Hospital, who was emphatically the right man in the right place, the affairs of the institution had been immensely simplified; the cost, therefore, ought to be properly a great deal less. Under the Act of 1861 the Admiralty were empowered to make reduction without the necessity of further application to Parliament. But he could not discover in recent appointments that spirit of economy which the Act of 1861 seemed to promise. Certain offices had been filled up, the occupants being permitted to retire, although these officers, if not absolutely condemned, had received the negative praise that their salaries were in an inverse ratio to the duties they were called on to perform, and that these duties were generally performed by deputy. The chief civil officers of the Hospital are the Secretary, Steward, Cashier, the Clerk of the Check, and the Inspector of Works; the Steward has under him five clerks, two mates, and the brewer. Lately the cashier retired on a pension of £600 a year. The steward, a paymaster, was made cashier, at a salary of £500 a year and half-pay, with an establishment of five clerks, two men servants, and a brewer. A new steward, an Admiralty Secretary, was appointed at a salary of £500 a year, £219 half-pay, and lodging money at the rate of three guineas a week. He might observe, that if the number of officers were reduced, a large amount of lodging accommodation would be available for those officers to whom lodging money was paid.
  With regard to the internal management of the Hospital, about which the Admiralty might proceed propria motu, without requiring the authority of Parliament,
  1196
  he wished to ask what were the intentions of the Admiralty with respect to the wives and daughters of the pensioners. Whatever tardy reforms the Admiralty might intend to effect, the long continued neglect which had been shown to the female relatives of the pensioners would remain as a blot and reproach upon the administration of Greenwich Hospital. He believed that no one would venture to contradict that assertion. He did not wish to throw blame upon the present Board of Admiralty, because he believed they had already done more for the hospital than any preceding Board, and, if rumours were correct, they were prepared to do still more; but he would say that it was a most scandalous shame that from the foundation of the hospital up to that year, 1863, the condition of the wives and daughters of the seamen should have been wholly ignored. He would not rest upon his own authority, but would quote from the Report of the Commissioners, who said—
  "The wives of pensioners are wholly ignored, and their circumstances are deplorable. They are consigned to extreme penury and wretchedness, and in some instances become chargeable to the parish. In 1841 the school for girls, a portion of the lower school, was abolished, and it was said no provision was made in its stead, and we have learned with regret that in consequence of that omission the class of unfortunate females who haunt the purlieus of Greenwich are largely recruited from such children."
  He hoped that that state of things would no longer be allowed to continue, and that the House would that night receive an assurance that the unhappy condition in which the female relatives of the seamen were left would be redressed. He knew, of his own knowledge, that much had been done of late in an indirect way. The pensioners of the first class received 5s., of the second 4s., and of the third 3s., instead of the miserable shilling a week which before was to be applied to the maintenance of their wives and children; but still the margin was not very large, and there was no direct recognition of the women. They were altogether ignored. By the Act of Anne express provision was made, or intended to be made, not only for the widows, but the wives of the pensioners. The House would hear with astonishment that the pensioners were forbidden to marry. He had himself entered into conversation on the last occasion on which he was at the Hospital with one of the most respectable old seamen he ever saw, who was engaged in reading the Bible at the time. Having

  1197
  asked the old man whether he was married, he replied, "That is a painful subject. I have lost my wife, but I should have too much respect for her, if she were alive, to bring her in here." That spoke volumes in condemnation of the management of Greenwich Hospital. There might be difficulties in the way of making suit able provision for the wives of the seamen in the hospital, but it was the duty of Government to overcome those difficulties Much had been said about the improvidence of sailors; and as long as they were neglected they were improvident, and when they came on shore, with plenty of money in their pockets, became the prey of crimps and rogues. But modern humanity and good sense had provided sailors' homes and savings banks, and the sailor had been found to show that he valued those establishments. If, in like manner, Government would make a proper provision for the wives of the old sailors it would have a great moral effect, and would induce the very best class of men to enter into the navy.
  With regard to the practical part of the question, three plans were suggested by the Commissioners. One was to make arrangements for the reception of a hundred families within the walls, by the erection of a number of cottages on some vacant ground contiguous to the Hospital. He trusted that recommendation would not be adopted, because it would not be consistent with discipline and good order to introduce the wives and families of the sailors within the walls. The second proposition was to adapt, at a cost of £6,000, some house property in Greenwich which belonged to the Hospital for the accommodation of a certain number of families. And the third recommendation was that lodging-houses should be erected for a hundred families, at an expense of £17,000. A meeting had been held lately in the City for making provision for the better lodging of the working poor of the metropolis, and one gentleman, who had paid most attention to the subject, calculated that a block of building capable of containing twenty families could be erected for £2,300. If that were so, he thought that for about £12,000 a block might he built capable of containing a hundred families. It would be an experiment; and if the experiment succeeded, it might be carried further. A sum of £12,000 would not be too much to expend in carrying out the views of the founders, in raising the standard of the navy, and in doing a simple
  1198
  act of justice to men who expended their blood in the public service. He desired to ask the Government, Whether it was their intention to introduce any Bill based upon the recommendations of the Commissioners; and, if not, whether they were prepared by regulations to make those important alterations and additions to which he had called attention?
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, that there could be no doubt in the mind of any hon. Member of that House of the interest and importance of the question which the hon. Member for Northumberland had introduced to their notice; and, for his own part, he could say that he rejoiced that, after many delays, the hon. Member had at length found an opportunity of calling the attention of the Government and the House to the subject. The hon. Member had referred, with a good deal of detail, to the Report of the Commission of 1860, of which his right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Board of Trade was Chairman, and he agreed with the hon. Member in thinking that that Report was a most valuable document. It was a copious, voluminous, and a bold Report; and if he were to define in one word its leading merit and principal characteristic, he should say that it was eminently a suggestive Report. Many of the suggestions which that document contained had guided the Board of Admiralty in the improvements which the hon. Gentleman admitted to have been introduced; but he was not prepared to say that the Admiralty was ready to accept, in all its entirety and detail, every one of the multitudinous suggestions in that valuable and able Report. The hon. Member had referred specially to many of the suggestions, and had spoken first of the proposed remodelling of the governing body of the hospital, which, in the opinion of the hon. Gentleman, and also in the opinion of the Commissioners of Inquiry, would be calculated to improve its efficiency, and lead to economy in the management of the hospital. The hon. Member had alluded to the condition of the wives and families of some of the pensioners, and he had touched on the claims of the widows, not of pensioners, but of seamen who had lost their lives in the service of the country. He was prepared on each and all these topics—and he was glad that the opportunity had arrived of so doing—to give to the hon. Member and the House an explicit answer on the part of the Admiralty, for the purpose of showing how far that

  1199
  Board agreed in the conclusions of the Report, and to state, with equal candour, where it was that, at least for the present, the Admiralty felt bound to stop.
  Before he went into a discussion of the practical grievances, and of the remedies which had been applied, or which still remained to be applied to them, he wished to remark that there were two preliminary questions, which the hon. Member also touched upon, and to which he desired in the first instance to address himself; because the view which persons might take of those preliminary questions would necessarily very much affect their conclusions when they came to the consideration of the recommendations made by the Commissioners of Inquiry. The first of those two questions was—what was the scope and original intention of this great national institution, Greenwich Hospital, and of its founders, and how far had that original intention been departed from? The second question was, how far the encroachments of the military establishment, more especially of late years, had diverted, or, as the phrase was, perverted, the funds of the institution from its original and legitimate object.
  Now, in dealing with these questions, the Admiralty had no desire except to have the facts clearly brought out. His impartiality would be shown by his strengthening instead of weakening some parts of the hon. Member's case. The first document with which they had to deal was the charter of William III. in 1694, the preamble of which set forth that the hospital was to be instituted
  "For the relief and support of seamen serving on board the ships or vessels belonging to the navy royal, or employed in our service at sea, who by reason of age, wounds, or other disabilities, shall be incapable of further service at sea, and be unable to maintain themselves, and for the sustentation of the widows and the maintenance and education of the children of seamen happening to be slain or disabled in such service."
  Two years afterwards was passed another Act which, while it gave the merchant seamen's sixpences to the chest of the hospital, extended the benefits of the institution as far as possible to every seaman registered for sea service and disabled by age or otherwise, and to "the widows and children of such seamen as were slain, killed, or drowned in the sea service." He admitted, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman was right in saying that merchant seamen had originally a claim to participation in the advantages of the hospital. Then
  1200
  came the statute of Anne, in 1703, for the increase and better management of navigation, and especially of the coal trade, which did away with the condition that seamen must be registered, and placed it in the absolute discretion of the Lord High Admiral to admit within the walls of the hospital "any disabled seamen, their wives and children, and the widows and children of seamen slain, killed, or drowned in sea service." In that Act, for the first and only time, was mention of the wives of seamen as participators in the charity. These Acts and deeds were previous to the opening of the institution, which did not take place till 1705, and their object was very wide—much wider than could now be contemplated or recognised. They were intended, not only to afford succour to the seamen of the navy, but to promote navigation, and to provide for the service of merchant vessels, and even of the coasting trade. These, however, were objects which had passed away with the change of ideas in modern times. The true construction to be put on the old Acts and deeds was, in his opinion, that the founders of the hospital deemed it desirable to extend the scope of the foundations as widely as possible, leaving it to the discretion of the Lord High Admiral to decide, with reference to the claims upon the institution and its funds, how far within the limits they prescribed the benefits of the institution could be spread, and to regulate the priority of claims.
  The second question to which he had referred—as to the encroachments of the military establishment—was one of facts and dates. In 1704—the year before the hospital was opened—the office of governor was created, and a lieutenant governor, one captain, and two lieutenants were appointed. In 1705 another lieutenant was added, and there were then 100 pensioners and six officers on the establishment. In 1728 there was an accession of one captain and one lieutenant, giving eight officers to 450 pensioners. In 1748 two more lieutenants were added, making ten officers to 1,000 pensioners. In 1753 another captain was added, when the proportion was eleven officers to 1,300 pensioners. In 1763 two lieutenants were added, and the numbers then were thirteen officers and 1,783 pensioners. In 1767 the number of pensioners was the same, but there was one more captain, making fourteen officers in all. From that date down to 1840 no change was made in the establishment. In the latter year a Commission sat upon the naval and military

  1201
  hospitals of the country of which the late Duke of Wellington was a member. That Commission reported that commanders had some special grounds of complaint that no provision was made for them in the hospital, and accordingly four commander ships and two masterships were added to the military establishment, and in 1840 the establishment had been increased to its maximum of twenty officers. In the present year two lieutenants and one com-mandership had not been filled up by the Board, and the number of officers was therefore reduced to seventeen. There was undoubtedly in the old Charters and Acts something approaching to a recognition of the claims of the officers. The Charter of George III., in 1775, provided that all officers employed in the hospital should be seafaring men. In the Act of 1829, under which the institution was governed, it was directed that all officers, save the Commissioners and the Clerk of the Works, should be selected as far as possible from persons who had served in His Majesty's navy. The strongest evidence of something like a statutory recognition of those claims was in the Acts passed in the reign of George III. In the 3rd year of George III. an Act was passed, authorizing the governors to pay out-pensions to seamen whom they could not or did not receive as inmates; and in 1806 another Act was passed to enable them to extend the same system of out-pensions to officers as well as men. Considering the fact that the hospital possessed some thing like a military establishment even before its doors were opened, that that establishment grew with the growth of the institution which it had to manage, and that it had received Parliamentary recognition, he thought the claims of such a class of men were not to be lightly dealt with or set aside. He further maintained that these officers had a solid around for consideration in their contributions to the capital fund of the hospital. The officers of the navy had, from the first, contributed the monthly sixpences as well as the men. They had contributed indirectly in the shape of 5 per cent upon prizes, and they had contributed that fourth of certain freightages which was given to the hospital in 1819, and which would otherwise have fallen to their share. He did not wish, however, to be understood as carrying this argument too far. He was aware that these considerations left intact the question whether the appointment of disabled officers,
  1202
  perhaps infirm from age or wounds, was the best system of government for the institution. That was a question to be treated on its own merits, but meanwhile it was right the House should know, before they came to discuss the constitution of the governing body of the hospital, that there were claims of meritorious and deserving officers which would have to be taken into account.
  He desired, in the next place, having disposed of the two preliminary questions, to make some statements with respect, to the improvements which had already been carried into effect, and his wish to do so was the greater because the introduction of those improvements was due to the almost too great and self-sacrificing labours of his hon. Friend the Member for Bedford, who, in consequence of those labours, unfortunately was, he trusted only for a short time, compelled to retire from the service of the country. Since the advent of the present Board to office, and the publication of the Report of the Commissioners, the following offices had been reduced:—One inspector of works, one dispenser, two matrons, with vacancies kept up for one commander and two lieutenants. The saving thus effected amounted to £1,844 a year; besides the cost of the apartments which would otherwise be occupied. With respect to all future appointments, the old allowances in lieu of coals, candles, faggots, and soon, were to cease, by order of the Board—a regulation to which the recent appointment of Sir Richard Bromley was made subject.
  He would next state what had been done to increase the benefits enjoyed by the inmates of the hospital. As his hon. Friend had mentioned, the weekly allowance to the pensioners had been increased front 1s. to 3s., 4s., and 5s., according to a system of classification. That additional gratuity to the men, which had been given to them in the hope that it might reach their wives, had been bestowed at an annual cost of £10,000. Complaints had sometimes been made about taking the allowances from the pensioners while on leave of absence. Under a recent regulation any pensioner could take four days' leave of absence at any time, and once a year he was entitled to a leave of six weeks, during which he had the value of his weekly provision money to use while absent from the institution. The widows of seamen employed in the hospital were, he might remind the House, as much pensioners

  1203
  as the men themselves, and the maximum of their superannuation allowance had been raised from £10 to £25. An immense improvement had been made in the school. A new wing was in course of construction, with lavatories, baths, and all conveniences. The class-room accommodation had been increased, and measures had been taken to afford sufficient breathing space in the dormitories. Beyond all this, the Board had absolutely relinquished the whole of the patronage which they formerly posssesed in the appointment of boys to the school; and the boys, whether the sons of officers or seamen, upon one and the same footing, were selected for admission by a committee on the spot, under resolutions which represented fairly the spirit and intention of the old Charters and Acts. The same remark applied to the regulations for the admission of seamen and marines.
  He was not there to say that the expenditure upon the establishment of the hospital might not be reduced. It was his opinion, as soon as he began to look into the question, and that opinion had not been shaken by further inquiry, that the expenditure upon the establishment might be, could be, and ought to be reduced. But it was hardly fair to institute a comparison of cost between 1805 and 1859, in the method which the Commissoners had adopted. A truer comparison would he between the salaries and allowances in 1805 and the salaries and allowances in 1859. In the former year they were £14,000; in the latter, £23,000. The difference between those two sums—£9,000—was the real measure of the encroachment of the establishment upon the revenue of the hospital. But something was got for that increase of charge. The increase was not upon the military part of the establishment, where the addition was limited in extent, but on the civil branch, for secretaries, clerks, and so forth. At least, therefore, something was gained in the purchase of provisions and comforts for the inmates, for the irregularities which obtained before the passing of the Act in 1829 were no longer possible. In the comparison of establishment charges which had been made—those in 1805 having been £21,000, and in 1859 £49,000—he would omit £9,000 out of the difference of £28,000. But the relative expenditure upon works and repairs in the two years must be taken into account. It was not fair to take two years, and if in one the
  1204
  cost of repairs was £3,000 and in the other £10,000, to assume that establishment expenditure had increased to the amount of £7,000. Then there was an increase in the rates of Greenwich Hospital to the amount of £1,000, and the remainder of the increase—some £10,000 or £11,000—was to be attributed to the increase of wages. In admitting so much, some hon. Members might imagine that he admitted the weak point in the management of the institution. Certainly, when he first called for Returns from the hospital, nothing surprised him more than to find, that with a complement of some 1,600 pensioners, the number of persons receiving wages was upwards of 500. But the explanation was very simple. These wages were really pensions in another form, and the persons who received them were either the pensioners themselves—292 were pensioners—or the wives, but mainly the widows, of seamen, who, it was felt, were intended to share, in some degree, in the benefits of the institution. Such was the explanation of the difference in the expenditure of the two years.
  Then his hon. Friend had referred to the Bill brought in two years ago, changing and modifying the constitution of the governing body of the hospital, and had asked what were the intentions of the Admiralty upon that subject, and whether it was proposed to re-introduce that or some similar measure. Now, he was not there on behalf of the noble Duke at the head of the Board to withdraw the opinions which he expressed on introducing that measure; but in the House of Lords and in that House the measure did not meet with a very favourable reception. [Mr. LIDDELL: It was not discussed in this House.] That was perfectly correct, but the probable reception of a measure was to be tested by what was heard there before it came on for formal discussion; and the Bill in question was not received in such a way as made it advisable to press it. The Board of Admiralty, therefore, came to the conclusion, that having considerable power of reform already vested in themselves, it would be well to proceed by degrees, and endeavour to ascertain practically, in the first instance, to what extent they might themselves accomplish reforms and improvements before they came to Parliament for new powers.
  Then his hon. Friend said that the appointment of Sir Richard Bromley was in

  1205
  the teeth of the Report of the Commission. Now, in the opinion of the Board, the appointment was in the very spirit of the recommendations of the Commissioners, and it was made with the object of carrying those recommendations practically into effect. In their proposed construction of the governing body of the Hospital, the Commissioners recommended the appointment of a Finance Commissioner; and who more fit to be placed in that position than a gentleman who had been for many years Accountant General of the Navy, and whose energy and abilities and financial experience were so well known to that House and to the public? He had before him the Board's letter to the Hospital Commissioners, notifying to them the appointment of Sir Richard Bromley, and he would invite attention to the terms of that letter—
  "The Queen having been pleased to appoint Sir Richard Maddox Bromley one of the Commissioners of Greenwich Hospital, I am to draw your attention to paragraph 7 in the recommendations of the Report of the Commissioners on Greenwich Hospital, 1860, and I am to express a hope that from the experience and abilities of Sir Richard Bromley the finance department of the Hospital may derive all the advantage looked for by the Royal Commission."
  Sir Richard Bromley had accepted the office upon these terms, and was pledged as far as might be to fulfil the expectations implied in the very terms of his appointment. His energy and abilities were known, the reputation which he enjoyed was known, and they might entertain a confident expectation that he would be wishful to maintain and increase that reputation.
  As to the condition of the wives and families of pensioners, he agreed with his hon. Friend, that even if the Admiralty were not strictly responsible for the circumstances and conditions of life of these families, these things did constitute a slur upon that great national institution. Suggestions had been sent down for the consideration of the Commissioners and of the military establishment. These had been returned with the annotations of the Commissioners. The matter would shortly be determined in all its details—and he could assure his hon. Friend that in the shape of some increased weekly allowance to the married men, and also by some provisions and regulations to secure, as far as could be secured, the proper application of that increased allowance, they hoped to be able to accomplish some good in this direction.
  1206
  Then there was the case of the widows. The Board were of opinion, that, next to the wounded seamen, there could be no class of persons, whether the terms of the original Charters and Acts or the intrinsic merits of their claims were taken into account, who had more urgent claims for some benefit from the hospital than the widows of men who might hove lost their lives in the service of their country. Objections referred to by his hon. Friend existed to the admission within the walls of the institution of wives and widows as well as the men. The Admiralty had therefore thought it preferable to try to make some provision for them outside. To enable the Board to do that, they would have to come to Parliament for powers, and it would be his duty, in the course of the next week, to ask leave to introduce a Bill in order to carry these proposals into execution. He trusted that his answers had not been entirely unsatisfactory to the House. He was quite aware that more ambitious and larger schemes had been proposed and discussed; but he could not accede to the policy of the course suggested. In his opinion, it was infinitely better that the man who, whether by his own labour or that of his wife, or by the assistance of his friends, was enabled, in addition to whatever out-pension he might possess, to gain sufficient for a comfortable, although it might be a humble, maintenance in the locality of his birth, or some place with which the associations of his life were connected—it was infinitely better that such a man, for many reasons which would suggest themselves to the House, should be so situated, than that he should be pensioned within the walls of the institution. Greenwich Hospital was an hospital which should be devoted to the accommodation of the infirm, of the really disabled, and of those who required those special comforts and attentions which they could not be expected to command in their own more modest homes. He could not therefore accept those more ambitious schemes to which he referred. He objected to them, too, because he found them to be financially unsound. They were based on the notion of a very large increase of expenditure, as well as of a very considerable augmentation of income. But how, let him ask, was it proposed to increase the expenditure and the income of the hospital. It was suggested that the out-pensions saved to the country should be paid over to the funds of the institution,

  1207
  while the scheme was, in the next place, baaed on a problematical saving of £20,000 a year; and lastly, on an elimination of the annual surplus which at present accrued. Now, there was a surplus, the amount of which was somewhat exaggerated. It was applied, in the first place, to an insurance fund, while there was, in the second place, a mining fund; but any hon. Gentleman who was at all acquainted with the matter must be aware that mining profits did not endure for ever. It was therefore simply a question of prudence to make provision for the day when those mines should be exhausted. Besides, there was annually a certain surplus which he trusted would be available for the purposes to which he referred. Now, bearing in mind what, after all, was the main object of the institution—to provide for a state of war—he maintained that in time of peace the resources of the hospital should not be taxed to their utmost or frittered away; so that, when war did unhappily arise, the building might be ready and funds at hand to accommodate those men who might have Buffered in defence of the honour and safety of their country. He acknowledged the justice of the claims which his hon. Friend had brought under the notice of the House, and the Government would not fail to endeavour cautiously, but perseveringly, and without delay, to give them some practical effect.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he thought the time of the House was well occupied in discussing the interests of the noble charity under discussion. He had listened, he might add, with great pleasure to the speech of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, who had shown that during the short time he had occupied his office, he had made himself master of one important question connected with the duties of his department. He was particularly gratified at learning from the hon. Gentleman that it was not likely the Bill of two years ago would be re-introduced. The description of the feeling which then prevailed with regard to that Bill was well described in the speech of the hon. Gentleman, as the measure was received with distrust, and it appeared to him (Sir John Pakington), that the course which the hon. Gentleman had announced on behalf of the Admiralty was a more prudent one than if they made another attempt at wholesale legislation. For his own part, he was not at all disposed to deny that reforms in Greenwich hospital were necessary.
  1208
  It was, no doubt, very desirable that a reduction should be effected in the establishment, and that the management should be as far as possible be rendered more economical; but he, at the same time, saw no reason why, under the powers conferred by the Act of 1829, it was not perfectly feasible to carry out those reforms, without having recourse to additional legislation. He wished to speak with respect of the abilities and industry of the Royal Commissioners. He felt that it was with some hesitation that he differed from the recommendations of one of them—his hon. and gallant Friend who sat near him (Sir John Hay). But he confessed he should be sorry to see all of them carried out. There was one part of their Report, however, on which the hon. Gentleman had not touched—namely, that pointing out the difference which had prevailed at Greenwich between the civil and military authorities. Those differences he regarded as a great misfortune; indeed, they were more—they were a scandal. The evil was one, nevertheless, which might be easily removed. He was disposed to think, that if the Governor of the Hospital were made a really useful member of the establishment, and were appointed one of the Commissioners, all the inconveniences which arose on that score might be obviated. Holding that opinion, he disapproved of the proposed arrangement, which seemed to him most absurd, to turn the office of Governor into a mere useless sinecure. It was a far wiser and more simple plan to make the Governor a Commissioner, and to appoint to the office a naval officer of high rank. The appointment of Sir Richard Bromley was a great improvement on the previous state of affairs. It was impossible for the Government to have filled up the office of Commissioner better than they had done by that appointment. He (Sir John Pakington) had seen with deep regret the remarks in the public prints reflecting on that appointment. It had been lost sight of, that this able roan lost his health from the arduous work which he had in the service. He was, therefore, glad to hear the generous terms in which the hon. Gentleman had spoken of the past services of that gallant officer. He was able, from personal knowledge, to bear testimony to the fact that Sir Richard Bromley's health had completely failed some years ago, from his long-continued exertions in the discharge of his public duties. It was in 1858 that his health broke down, and at that time it was his

  1209
  (Sir John Pakington's) duty, to grant him a lengthened absence from duty; and when he did so, he feared that he would not return to active life He was sorry that the arrangement made by the Government was not a more liberal one. Considering his length of service, it would have been more generous if he had been allowed full pay in addition to his salary as Commissioner. The point to which be was most anxious to refer, was a recommendation of the Commissioners with which he could not agree, and which, he was sorry to say, had been distinctly embodied in a Bill introduced by the Government two years since. He referred to the recommendation "that no commissioned officer of the navy be admitted into the Hospital except in an administrative capacity." He thought that to act upon such a recommendation would be most ungracious. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax, in his able speech, had traced with clearness and accuracy the history of the Hospital, and had shown that from the commencement officers had been admissable to the benefits of the institution. In the year of the foundation of the Hospital, 1704, one of very nearly the first admissions was that of a disabled lieutenant in the navy; again by the Charter of 1775, again in 1809, and again in the recommendation of the Committee of 1840, over which the Duke of Wellington presided, the same principle prevailed, that naval officers should share the benefits of the charity. After the observations of the hon. Gentleman, he could not but hope that the noble Duke and the Board of Admiralty had reconsidered that part of the subject, and were not disposed to act upon the recommendation. He had been sorry to hear that the vacancies among the officers had occurred, and were not yet filled up, and he would wish to know whether it was intended not to fill them up. It must always be borne in mind, that the officers of the navy had largely contributed to the funds of the Hospital by freight money and prize money, and therefore be hoped that the benefits of the institution would not be confined absolutely to seamen. He admitted that reforms were necessary, and that increased economy was also necessary. A Return moved for by the late Mr. Pugh, some years ago, showed that at that time, the expense of the inmates did not exceed £40 a man, whilst now that expense was increased to £59 a man. That certainly called for inquiry and correction; but he believed that the Admiralty had full powers
  1210
  to cure these evils without having recourse to legislation, and be hoped that they would exercise those powers.
  SIR JOHN HAYsaid, that, as one of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the government and condition of Greenwich Hospital, he was desirous of stating the grounds upon which they made and still adhered to certain recommendations they had embodied in their Report, and which were objected to. And first, he would allude to the necessity for legislation. The evil which met them at the outset, in connection with Greenwich Hospital, was the continual and incessant squabbling between the civil Commissioners and the military Commissioners who formed the double Government of the institution. All the evils existing in that institution—and they were not a few—were clearly traceable to that double government; and be was informed that an Act of the Legislature would be necessary to get rid of that double government. For that purpose, the Commission thought that there should be legislation; but the remainder of the Commissioners' recommendations could, he believed, be carried out by the Board of Admiralty without the interference of Parliament. A change in the mode of government of the Hospital was absolutely necessary, and in that opinion the Commissioners were fortified by high authority, including that of the late Sir James Graham, who disapproved of a Board of civil officers, but considered that a re-construction of the governing body was necessary, and thought a civil Commissioner, acting with the Governor, and perhaps the medical officers, would form a suitable governing body. He (Sir John Hay) concurred in all that had been said of the great merits of Sir Richard Bromley, and thought that he would be an excellent civil Commissioner. One disadvantage arising from the present double government was, the great expense entailed upon the Hospital by it. Excluding the charges of building, he found the present charge for managing the establishment of the Hospital, not including the allowances to pensioners, was £47,704 upon an income of £158,000. The proposal of the Commissioners was, he thought, reasonable, as, after deducting £5,000 for building and other similar purposes, they proposed to allow £26,973 for expenses of management. This reduction of expenditure, to the extent of nearly £25,000 a year, could be easily arranged, merely by not filling up vacancies when they occurred.

  1211
  There was an excess of Commissioners and of military government; and although certain appointments had not been filled up, there had not been that reduction in the expense which the Commission had recommended, and actually showed how it could be made. He would not go at length into the items of wasteful expenditure in the matter of the establishment, but this he would say—there were certain officers to which the hon. Member for Northumberland (Mr. Liddell) had alluded—the Steward, the Clerk of the Check, Cashier, and Secretary—four civil officers who were supposed to have something to do—but when the Commission were at the Hospital, they found that the three first named had nothing to do, for they did their duty by deputy. He would read to the House an extract from the evidence of one of these officers, in which he stated that the clerks were perfectly competent to perform all the duties, and that he did not see why the officers themselves should be retained. [The hon. and gallant Member, having read the evidence proceeded:] The Commissioners did not wish to be hard on those officers, who had, no doubt, done good service in their time; but they thought Greenwich Hospital was not the place where Navy Paymasters ought to receive their pensions. One of these officers had since retired on full pay, and his place had been filled up; another had died, and his place also had been filled up. He had nothing to say against the selection that had been made; one was secretary to the late Lord Lyons, and another secretary to Sir Houston Stewart, who had performed most valuable services in the Black Sea and elsewhere. He did not object that these gentlemen should be duly rewarded for their services; but what he thought and what the Commissioners thought was, that they should be rewarded from the funds of the country and not from the funds of Greenwich Hospital. The surgeons of the navy were surely as deserving of pensions as the civil officers, yet they were only appointed to Greenwich Hospital for five years, no doubt under an impression, that if they became unable themselves to do duty, their clerks and apothecaries could not so well supply their places; but in other departments, because the duty could be got done without any great particularity as to the way in which it was performed, officers were allowed to remain until they were quite incapacitated for the proper discharge of their functions. Hon. Members
  1212
  would find in the Appendix to the Report many facts stated which strongly corroborated the conclusions at which the Commission had arrived. It bad, for instance, been ascertained that there were in the workhouses of this country 1,100 seamen who had served some thirty and forty years in the navy, who were entitled to admission into Greenwich Hospital, but who could not be admitted, owing to the overgrown nature of the Hospital establishment. He would never believe that it was the intention of the Royal Founder of the Hospital that 1,100 seamen should be maintained in the workhouses while one third of its funds were expended in its management. As a naval officer, though with some feelings of regret, he was obliged both to suggest and concur in the scheme of the Commission. What they did object to was, that under the pretext of performing military duties, officers were appointed who from their state of health could not perform them, yet received comforts and maintenance at the public charge. A good deal had been said about freight, but he did not see how captains and commanders in the navy could be said to contribute from their funds a proportion to give them a claim to be maintained at the expense of the Hospital. He would not further detain the House. The subject had received most ample discussion. He trusted, if a Bill were necessary to alter the government of Greenwich Hospital, Her Majesty's Ministers would propose a Bill with that view; and if the other reforms indicated could be carried out by the Board of Admiralty, no time would be lost in making them. With regard to the sinecure office which his Colleagues and himself had been accused of having established, they found that from the commencement of the Hospital there had been at its head the officer who was held to be of the greatest eminence in the profession. His colleagues and himself felt that it would be to the honour and dignity of the Hospital and the profession that that should continue, especially considering the distinguished character of Sir James Gordon, now holding that office; and that was the sole reason why the recommendation had been made.
  MR. BRISCOEsaid, he concurred in thinking that great reductions could be made in the expenditure of Greenwich Hospital, and he was glad to hear that they were likely to take place. The House was indebted to the hon. and gallant Gentleman who had just sat down for much valuable assistance he had given on the

  1213
  subject to the country. In visiting Greenwich Hospital he was surprised to find that the cabins of the seamen had only four instead of eight beds, and this was the more painful when they remembered the fact that 1,100 sailors were found in the workhouses of the country He was also glad to hear that an increased allowance was to be made to the wives of the pensioners. He did not, however, find any reference made to the establishment of a girls' school for the children of the seamen. That he much regretted, because he believed it was to the absense of such a school much of the immorality of the streets of Greenwich could be traced. If the noble Lord should not propose the establishment of such a school, he (Mr. Briscoe) should feel it his duty at some future time to take the sense of the House upon it. He should like to be informed whether the £120,000, advanced on mortgage to the Commissioners of the Exhibition of 1851 in the year 1860 was still unpaid?
  MR. ANGERSTEINsaid, he thought that much of the dissension which had occurred between the Commissioners and the governing body of the hospital was to be traced to the appointment, during the administration of the late Sir Robert Peel, of a naval Commissioner. The increase of the expense, which had risen from £40 per man in 1849, to £60 per man in 1859, was the result of the Admiralty Order of 1852, by which it was directed that no man should be admitted to the hospital but men who had served in the Royal Navy for ten years. There was not, of course, an indefinite number of such men, and the number of pensioners fell from 2,710 to 1,600.
  MR. INGHAMsaid, that the words of the early Acts of Parliament clearly showed that it was intended that the benefits of the hospitals should be enjoyed by seamen and by seamen alone. He should like to know whether the further provision which was contemplated by the Government for the wives of seamen would include the erection of homes, and he hoped that some arrangement would be made by which seamen who resided in the country, and were candidates for admission to the hospital, might be spared the expense of coming to London to be examined.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, that the question had already been so ably discussed, especially by the hon. Gentleman who introduced the subject, and by his hon. Friend the Civil Lord of the Admiralty, that he should confine himself to
  1214
  giving explanations upon a few points connected with the management of the hospital which had been referred to. He was not prepared to say, nor did he think that any one who had studied the old Acts and charters would say, that it was originally intended that officers of the navy should participate in the benefits of the institution as pensioners; but from the very foundation of the Hospital it had been the practice that they should do so, and it would be extremely unjust to deprive them of advantages which they had so long enjoyed. Indirectly, officers of the navy had paid towards the institution as much money or more than represented the capital of the cost of the military establishment at Greenwich. The cost of that military establishment was only eight thousand odd hundred pounds a year; and his hon. Friend wanted to reduce that really small sum by cutting off from the establishment a certain number of old and crippled naval officers, who, in spite of their infirmities, were still able to attend to the discipline and see to the cleanliness and comfort of the men. The House must remember the case of Captain Aldham, who was nearly murdered between the const and the town of Mexico. Was it to officers like him they would grudge a position in Greenwich Hospital? No doubt the civil establishment was large and costly, but his hon. Friend the Member for Halifax had entered into minute detail, and shown that in many respects the cost of that establishment was exaggerated out of doors. It must be remembered that a great many of those employed in the civil branch were officers in the navy who had served the country long and faithfully; some were pensioners who were doing the duty of nurses and servants in the hospital, and widows of seamen were likewise reckoned. If Greenwich Hospital were treated solely on economic principles, and not regarded as one of the ancient institutions of the country, it might as well be done away with. It was like the Temple of Janus, and might almost be closed in time of peace. It should be remembered, however, that it was called into existence immediately after the great naval battle of La Hogue, with the object of finding a home for the vast number of poor crippled sailors who then returned to the country; and if a European war ever occurred, it would probably be speedily filled with crippled men. The pensioners now in the hospital were generally the men who had served in the navy from the end of the long war to the year

  1215
  1830. Those were days of economy, when the navy only consisted of about 27,000 men, and consequently the applications for admission in the present day were very few. But let it be remembered that the navy now amounts to 76,000 men, and we have in addition 16,000 Royal Naval Reserve men, who are entitled to the benefits of Greenwich Hospital, and therefore in all probability the demands on the Hospital will greatly increase. It was said that 1,100 seamen were in the different workhouses, who ought to be enjoying the benefits of Greenwich Hospital; but he maintained that every sailor who had served faithfully in the navy knew perfectly well that he had only to present himself and be Admitted. In reply to the question put by his right hon. Friend he would say that the noble Duke at the head of the Department did not think it necessary, as a matter of constant practice, to keep all the vacancies for naval officers filled; but if a case like that of Captain Aldham arose, of any one injured in the service to whom it was an object of importance to gain admission to Greenwich Hospital, the claim would certainly be considered. It was not, however, the intention of the Admiralty at that moment to fill up those vacancies. As regarded Sir Richard Bromley, he thought any reward which could be given to that most excellent, most able, and industrious old servant of the Crown would be well deserved. Her Majesty's Government, giving due consideration to his services, in placing him now in the same position in all respects which he had hitherto held as regards his pecuniary allowances, did only what they believed to be just and right. He trusted the appointment of that distinguished officer to Greenwich Hospital would tend to the reduction of expenditure in that institution, which hitherto he could not contend for a moment had been managed with a due regard to economy. The Government had chosen a most able and fitting instrument for the purpose, and he rejoiced in the appointment of Sir Richard Bromley to that office, although personally he regretted the loss of his services at the Admiralty, where he had brought the naval, the dockyard, and shipbuilding accounts into a correct and satisfactory state. His hon. Friend, who referred to the daughters of seamen at Greenwich, was probably not aware that a school for fifty girls already existed. It was no doubt capable of improvement, but the boys' school was everything that could
  1216
  be desired. He trusted that the Bill, which his hon. Friend had intimated his intention to bring in next week, would meet with the approval of the House of Commons.
  MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONSsaid, that claims for admission to Greenwich Hospital were one thing, rules of admission another. He knew a case of a seaman nearly eighty years of age, who had served twelve years in the war, been in several actions, and always borne an excellent character, who had actually paid for twelve or fourteen years, but not long enough to entitle him to a pension, and who, by the rigid rules of the establishment, could not procure admission to Greenwich Hospital.
  MR. LINDSAYsaid, the hon. Member for Halifax had paid a deservedly high compliment to the Report of the Royal Commission; but his speech, nevertheless, was an argument throughout against the recommendations of that Report. The Admiralty had done nothing towards carrying out the views of the Commissioners. They actually stood up for the unnecessarily large and inefficient establishment, which the Commissioners condemned as having been created out of revenues never meant to be applied to such purposes. It was said that those who were excluded from the benefits of the hospital would be admitted if they could show their title; but it was impossible they could be so, because a great part of the funds were misappropriated. It was acknowledged that it was contrary to the charter of the hospital and the intentions of the founders that officers should be admitted as was now done, and yet the practice was continued. Instead of considering that any reform in the institution was necessary, the Members of the Government who had spoken seemed to think that there ought to be no such reform, but all the abuses in existence should be continued. Sir Richard Bromley had been withdrawn from the service of the Admiralty on account of sickness, and yet they said they had appointed him for a purpose in accordance with the recommendation of the Commissioners—namely, the reform of Greenwich Hospital. But how could a sick man fulfil such a task as that? That was only part and parcel of the whole system of the Board of Admiralty. That Board was opposed to every real reform, and it set its face against all progress. There had been many proofs given of that fact before, and one more had been added to them that night.

CIVIL ASSISTANTS ON THE ORDNANCE SURVEY.

  OBSERVATIONS. QUESTION.
  MR. DIGBY SEYMOURsaid, he wished to call attention to the unsatisfactory position of the Civil Assistants employed on the Ordnance Survey, with reference to Promotion and Pay, and to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, Whether there is any prospect of the same principle of classification being adopted in their case which has been attended with such good results in other Departments of the Public Service? He complained of the treatment received by this meritorious class of officers and their inferior position as compared with other Governmeut employés, when, in point of fact, they rendered the most valuable services. He denied that there would be any difficulty in carrying out a system of classification, and pointed to the success which had attended the classification of valuators in the Valuation Office of Ireland.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, the subject had already been brought under the notice of the War Office when Lord Herbert was Secretary of State for War, and the proposal of the hon, and learned Member was rejected. Some correspondence took place between the noble Lord and the hon. Member, which was unfortunately of a private nature, and could not be produced. Lord Herbert's grounds of objection were, that the organization of the Ordnance Survey Office being of a totally different character to any other office, the same system was by no means applicable to them; and that the adoption of a system of classification would not only lead to considerably-increased expenditure, but would also tend to render inefficient that service which was at present well performed. Ample assistance could be obtained under the existing system, and it would be a waste of public money to increase the expense. The men employed were paid in proportion to the value of the services rendered, and that was the proper principle to follow. The cost of the changes which the hon. and learned Member advocated would amount to £1,000,000 for the whole survey of the United Kingdom. The organization of the department was worthy of the admiration of the country, and foreign governments had sent persons to this country with the view of imitating it.
  THE LORD MAYOR (Mr. Alderman ROSE)said, the men did their work, which was admitted to be admirably executed,
  1218
  under a feeling that they were ground down, because they were without hope of rising, no matter what zeal and ability they might display, and were altogether dependent on the caprice of the officer over them. It was a strange thing that it should be impossible to classify a department in which the wages varied from 9d. to 19 s. a day, and the work from the commonest labourer's work to the highest scientific work that could be executed. Again, it often happened that the men were put under the command of persons whom they had instructed, and the effect of that was to produce a feeling of despair. There ought to be a classification, which would enable men to rise in position in proportion to their abilities. There was also a grievance in the case of these clerks which ought to be remedied. The rate of pay was not half that which was given by civil engineers.
  MR. MOFFATTobserved, that in the case of the Irish survey there was a system of classification, and it had worked well. He could not help remarking that it was absurd to suppose that the adoption of the same system in England would involve the cost of £1,000,000.
  SIR MORTON PETOsaid, he thought that the Government proceeded on a vicious principle when, in engaging their servants, they allowed the question of a retiring pension to come under consideration. The Government should, like all great engineering firms, classify fairly the people they employed, and pay them adequately, so that they might be able to lay something by for an evil day.
  CAPTAIN CARNEGIEsaid, that whenever any non-combatants had anything to complain of, they heard of it immediately. The men of the engineer force were not generally in such a good position as these civil servants, and he hoped their case would be taken first into consideration.
  SIR EDWARD GROGANsaid, he thought there was great hardship in the case of those employed in the offices, and hoped, from what had been said that night in that House, the noble Lord would think it worth while to reconsider the question, as it was deserving of great consideration.

THE DANISH CLAIMS.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. MACAULAYsaid, it was well known that the British Government in 1807 confiscated a large amount of Danish property; that the produce of the sales belonged

  1219
  to the Crown exclusively, but that the Government of the day took credit for having appropriated a considerable amount of the money produced by the sales to the public service. At that late hour (twelve o'clock) he would not go into the original merits of the claims for compensation of the sufferers, or into the state of the question as it stood. On some future occasion he intended to take the sense of the House in regard to the conduct of the Government, after the address of the House praying the Crown to make payment of the adjudged claims and the gracious answer expressing Her Majesty's willingness to do so, in not taking any steps to carry that arrangement into effect. At that time, however, he should content himself with asking, whether the Government would afford him any facilities in ascertaining what were the proceeds of the Danish vessels and munitions seized by the British Government, which led the Danes to make reprisals, and to what purposes those proceeds had been applied? He understood that they amounted to between two and three millions.
  MR. PEELsaid, the Government would be glad to give the hon. and learned Gentleman every information in their power. No valuation had been made of the munitions taken from the Danes and used in British vessels, and none could be procured. As to the prize vessels, he understood that papers had already been laid before Parliament showing the amount of the proceeds, and how they were applied.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.

Supply considered in Committee.
House resumed.
Committee report Progress; to sit again on Monday next.

HARWICH HARBOUR (re-committed) BILL.

  [BILL 159] COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Milner Gibson.)
  MR. CLAYsaid, he would move as an Amendment, that the House go into Committee that day three months. The grant of public money proposed to the locality was, in his opinion, entirely with-out justification. It was as causeless an expenditure of public money as any he
  1220
  knew. If the grant were made to Harwich Harbour, a place not at all recommended in the Report of the Harbour Commission, they might as well set aside the recommendations of that Report altogether. It was far from his intention to denounce the Bill as a railway job, but it looked like an attempt to get the public money for the improvement of a harbour which it was the interest of the Great Eastern Railway to have improved, but not that of the public. He repudiated the taunt that it was because he represented a rival port that he made any opposition to the Bill. Hull did not require to be nursed at the expense of the nation; and if even any such demand were made, he should oppose it.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House will, upon this day three months, resolve itself into the said Committee,"—(Mr. Clay,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, he could assure the House that the Bill had nothing to do with the Great Eastern Railway Company, and that the subject had been for years under the consideration of the Government. It had been represented that there was a pressing danger of losing the Harbour of Harwich by a point of sand growing out in a westerly direction until it met the shoal water. The question really was, whether it was not worth while to save the harbour, which was valuable not only for commercial purposes, but as a harbour of refuge, and for a North Sea fleet, should it ever be necessary to have a fleet stationed there. The Admiralty, the Trinity Corporation, the Tidal Harbour Commissioners, and a Select Committee, had all reported in favour of something being done; and it was now proposed to contribute half the necessary funds from the State, leaving the other half to be supplied from local sources. He thought it would be a pity to lose the opportunity of preserving the valuable estuary, and he trusted the hon. Gentleman would allow them to consider the clauses in Committee.
  CAPTAIN JERVISsaid, that the borough of Harwich had nothing to do with Harwich Harbour, and, as far as the borough was concerned, it did not matter

  1221
  whether the silting up continued or not. The estuary was a sheet of water, over which the borough had no jurisdiction, and the trade of the borough was not dependent upon it. The Bill was founded upon the unanimous recommendation of a Select Committee, of which he was Chairman; and he denied that the members of the Committee were unusually favourable to Harwich, or careless about the expenditure of public money.
  MR. CRAWFORDsaid, he thought that the borough of Harwich must have an interest in the harbour being kept open, but he was inclined to believe that the local jealousy of Hull had a great deal to do with the opposition. It was most important to the coasting trade that the harbour should be kept open, and he hoped the Bill would receive the assent of Parliament.
  VISCOUNT GALWAYsaid, that as a member of the Committee he approved the proposal to do something for Harwich.
  MR. LINDSAYsaid, he would allow that the improvement of Harwich would be of advantage to the shipping interest, but it was not one of the Harbours which had been mentioned either by the Committee or the Commission on Harbours of Refuge.
  MR. CLAYsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clauses 1 to 22 were agreed to.
  Clause 23 (Power for Board to borrow for Works at Landguard Point).
  MR. LINDSAYsaid, he would move the omission of the latter part of the clause, which gave power to the Government to grant £10,000 to the Harbour of Harwich.
  Amendment proposed, in page 10, line 10, to leave out from the word "both" to the end of the Clause.—(Mr. Lindsay.)
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, the omission of that part of the clause would be as good as throwing out the Bill, and he must, therefore, support the clause as it stood. It was doing a great public service at a small cost.
  MR. THOMPSON, said he should support the Amendment.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 153; Noes 24: Majority 129.
  Clause agreed to; as were the remaining Clauses.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered on Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 176.]

MUTINY (EAST INDIA) ACT REPEAL BILL— [BILL 166.]—COMMITTEE.
Order for Committee read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
Whereupon Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Wykeham Martin.)
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Main Question put, and agreed to.
Bill considered in Committee.
House resumed.
Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read 3o on Monday next.

WATCHMEN IN TOWNS (IRELAND) BILL— [BILL 102.]

  THIRD READING.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."—(Lord Naas.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, he must also oppose the Bill.
  MR. BAGWELLsaid, that as the Bill had been introduced with the approval of the right hon. Gentleman, who had promised to support it, and as he now took a contrary course, he thought it would be useless to press it any further. He should, therefore, with the the permission of the House, withdraw it.
  Whereupon Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Captain Carnegie.)
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Question, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question," put, and negatived.
  Words added.
  Main Question as amended, put, and agreed to.
  Bill put of for three months.

THE LISBURN ELECTION.

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. BAINESsaid, he would move the adjournment of the House. He agreed with the hon. Member for Knaresborough that a prosecution ought to be instituted, but he thought that at that hour (a quarter to two) the subject was too serious to be undertaken. He understood that the Chairman of the Committee which unseated Mr. Barbour did not think that one of the parties named ought to prosecuted.
  MR. WYKEHAM MARTINseconded the Motion.
  MR. COLLINSsaid, a private Member had no chance of bringing on such a question except by waiting till two o'clock in the morning. He was prepared to go on, and he thought he should be able to induce the House to agree to his Motion.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Baines.)
  The House divided:—Ayes 19; Noes 142: Majority 123.
  MR. COLLINSsaid, he then rose to move that Mr. Attorney General for Ireland should be instructed to prosecute John Doherty Barbour, Robert Barbour, and Thomas Barbour, for bribery, treating, and undue influence, committed by them at the late election for the Borough of Lisburn. The Committee had reported that John Doherty Barbour and his partners, the other two Gentlemen named in the Resolution, had been guilty of bribery, treating, and undue influence. It appeared from the evidence that Messrs. Barbour, who were great manufacturers, had a large mill at a short distance from Lisburn, in which they collected a number of voters and retained them there for eleven or twelve days, eating, drinking, dancing, fiddling, and card-playing. The premises were watched from nine at night until six in the morning, by three men with loaded guns, and none of the persons were allowed to leave the place. One man had no vote, but he was retained, as found by the Committee, in order to induce him to personate
  1224
  his late father. All the three persons against whom he desired the House to direct the prosecution, were, by the evidence taken before the Committee, directly connected with these proceedings. Thomas Barbour visited the mill, and spoke to the persons who were confined it it. Robert Barbour himself induced the non-voter to go the factory, and offered to remunerate him if he would personate his father and vote for John Doherty Barbour. He had also offered to purchase the land of a voter, and provide for his son and daughter. He was not a purist in these matters, but that was a gross and flagrant case, and in his opinion the House had no alternative but to prosecute these three persons.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That Mr. Attorney General for Ireland be instructed to prosecute John Doherty Barbour, Robert Barbour, and Thomas Barbour, for bribery, treating, and undue influence committed by them at the late Election for the Borough of Lisburn.—(Mr. Collins.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Bagwell.)
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he hoped that the Chairman of the Committee would be allowed to make the statement which he believed he was prepared to submit to the House.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Question again proposed.
  MR. EVANSsaid, that he was Chairman of the Committee which tried the Petition, and he was quite prepared to support the Motion for the prosecution of John Doherty Barbour and Robert Barbour, but he should move the omission from the Resolution of the name of Thomas Barbour. Mr. Thomas Barbour was no friend of his, but the reason why he thought it undesirable to prosecute him was that he did not think that there would be the slightest chance of obtaining his conviction. The only evidence against him appeared to be a conversation with a non-elector; and he believed that the other members of the Committee agreed with him that it was not desirable that Thomas Barbour should be prosecuted. He would therefore move the omission of the name of Thomas Barbour from the Motion.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the words "Thomas Barbour."—(Mr. Evans.)
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he thought the dignity of the House would not be promoted by directing the prosecution

  1225
  of a person against whom the evidence was so slight as to make it improbable that there would be a conviction. In the case of John Doherty Barbour and Robert Barbour, he thought, that if the evidence which had been obtained against them was not negatived by other testimony, convictions probably would be obtained; but he did not anticipate any such result against Thomas Barbour. The evidence against that gentleman had been somewhat overstated by the hon. Member for Knares-borough, and, in his opinion, it would not be desirable that he should be prosecuted.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he hoped that his hon. Friend the Member for Knaresborough would accept the Amendment.
  LORD ENFIELDsaid, that as a Member of the Committee he wished to express his concurrence in that recommendation.
  MR. COLLINSsaid, he would consent to omit the name of Mr. Thomas Barbour.
  Question "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and negatived.
  Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That Mr. Attorney General for Ireland be instructed to prosecute John Doherty Barbour and Robert Barbour, for bribery, treating, and unduo influence committed by them at the late Election for the Borough of Lisburn.

POOR RELIEF.—SELECT COMMITTEE.
MR. C. P. VILLIERSsaid, he rose to move that the Select Committee to inquire into the administration of the relief of the poor be re-appointed.
Select Committee appointed.
"To inquire into the administration of the Relief of the Poor under the Orders, Rules, and Regulations issued by the Poor Law Commissioners and the Poor Law Board, pursuant to the provisions of the Poor Law Amendment Act, and into the operation of the Laws relating to the Relief of the Poor."
Ordered, That the Select Committee do consist of twenty-one Members:—
Mr. VILLIERS, Mr. CAIRO, Lord EDWARD HOWARD, Mr. KEKEWICH, Mr. AYRTON, Sir JOHN ACTON, Sir WILLIAM JOLLIFFE, Mr. WAUPOLE, Mr. LYALL, Mr. Alderman SIDNEY, Mr. LOWE, Mr. BAZLEY, Sir GEORGE BOWYER, Lord FERMOY, Mr. JOHN TOLLEMACHE, Mr. MONCKTON MILNES, Mr. LOCKE, Lord ROBERT CECIL, Mr. EDWARD PLEY-DELL BOUVERIE and Colonel PENNANT:—Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum.—(Mr. Villiers.)
House adjourned at a quarter before Three o'clock, till Monday next.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Marriages Registration (Ireland) * (No. 147); Waywardens Contracts [H.L.]* (No. 148); British Columbia Boundaries [H.L.]* (No. 149).
Committee—London Coal and Wine Duties Continuance* (No. 104); Local Government Supplemental * (No. 130).
Report—Local Government Supplemental *.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
LORD REDESDALEmoved, That section 9 of Standing Order No. 178 be suspended during the Remainder of the Session.
Agreed to.

POLAND—ALLEGED RUSSIAN CRUELTIES.

  QUESTION.
  VISCOUNT STRATFORD DE REDCLIFFEsaid, he wished to put to his noble Friend at the head of the Foreign Office a Question or two upon a subject which he deemed of the utmost importance. Those Questions referred to the manner in which the war was being carried on in Poland, and to the cruelties which it was alleged were being practised in suppressing the insurrection. It would be within their recollection, that when the

  1115
  subject was brought before their Lordships a few weeks ago by the noble Earl opposite, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs gave them to understand that he would make a communication to the House as soon as the state of the negotiations would permit. He should have waited with patience for the noble Earl to fulfil that promise at any time when his noble Friend should judge that the proper time had arrived; but seeing that the public prints contained statements which must produce a great impression upon the countries of our allies, and might materially influence public opinion in this country in a manner ultimately inconvenient to Her Majesty's Government, be thought it right to call attention to those statements by means of the Questions which he should put to his noble Friend. The circumstances which were noticed in the papers might, or might not, be strictly true. There was at present no official information as to these atrocities; but his noble Friend might throw some light upon the matter. It was impossible, however, to consider the nature of the war, and not to see that in all probability very great cruelties would be perpetrated. Such large interests were at stake, the character of the Russian Government was so well known, and the insurrection was so formidable, that no doubt there would be great severity practised and great abuse of authority, He would read the substance of what he had taken from the public newspapers during the last two or three days, connected with a warfare of a most murderous character and with a, struggle of a most exciting nature. The fact was that there now existed a reign of terror upon both sides—upon the side of authority and on the side of the insurgents. The principal items of intelligence which he gathered from the newspapers were these:—"Priests and citizens executed without forms of law, and with circumstances of superfluous cruelty." "Women and children put to death wholesale in their places of shelter." "Unprovoked attacks on private houses." "Prisoners slaughtered in cold blood." "Threats of forcing people to address the Emperor on pain of being hanged in case of refusal." "The prisons full to overflowing, and only relieved by daily executions." "Landowners imprisoned, and their estates confiscated, for giving food or drink to passing insurgents." "Ladies threatened with the knout or rod for being dressed in mourning, or not giving up their accused husbands."
  1116
  He believed their Lordships would agree with him, that if one-tenth of those statements were true, there would be sufficient to force the European Powers to a deep consideration of the subject, and to call forth a universal expression of detestation. He believed that it was the natural result of desperation on the one side, and a sense of endangered power on the other. He gave his noble Friend, and he gave Her Majesty's Government generally, credit for being animated by the best wishes, and by a desire to find a satisfactory solution. But he could not avert his eyes from the consequences of this state of things, and he was therefore anxious to elicit from his noble Friend something positive, or something on which reliance could be placed. The subject was one of great importance. The circumstances were so pressing, so shocking, and so fraught with evil consequences, that he hardly needed to apologize for occupying a few moments of their Lordships' time. It was of the greatest importance to ward off any collision between the different Powers. Things were coming to the point at which principles would be at enmity with each other, and the interests of different countries might come into collision; and it was for the interests of this country, as well as of Europe, to see whether a state of things could not be brought about which would be satisfactory not only to the parties concerned, but to Europe generally. He did not pretend to made any suggestion on the subject, but he entertained a strong opinion that unless something were done of a positive character which would produce a separation between the two parties so long engaged in hostility with each other, and whose hostility was of a nature not easily to be set aside, there could be no cure for an evil which had so frequently proved itself dangerous to the peace of Europe, and which would become more and more so. He wished to ask the noble Earl, At what period of the Session he anticipated being able to lay on the table further communications with respect to the affairs of Poland; and also whether he had received any information respecting the rigour and cruelty displayed by the Russian authorities towards their prisoners, and particularly as to the issue of the atrocious order for the flogging of women?
  EARL RUSSELL:—My Lords, with respect to the first Question of my noble Friend, I have to say that no long time

  1117
  will elapse before I shall be able to lay additional papers on the table of this House, containing communications which have taken place, on the part of Her Majesty's Government, respecting the affairs of Poland. On Wednesday last despatches left London, Paris, and Vienna for St. Petersburg, containing the views of the three Powers respecting the present state of affairs in Poland. The views expressed, I think, will be found to be very nearly identical. When an answer has been received, I will lay the papers on the table; and, I will add, that if there is any delay—a delay of more than a few days—I will lay on the table the communication which Her Majesty's Government has made to St. Petersburg, without waiting for an answer. With respect to the noble Lord's second Question, the only corroboration we have of the accounts of the rigour and cruelty said to be practised by the Russian Government which have appeared in the newspapers, is a passage in a despatch from our Consul at Warsaw, from which it appears that some persons who had been taken prisoners by the Russians had been put to death without any judicial process—I suppose by some form of court martial. As to the atrocious order said to have been issued with regard to the flogging of women, I cannot believe in the existence of it. We have had no authentic accounts of such an order being issued; and I certainly could not address a remonstrance to the Russian Government, except I had the best evidence of the issue of such an order. Atrocious acts of pillage have been committed by peasants; but I am assured by Prince Gortschak off that inquiries have been set on foot with a view of convicting the persons who have been guilty of these acts, and that some are already in prison awaiting their trial. The Russian Government entirely denied having anything to do with the acts with which these persons are charged.
  LORD BROUGHAMsaid, he was extremely rejoiced to hear that his noble Friend did not confirm the reports which had been received in this country respecting the issue of a most atrocious order by the Russian authorities in Poland. No doubt, there had been much exaggeration; but for there being much foundation for the accounts received he could answer from his own information. Unfortunately—though he did not say it in extenuation—atrocities were too frequently inseparable from civil war. Not only on this side,
  1118
  but on the other side of the Atlantic, much was going on which was to be deplored and to be reprobated. He did not mean to say that in the contest going on between the North and the South any atrocities had been committed of the same character as those described by his noble Friend opposite as having been perpetrated in Poland, but there had been abundance of things done not only to be lamented, but strongly to be reprobated. He only wished that he could see any prospect of an end being put to that contest, which was disapproved and lamented by the unanimous voice of Europe.

BRAZIL—PAPERS MOVED FOR.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: I rise, my Lords, according to Notice, to call the attention of the House to the state of our Relations with Brazil, and to move for two documents, one of which the noble Earl (Earl Russell) says he will produce, and which will explain the ground on which he assessed the damages demanded from the Brazilian Government—and the other one which I think ought to be presented, because it contains the first claim made by Her Majesty's Government on the Brazilian Government in the case of the Prince of Wales. I think your Lordships will not think that I am trespassing on your time uselessly, when, after having made this Motion, I proceed to make a few observations with respect to the state of our relations with Brazil. It is impossible that some remarks should not be made on the subject in both Houses of Parliament. I think it plainly the duty of some Member of this or the other House to bring the subject forward; and I am sure that the noble Earl will allow, that having laid the papers on the table, he has challenged your Lordships' attention to it. Your Lordships will remember that two months ago I gave notice that I would bring on this subject; and that then the noble Earl begged me, for his own personal convenience, to defer it; and he afterwards informed the House that he considered the matter settled. I therefore thought it better to leave well—or rather ill—alone, and say no more on the subject. I was in hopes that the question had somehow or other been settled, and that the Brazilian Government had yielded in some way or other to the demands of Her Majesty's Government. But, my Lords, we now find that such is not the case. The noble Earl himself has been as much disappointed as your Lordships; for after the

1119
opinion he gave, that the matter was settled, I find that the Brazilian Minister has actually left Her Majesty's Court, believing that he could no longer consistently with his honour remain. My Lords, this is a very serious event to have taken place as connected with any country; but I consider that there is no country, great or small, with whose interests we are connected, a rupture with which would be of greater importance than with Brazil. My Lords, we must remember that an envoy of a foreign country cannot be driven away, or leave this country, as a swallow at the end of the summer to seek a more genial climate, without attracting our notice:—we cannot allow a Minister to depart from this country, declaring that he has been unjustly treated, and that he cannot, consistently with the dignity of his Sovereign, remain here; and it behoves the noble Earl this evening, if he can, to show that he has been right in all his claims—that he is not only right in what he did claim, but that when making reprisals, when the claim was refused, he did so in the most conciliatory and in the manner least offensive for a transaction of this kind, when we are dealing with an old ally and a friendly nation. Now, my Lords, I consider this subject of very great importance in a national and a political point of view. Looking at the commerce with this country, there is hardly a country that is of greater value in her relations to England than Brazil. It is said—and, I believe, truly said—that our commerce, exports and imports, amounts to at least £20,000,000; and it is, I believe, perfectly true that the English capital invested in that country amounts to £15,000,000 or £16,000,000. But beyond the commercial interests, we have to look at the political interests involved. Brazil is a country with which it is of great importance that we should maintain friendship. Supposing that unfortunately we were at war with the United States—or what were once called the United States—of America, there is no country in the world of greater importance to us as an ally or as a neutral power than Brazil. There is no country who, if she went against us, or if she acted unfairly towards us, while we were engaged in such a war, could do us more harm than Brazil. What is the state of that country now? They are exasperated to the greatest degree—to such a degree, that forgetting all party dissensions, which are very strong in Brazil, the whole of their Houses of Parliament went
1120
unanimously to the foot of the throne to condole with His Majesty the Emperor on the insult which had been offered to him. But not only the representatives of the people, but the people themselves, are exasperated with what has been done—and I think I shall be able to show your Lordships there is nothing more natural than that they should he exasperated. Mr. Consul Christie was anything but correct in his anticipation that all passion on the subject would soon die away. I hold in my hand a letter written on the 10th of last month by a person at the head of a rich and powerful English house in Brazil. He says—
"As I foresaw, the English question has raised a most powerful opposition to the present Ministry, and at this moment there is little doubt that they will retire, and it may be that the Emperor will be compelled to dissolve the Chamber…. I assure you the dispute with England is far more serious than you believe it at home. Indeed, so far as I can judge from the English papers, you know nothing about it. Here, absurd as it may be, all is warlike—a national subscription coming in every day, and the Emperor eternally inspecting fortifications and superintending artillery practice. The National Guard, also, are called upon to do permanent service as soldiers. In the speech from the throne on Sunday last, the Emperor said he was waiting indemnities and satisfaction from England. I do not believe anybody knows how it will all end."
Now, I ask your Lordships whether that is not a painful state of things to exist in the only country which is a model for South American nationalities—the only country in that part of the world which has survived its childhood uncorrupted by the democratic institutions which prevail every-where else there? It has survived even the great States in North America. And this is the country which the acts of England have placed in such a position that it is as likely as not we may see the Republican party at the head of its affairs.
My Lords, in proceeding with the question, I have four charges to make against the acts of the noble Earl opposite. My first charge is, that he made no allowance whatever for the peculiar state of the country in which those events took place. My second charge is, that he abdicated his own judgment and responsibility to his subordinates in Brazil. I am ready to admit that in some instances the noble Earl has been as much sinned against as sinning; but a person in the position of the noble Earl is a sinner when he allows himself to be sinned against. My third charge against the noble Earl is the imperious style in which he addresses an ally of Her Majesty. I charge him with not having used his

1121
personal exertions to settle this question, but left it to be settled by his subordinates. And my fourth charge against him is that of having committed illegal and impolitic acts when he executed the reprisals; and I hold, that even if those reprisals were justifiable, the manner in which they were executed cannot be justified.
Now, my Lords, as to the first point, the noble Earl made little or no allowance for the circumstances of the country. He forgot the history of Brazil; he has forgotten to consider its immense size, and how wild and almost unpeopled a great part of that vast continent is. He has also forgotten to consider what I may call the youth of that country. It is only forty years old. It is the offspring of one of our oldest allies in Europe, but its existence as a separate nation dates to only forty years back. And, my Lords, what was the history of other countries when only forty years old? What was the history of our own? I will not go back to the time of the Conquest, or to the time of the Edwards, or to the time of Elizabeth; nor shall I go back even to the time of the Stuarts; but I shall take that period to which the noble Earl himself is so fond of referring—the beginning of our constitutional history, 1688, when certainly we had fallen into something like organization, and from which our existing liberty may be said to date. What were we forty years after that date, which brings us down to 1728? What were we then as respects our police and the organization of our society? Why the days of 1728 were those of Jack Sheppard, Jonathan Wyld, and Captain Macheath. The state of things existing among us then was no more to be compared to that which exists at Rio now than a society of wild Indians is to that of a civilized people. At that time burglaries, highway robberies, and assassinations were of frequent occurrence in the suburbs of London. And what were the country parts of England in those days? What was Cornwall? What were the people there? What was Hampshire, my own county, where every magistrate was a smuggler? Then go to the Hebrides—see what they were. Read the accounts given of them by Sir Walter Scott and Lord Macaulay. In fact, what was this country forty years after 1728? Yet the noble Earl treats Brazil, which is not one quarter civilized and one fifth populated, as if it were an old established nation, which should have its police arrangements cut
1122
and dry as they are in this metropolis. Again, what is the position of the very spot on which the occurrences, which led to this diplomatic rupture, took place? Al-bardao is no less than 900 miles from Rio. It is eighty miles from the little capital of the province in which it is situate. The arm of the Executive must be very long indeed if it can reach effectively to such a distance. Such was the stage on which this unfortunate shipwreck took place—this unfortunate dispute arose. Let us now look at the actors. The first actor was Mr. Consul Vereker. I have not the honour of knowing him, nor do I think that when in office I had much official communication with him; but I have before me what has been stated about him by his colleague Mr. Consul Christie. Speaking of Mr. Vereker, Mr. Christie says—
"It is of course known to the British Government, as it is to your Lordships, that Mr. Vereker when he lately came from Rio Grande on his way home, was in a state of nervous excitement, with a delusion about attempts to assassinate him."
It is a disagreeable thing to have to mention these circumstances; but they are perfectly notorious, and it is impossible to omit them in the consideration of the case, because the opinions of Mr. Vereker, as transmitted to the noble Earl, have a very strong bearing on the part which the noble Earl took in the matter; and in the progress of the case I think I shall be able to show that Mr. Vereker very much misrepresented the case to the Foreign Secretary. The next actor on the stage is Mr. Christie himself, our Minister at Rio. With respect to this gentleman I am not going into the history, which, I regret, was brought forward in another place, with respect to his correspondence with his American colleague. Papers on the subject were Bent to me. I suppose Mr. Christie sent them, for they are in vindication of that gentleman. I have nothing to do with the cause of the dispute to which they refer; but, whether it was his misfortune or his fault, he was not on good terms with the Brazilian Minister nor with colleagues of his in Brazil. I say it may not be his fault, but certainly it is a very great misfortune not only to him but to his Sovereign. There can be nothing so fatal to our interests in a foreign country as that the English representative at the Court of that country should not be on good personal terms with the Foreign Minister of that Government. If he is not, and any dispute arises, it is hopeless to think of settling it.

1123
It is equally to be deplored that a diplomatic agent should not be on good terms with his colleagues from other countries, for they may have it in their power to materially assist him in settling any dispute that may arise. I recollect that in 1858, after my noble Friend who had preceded me in the Foreign Office and myself had failed in obtaining the release of Poerio and his fellow prisoners, I had the honour to attend Her Majesty in a journey which she made to Berlin. There I met the representative of the Sicilian Court, and I had some conversation with him on the subject of the liberation of Poerio, and I believe that it was in consequence of that conversation Poerio obtained his liberty. I do not know how the desired result was brought abont. I suppose the gentleman to whom I refer had considerable interest with the Sicilian Government or with the King himself; but, at all events, the fact shows how useful a colleague may be in assisting an English Minister at a foreign Court. Unfortunately, Mr. Christie's position in Rio was such as I have described, and it appears evident from the papers that this was the case; for in no instance can I make out that he had any personal communications on this subject with the Brazilian Minister until just before he was going to make reprisals. He seems to have had but one mode of proceeding, and that, as all your Lordships who know anything of diplomacy must be aware, is not at all a conciliatory one. Mr. Christie begins with a note, goes on with a note, and ends with a note. Now, a note in diplomacy is very much what a cartel was in the days when gentlemen quarrelled and meant to fight. When two Ministers have a conversation, it is common enough for one to say, "Don't send me a note. We will talk the matter over again." A note is a very formal and solemn proceeding, and certainly is anything but a friendly one. But this is the way in which Mr. Christie carried on his communications with the Brazilian Minister; and of personal communications, with the exception I have mentioned, he seems to have had none. However, the noble Earl seems to have placed implicit confidence in Mr. Christie, and I think he will himself now confess that his confidence was to some degree misplaced. The noble Earl also seems to have placed implicit confidence in Admiral Warren. No doubt Admiral Warren is a useful officer; but it is not for Admirals to settle what demands one Government
1124
shall make upon another; and yet the noble Earl accepted Admiral Warren's advice as to the demands he ought to make upon Brazil. Independently of this, the noble Earl committed a very grave error. He took the advice of men who stood, as it were, on the field of battle, who were heated with the dispute, who considered themselves offended, and who, of course, felt and were writing in that sense. In the quiet chambers of the Foreign Office, the noble Earl, with his excellent judgment, if he had taken the question into his own hands, might have settled all difficulties, and yet not have bated one jot the honour of his country. At that period the calmness and the judgment for which I, and many others around me, gave the noble Earl credit, during the dispute with the Cabinet of Washington, were especially needed. Am I going too far when I say that in that dispute with the Cabinet of Washington, the noble Earl behaved like an English Minister, and in this dispute with Brazil like a Yankee Minister? Looking at the despatches which passed in the two cases, no one would suppose that they were written by the same hand; for the one is all dignity and calmness, and the other all violence and injustice, both as to words and acts. Let me now recapitulate, as shortly as I can, the loss of the Prince of Wales. This vessel was lost on the desert shore of Albardao, on the 9th of June 1861, A few days afterwards, a gentleman named Soares, a sort of rough magistrate residing on the coast, reported that such a wreck had taken place. On the 12th it was reported to the sub-delegate of police, twenty-four miles off. Mr. Vereker left Rio Grande on the 14th, and reached Albardao on the 16th—so that not much time was lost—and he returned to Rio Grande on the 18th. The delegate gave orders for an inquest and inquiry on the 19th, and on the 22nd of June—that is to say, less than a fortnight after the wreck—an inquest was held on some of the bodies. Mr. Vereker, however, having these delusions, I suppose, from the first, magnified the case to a great extent. I do not for an instant doubt that there was wrecking—that part of the cargo was washed ashore, and part of it plundered by the wild people of the coast; but I do not believe in the murders of which those persons are accused; and even in this country, if there was no more evidence of murder, we could not obtain a verdict against any man. Mr. Vereker's

1125
conduct was most strange. He got what in England we should call a posse comitatus to accompany him, and went on horseback to the scene of the wreck. He there met with another posse comitatus, which belonged to the Inspector of the district, Senhor Fans tino. What comes into his head? Not that Senhor Faustino and he had the same object in view, but that this person and his comrades were his enemies. So he began to count which had the larger number of men, and finding that he had fewer men than the other—though he seems to have been a bad arithmetician, and precisely the reverse was the Fact—he said he thought it dangerous to go inland and make any further search. Being now very hungry and tired, he went to the house of M. Soares, a sort of yeoman magistrate, like many who in 1728 were to be found in this country. There he found two Bibles, and—what he was perhaps just as glad to find—two young ladies. They looked very grave and extremely bored by seeing Mr Vereker and his posse comitatus; and because they showed it, he noted this fact, which was afterwards quoted by the noble Earl in his demands as a proof that the people on the coast were guilty of the crimes charged against them. Really, if this were not a very serious matter, one would be inclined to laugh, in reading Mr. Vereker's despatches, at the foundation for the charges made. Mr. Consul Vereker communicates with Mr. Christie, who takes all for gospel, and proceeds ac cordingly, he himself never having been within 900 miles of the place. The next mistake was in accusing the Brazilian Government of a disinclination to go into the matter; and another was in immediately sending two English ships of war to the coast—why, I do not know, but it was said that they were to assist the investigation. Now, that was a very great mistake. The Brazilian Minister says—
"Those embarrassments and difficulties were, I can assure Mr. Christie, increased by the presence of the foreign force in the port, a force which, the public voice said, had come to support the claims of the British Consul, and which, arousing the susceptibilities of the population, who regarded it as offensive to the national independence and dignity, would render unavailing, if not impossible, the efforts of the authorities, because no one would be ready to give such information as he might possess, it being more probable that, from pique, the flight of those compromised would be facilitated."
That is perfectly true, and afterwards he describes how jealous the inhabitants of
1126
the coast were when they saw these ships arrive. Mr. Christie, indeed, says that they were gunboats, and only had a gun apiece. But, my Lords, if a single-barrelled pistol is put to my head, it is just as much a menace as if a revolver were held there. It was the insult and the appearance of menace these vessels brought with them which was felt by the Brazilians. This was the first, though not the least, mistake made during these transactions. With regard to the alleged murders, there was no proof to be got, but there is considerable evidence on the other side. Four bodies were found stripped, it is true; but there was no mark of violence found on them. I should say the probability is that these bodies had been found on the beach near high-water mark, that they had been dragged a little way up, and then had been stripped. Two were found clasped in one another's arms, and that is not in the position of murdered men. One remarkable passage is contained in the papers with regard to the murders. Mr. Stephens, the owner of the vessel, who seems to have pressed the noble Earl pretty hard during the eighteen months which the negotiations lasted, writes deliberately to the Foreign Office, and says—
"I have ascertained that the captain, his wife, and crew, landed safely with his boats on the Brazilian territory, with his British flag, chronometer, nautical instruments, log-book, clearance, and his British register in his pocket, with provisions, and all other necessaries, except firearms or weapons of defence. These were all taken possession of, and the captain and the crew were immediately plundered and murdered, and four of the crew, who escaped about four miles inland, were then murdered and partially plundered."
Mr. Stephens, living at Glasgow, supplies this information, and Mr. Layard naturally asks him how he has ascertained it, to which he replies—
"I had my information from the captain and crew of the schooner Hound, wrecked in the same gale, who saw five of the bodies with knife-cuts and other wounds, and some of them with their heads battered, their clothes rent, and evidence of violent struggles. I would gladly go to London any day after this week you could spare time to go into the matter."
Where is that captain whose name is mentioned by Mr. Stephens as describing the details of a most horrible murder? When an offer is made to the Foreign Office that he should attend and state all he knows, we hear no more of that captain? Where is that man who knows all the circumstances? The noble Earl, no doubt, will tell us what has become of this witness, of whom, at

1127
present, we know nothing further. Now, my Lords, with respect to the acts of the Brazilian Government. They did, it appears, hold an inquest upon the four bodies; but they said of those bodies buried on the sands, owing to the shifting of the sands, they could not be found. A verdict was returned according to the laws of the country. Now, these are points which it is essential should be borne in mind in considering the bearing of international law upon this subject. The Brazilian Government dismissed two officers for being slow or negligent, and they imprisoned eleven persons, but they could not bring any culprits to justice for murders which they denied—and, I think, justly denied—had been committed. There is a little episode comes in here, which I do not think is creditable to the British Government. It appears that after these four bodies had been disinterred at the request of the British Government, and carried eighty miles also at their request, they were again buried with Protestant rites. The expenses of this melancholy duty amounted to £32 1s. 1d.; that enormous amount was the first reclamation which England made of Brazil. Your Lordships will hardly believe, that for these acts, which were done at the request of England, the British Government refused to pay £32 1s. 1d. I need not say more upon that point, except that it shows, unfortunately too clearly, the animus which was influencing Mr. Christie and Mr. Vereker. My Lords, the noble Earl, not having been satisfied with the decision of the coroner's inquest, nor with the oft-repeated declarations of the Brazilian Government, that notwithstanding all their efforts they could not bring any of the malefactors to justice, the noble Earl thought it his duty to insist upon compensation. Now, it appears to me a very grave question, whether the noble Earl had any right to ask the Brazilian Government for compensation under such circumstances. The Brazilian Foreign Minister, in page 29 of the correspondence, after speaking of the international law upon the subject, and reminding the British Government that, at its request, an inquest had been held upon the bodies, goes on to say—
"No Government, as Mr. Christie well knows, can be answerable for prejudices caused by outrages committed without its concurrence or instigation in its territory, or by its subjects, against foreigners. The duties and efforts of a just and conscientious Government cannot go further than the employment of the whole means within its
1128
reach to insure the conviction of the fact, and the punishment of those proved to be the criminals."
I think that is a proposition that cannot be disputed, and I am supported in that opinion by the authority of Vattel and of Dr. Phillimore. Vattel says—
"International law does not permit reprisals, except for a cause evidently just, for a debt clear and undoubted; for he who puts forward a doubtful pretension can only ask at first an equitable inquiry into his right. In the second place, before a recourse to reprisals, one must have uselessly demanded justice—at least, have good reason to believe that it would be demanded in vain; then only may one obtain justice by one's own bands. Reprisals ought to be grounded on a denial of justice, either an actual denial or one which there is good reason to apprehend. In all cases susceptible of doubt, a Sovereign ought not to listen to the complaints of his subjects against a foreign tribunal, nor to attempt to screen them from the effects of a sentence passed in doe form, for that would be the means of exciting continual troubles. The law of nations directs that States should reciprocally pay that kind of deference to each other's jurisdiction, for the reason that definitive sentence shall be esteemed just."
Dr. Phillimore lays down the same doctrine. He says—
"Letters of reprisal are not to be granted without a full knowledge of the causes that justify them. Moreover, it must be res minime dubia, in which justice has been denied, and it must have been absolutely denied by all the tribunals of the country before which the cause could be brought. An erroneous sentence conscientiously given by free judges, unbiassed and unintmidated by any judicial authority, affords no just ground for reprisals."
And the escape of a malefactor is by no means so unusual a thing as the noble Earl supposes. Even in this country malefactors sometimes escape. There are at this moment several malefactors whom we cannot apprehend. A murder was recently committed in St. Giles's early in the day, and the murderer has not yet been taken. The noble Earl opposite would have said, "We have done our best; our police have used their efforts, and we can do no more." Well, but supposing that the murdered woman to whom I allude had been a Brazilian woman, and that the Brazilian Government should demand of us the capture of her murderer. Could they not, with much greater reason, express themselves dissatisfied with our statement that with all our efforts we have been unable to arrest the murderer? Would they not express their surprise that in such an immense city as London, where there was so large and so efficient a body of police, that a person guilty of such a hideous crime could escape from the hands of justice? Well, but that is precisely our charge

1129
against the Brazilian authorities, who have not at their command anything like the means possessed by this country for carrying out the ends of justice. Well, I think that the noble Earl should be satisfied with the explanation of the Brazilian Government both in respect to the coroner's inquest and their inability to capture the robbers, if robbers there were.
Then, again, I do not know how the value of the cargo is arrived at. I beg your Lordships to remember that the ship is said to have been partly laden with iron, and that she went down at her anchors outside. A great deal of the cargo must have been sunk with her, and, of course, all the iron. Surely the value of that portion of the cargo cannot be an element in the calculation in the amount of compensation demanded? The Brazilian Minister says—
"It appears that the Imperial Government, neither for its own acts nor from the proceedings of the local authorities, ought to be answerable for the disasters occasioned by the shipwreck of the barque Prince of Wales; and therefore the demand of the Government of Her Britannic Majesty cannot be entertained. In the first place, for which bodies does his Excellency demand compensation? It cannot certainly be for the four which were taken to the city of Rio Grande, which it was proved that the cause of their deaths had been asphyxia from submersion; nor can it be for the six who were lost, because it is not known to what souls they belonged, nor are there any means of distinguishing them from those who were swallowed by the waves. As to the pilferage of the goods saved, if the demand of the British Government were justifiable, it would appear that the Imperial Government could only be responsible for the species, quantity, and value of the plundered articles; but it does not appear how many and what they were."
Every word of the next paragraph is true, I believe—
"If this principle be admitted, people will be found to assume the responsibility, not only for the crimes of depredators, but also for the imbecility of captains, and even for the fury of the winds and waves. The Imperial Government will apply a remedy to all these disasters, or the insurance companies will not have a better auxiliary than the coast of Albardao, or than any other desert coast of the empire."
Speaking of the insurance companies reminds me to ask whether the noble Earl can tell us whether Mr. Stephens has received an insurance as large as the £3,200 which the noble Earl has demanded. If that is the case, then Mr. Stephens has made a good thing of the shipwreck. If he has not received it—if the insurers, in consequence of the noble Earl's proceedings, have refused to pay the amount—then
1130
it appears that the underwriters alone will be the gainers by his proceedings. I am sorry to say that at this stage of the difficulty, when the noble Earl has made his demand, and long notes have been passed on both sides, there arose another matter to envenom the dispute, and that was the case of the officers of the Forte. It appears that the question has changed its aspect, and that it is now sub judice, being referred to King Leopold for his decision, not on the points which at first might have been discussed, but as to whether it was a national insult to the British navy. I must say, in passing, that the noble Earl has, I think, entirely mistaken the causes of complaint and the grounds upon which that complaint was made. He might have put it as an outrage or assault upon three British citizens—that would have been all very well—but to ask King Leopold whether an attack upon three gentlemen in plain clothes could be regarded as an insult to the British navy appears to me to be the most extraordinary question I ever heard put. I am quite certain what the answer of King Leopold will be. But, with respect to the transaction itself, I cannot altogether omit it, because it proves the animus that pervaded all the officials—minister, admiral, consul, and every one of them. Two officers and the chaplain of the Forte had been dining in the country; in coming home, they passed a sentry. For some reason or other they got into a squabble with the sentry, were taken to the guardhouse, and remained there that night. I have seen some private letters giving an account of the matter, and might go into detail as to what the officers said to the sentry; but, if I were to translate them into English, I feel the expressions used would not be suited to ears polite—the effect however was to make the sentry very angry. The officers were kept in the guardhouse during that night. They were very well treated there. Next day they were taken to the police-station, where they were remanded for the hearing of evidence, and on the third day, when the evidence came, showing who and what they were, they were released. The noble Earl drew a parallel between the coast of Albardao and the coast of Cornwall; allow me to draw an analogy between the present case and what would have occurred if a similar squabble had taken place in Parliament Street. Conceive, for instance, that a Brazilian frigate was lying at Chatham, and three of its officers came

1131
up to London to amuse themselves, and having dined very well, they proceed down Parliament Street to the Horse Guards. They go through, see a sentry, and ask him some of those questions I have often heard asked by ragged boys of a sentry—questions of a peculiarly affectionate nature as to the parents of the sentry—whether he felt very cold, &c. Now, however kind these questions may be, they are not well taken—the English sentry tells them to walk on; they do not walk on; the sentry shoves them on, and there would be a squabble. It might last five minutes; in due time the officers on guard would come down. This is just what occurred in the case of the officers of the Forte. Great complaint is made that the officer did not make his appearance for ten minutes. I think that is very likely. God forbid that I should say anything to the prejudice of the British army, but I think that under the circumstances it was not likely that the officer would appear in less time than ten minutes. The officer might perhaps have been seated peaceably in his room with his coat off, smoking a cigar; and when aroused by the noise below he would occupy probably some minutes in putting on his harness, and putting out his cigar before he could come down. I confess I do not see any cause of complaint in such a matter. Well, to pursue the analogy still further, supposing the officer did come down, and not knowing the Brazilian language he would naturally turn to the sentry concerned for an explanation as to what it all meant. On ascertaining something of the matter, he would order the Brazilian officers to the guard room. From thence they would be probably taken to the police station, where they would be made to spend the night, and the next morning be introduced to the presiding magistrate at the police office. Explanations would thereupon be demanded, and the Brazilian consul would arrive, and inform the magistrate who and what those gentlemen were. The result would be that the officers would be released and ordered to their ships. This is exactly what happened in the case of these officer of the Forte. Yet, this having happened, the Admiral takes on himself to write to the noble Earl and tells him what to do. The first thing demanded is, that the officer commanding this detachment should be dismissed—that was actually demanded at first by the noble Earl; and nothing, in my opinion, could be more unhandsome and unfair. More than this.
1132
This very officer, who had given them writing materials and cards to play with, which they asked for, and actually gave them his own bed, was, at their instance, to be cashiered and have his prospects ruined for ever. I am not going further into this question, but I mentioned this to show the animus of the Admiral, of Mr. Christie, and of every one of the noble Earl's employés in that country. My Lords, I am quite certain that the noble Earl is not in the habit of imitating the language uttered in another place, and which is assumed there by a noble Viscount, who is very fond of resorting to a description of argument which I do not know well how to characterize, but which consists in resting his case upon the old claim, "Civis Romanus sum." Now, of all the foolish misapplications of a dead language of a semi-barbarous country to a living and civilized nation, I never in my life heard of a worse. There is not the slightest analogy between the circumstances of ancient Rome and the present day. Rome had made herself master of the whole known world, from the Grampians to the Atlas, and from the Tagus to the Euphrates, and her citzen had great privileges and immunities. But he is constantly held forth as the prototype of the Englishman, who has nothing in Europe but his own British islands, the island of Heligoland, and the fortress of Gibraltar. The pride of the English citizen should be that he belongs to a nation in the vanguard of civilization—a civilization founded on respect for municipal and international law. But, translated as the noble Viscount translates it, it would appear "Civis Romanus sum" means I am an Englishman, and when abroad I mean to do what I like. I am sure, my Lords, that I am not less anxious than the noble Earl to give every proper protection to British subjects and to British interests; but what I complain of is that in these transactions there is a great want of judgment on the part of those concerned in them, and that the noble Earl yields his own judgment to others who do not possess the same power of judgment. The second question, as I stated, has very much envenomed the first. There were now two sets of demands made upon the Court of Brazil. The noble Earl recapitulates all his grievances and insists upon his agents demanding the following compensations:—£3,200 for the property assumed to be plundered at the wreck of the Prince of Wales; the dismissal of the officer who

1133
arrested the British officers, the punishment of the sentry, and the public reprimand of the head of the police. The noble Earl was very energetic in the first instance, but afterwards he modified his demand. Up to the 4th of November the noble Earl emphatically believed all that he had heard from the fertile imagination of Mr. Vereker, the somewhat acid temper of Mr. Christie, and from the very erratic nature of the Admiral. But since the 4th of November he seems to have thought over the matter again, for he wrote two most excellent despatches to Mr. Christie. Here is one of those excellent despatches—it is very short, but it shows extremely good sense, and is most judicious. The noble Earl says—
"Her Majesty's Government are very reluctant to proceed to extreme measures against Brazil, except as a last resource, and any proposal on her part for arbitration on the questions at issue may be referred for the consideration of Her Majesty's Government."
Now mark, my Lords—the noble Earl had before insisted on arbitration, not as to principle, but only as to amount. He now modified his demand; and I give him credit for having done so; I only regret he did not do so sooner. The noble Earl seemed so determined to modify his former view that he writes again to Mr. Christie only four days afterwards in these words:—"That the demand will be enforced by reprisals in case no proposal is made by Brazil for arbitration." But—will you believe it—Mr. Christie writes, indeed, to the Minister of Foreign Affairs in Brazil, but never makes the slightest mention that the questions are open to arbitration, totally ignoring the noble Earl's orders, totally ignoring his instruction, totally ignoring the modification of his view. How can I speak of this without indignation? Having in his pocket the means of a reconciliation, he conceals the fact, and the word "arbitration" is never mentioned by him until after the reprisals have been executed. Am I wrong, then, in saying that the noble Earl opposite has been betrayed—that he has been ill-served by his own subordinates? I do not think such an act was ever committed against a Minister since the Foreign Office was established. Nor is that the worst. When Mr. Christie sent in his ultimatum, what did the Brazilian Minister then offer to do? He said, "Let us remove the question from this scene of passion and of anger; let us send it to London; let us refer it to the noble Earl opposite" (in whom he states that he has confidence),
1134
"and to M. Moreira to settle between them." And it is certainly remarkable that the noble Earl did not try some such plan before. I am informed, on no less authority than that of M. Moreira himself, that the noble Earl for months—for more than a year—had no communication with him personally on this subject. I am quite convinced, that if he had met M. Moreira in his own room to consider the difference, the whole matter would have been settled, and a rupture avoided between two friendly countries. Is it creditable that Mr. Christie, with that permission, or I may say with that instruction, in his pocket should, when M. d'Abrantes offered to refer the case to London, have refused any such reference and never have given a hint, that if arbitration were proposed, it would be entertained? My Lords, I suppose it is from a high feeling of honour, which I can respect, that the noble Earl has spared Mr. Christie on this point—if it be so, I certainly respect the motive that actuated him—but that does not excuse the noble Earl before the country. On the 29th of December, Mr. Christie having sent in his ultimatum, the reprisals took place;—and how were they carried out? Unfortunately, again the noble Earl positively left it to Mr. Christie and the Admiral to choose the best means of executing them. Why, if ever a Minister ought to have stood by his own responsibility, it was at such a grave moment as that. He should have described when, where, and how those reprisals should be carried out, instead of leaving them to the discretion of two men, excited by all that had taken place, whose conduct has in its consequences driven the Brazilian Minister from the British Court. My Lords, our ships of war were sent out from the harbour of Rio, and for six days, Mr. Christie says, that harbour was virtually blockaded—an act of war. And what a magnificent spectacle was witnessed when our great men of war came in, towing after them into the harbour of Rio six miserable Brazilian merchantmen! Talk of the humiliation of the Brazilians! It was the English residents at Rio who must have been humiliated by seeing the navy of their country prostituted in the perpetration of an injustice. I know I may be asked what I would have done under the circumstances, and I do not hesitate to answer that question. I should say that in the first place it was imperative on the noble Earl to remove the dispute from Brazil to England;

1135
secondly, referring to the protocol agreed upon at Paris in 1856—for which the noble Earl sitting above (the Earl of Clarendon) ought to have eternal credit—referring to and acting upon that protocol, he ought to have settled the question by mediation or arbitration. Why, it was the Government of which the noble Earl opposite himself was a Member, which proposed the civilized policy embodied in that protocol; and when it was assented to by all the nations then in congress, Brazil was invited to adhere to it. We invited Brazil to adhere to that protocol, and she did adhere to it. Yet, in five or six years afterwards, you ignore the protocol, and have never made any use of it. Well, then, thirdly, as to the manner of the reprisals. For the sake of argument, I grant that the noble Earl was justified in making them. Reprisals are a most serious thing; for, mark you, they can only be practically made by a strong country against a weak one. That is a very great objection to reprisals. If they are made by a strong country against one as strong, or nearly as strong, that is war—there must be war, because they will not be suffered. But, if reprisals were to be made, why did the noble Earl not make them in the least offensive, and not in the most offensive form? With the hundreds of Brazilian ships in our harbours, was it not easy for the noble Earl to have quietly sent half a dozen policemen to lay an embargo upon some of them. That would have been no insult to the Brazilian people; it would have equally been an assertion of international law and right, and equally a lesson to the Brazilian Government. Why, instead of doing that, did the noble Earl leave his employés, acting on their own judgments, to adopt the most offensive way possible of carrying out the most offensive policy which one country can pursue towards another? Well, this having taken place, M. Moreira—a diplomatist who has lived long in this country, and whose high character and moderate disposition are well known—received orders from his Government to ask an expression of regret from the noble Earl as to the manner in which the reprisals had been carried out. My Lords, I think that a great nation like this might have afforded, through the noble Earl opposite, to express that regret as to the manner as well as the necessity of that proceeding. It was only the other day that I was much struck by the impressive language used by the noble Earl as to
1136
the reparation of acts of injustice. He said that "the second honour of a nation is the reparation of an injustice;" and I think he could not have illustrated his own words and sentiments better than by saying to the Brazilian Minister, when he came to him, that he did regret, not only the act itself, but the way in which that act was performed. So far, however, from that, in his last instructions, which we saw yesterday, the noble Earl defends what was done, and even goes a great deal further, because he says the sole object of the reprisals was to obtain some security for the lives and property of Her Majesty's subjects who may have the misfortune to be shipwrecked on the coast of Brazil, and to insure due respect to the persons of Her Majesty's naval officers in that country. Why, that last point was still sub judice, and reparation was not surely asked for that. I shall not, my Lords, be lured into discussing the quite new question contained in the noble Earl's last despatch. It appears, however, that the noble Earl has some misgiving that he has exacted hard measure from the Brazilian Government, and that the acts of that Government do not entirely justify the course he has pursued. He therefore goes, in an ex post facto manner, into a quantity of old grievances which he seems to have had against the Brazilian Government. These are matters of which we have not heard before; but they are now heaped like hot coals on the heads of the unfortunate Brazilians, to justify the noble Earl's acts, which cannot otherwise be justified. I will not for a moment believe what has been said by speakers in another place and by some of the newspapers, that the noble Earl has two measures—one for the weak and another for the strong. But assuming that he has only one measure, observe the danger we are in. If the policy of the noble Earl, as now exercised by some of his subordinates, were carried out on the coast of some powerful country, and suppose that one of our vessels were wrecked on the coast of a distant colony of France or Russia, if Mr. Christie, Mr. Vereker, and Admiral Warren were on the coast of Russia or France, what in that case would have happened? Why, inevitably there would have been war. We should now have had the cannon thundering at both ends of the Channel, If, therefore, the noble Earl has but one measure for all, see the risk we run of being brought into collision

1137
any day with some great Power. I think, then, that the noble Earl has made a great mistake. He has not paid that attention from the beginning that he ought to have paid to this subject. He has allowed his subordinates to supersede his own individual judgment and thereby to betray him. He has not examined sufficiently into what is the state of international law, nor studied how it might be applied in the least offensive manner. He may have intended to exact reparation, and to give a lesson to a recusant Government, but he has insulted, exasperated, and alienated an innocent and friendly people. The noble Earl concluded by moving an humble Address to Her Majesty for—
"Copies of any Papers showing on what Ground the reduced Demand for Compensation from the Government of Brazil was assessed at the Sum of £3,200; and also to move for, a Copy of the Despatch alluded to by Mr. Christie as having been written to the Brazilian Minister for Foreign Affairs on the Wreck of the Prince of Wales, and not published in the Brazilian Papers."
EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, I think it must be allowed by your Lordships that it is part of the general law of nations, and that it is part of the municipal law of almost every civilized nation, that the persons and property of foreign subjects shall be respected in the other country. This is the only principle upon which the proceedings of Her Majesty's Government have been founded. We have not thought it right to connive at the plunder and suspected murder of British subjects without seeking of a foreign government all the reparation in their power. This has been the principle on which we have proceeded; the facts I will presently state to the House; but I must say that I do hope that the commercial importance of Brazil is not put forward as a reason for not seeking a remedy for a grievance when we have a grievance against that Government. I am ready to admit that it is a serious matter to make any demands on Brazil with which she may hesitate to comply: I am quite ready to admit that it is desirable we should be on most friendly terms with Brazil;—but I cannot admit that any desire to be on friendly terms with Brazil, on account of her commercial importance, should make us blind or indifferent to the wrongs of British subjects when a strong and satisfactory case is made out. I do not say that the noble Earl, but Borne organs of public opinion, seem to maintain that the lives of a few sailors
1138
signify nothing, when we consider the millions of property involved in the trade with Brazil. I cannot argue this question upon that foundation. I must argue it upon the foundation upon which we have always acted in this country—that if any wrong has been committed, we should first ask in temperate terms for a remedy for that wrong; but if that wrung does not receive a remedy, then we must proceed to some measure of force. Now, I find in looking at the proceedings which have taken place for some years past, that there have been, from 1831 to the present time, twenty one cases in which France has adopted coercive measures in order to obtain redress; twenty-two eases in which Great Britian has adopted coercive measures in order to obtain redress; and twenty-three cases in which the United States have adopted similar measures for that purpose. This shows at least that in the case of these great maritime countries measures of a coercive nature are sometimes used if they cannot obtain redress without them. What are the facts with regard to this particular matter of the wreck of the Prince of Wales? Mr. Vereker, our Consul, heard at his residence that there had been a shipwreck of a British vessel on the coast of Albardao. The noble Earl disputes the authority of Mr. Consul Vereker, on the ground that at a later period his mind became unsettled. Now, that is certainly quite true; but at that time, when this shipwreck took place, I must say with regard to the observations of Mr. Consul Vereker, that there is nothing which indicates other than the mind of a calm and sensible man, and I see nothing at all to justify the supposition that his mind was at all unsettled at that period. Mr. Consul Vereker proceeds to the place—a journey of some difficulty, eighty or ninety miles distance—in order to obtain the information. The noble Earl treats with some pleasantry his going to the house of a justice of the peace in order to investigate this case. I own that it does not appear to me to be a matter for pleasantry. I think, when an English Consul, an officer of Her Majesty's Government, hearing of a shipwreck goes to ascertain the facts of the case, and whether there has been any wrong suffered, it is not a matter of pleasantry, but a matter of commendation, and I am glad the British officer so well performed his duty. Well, he

1139
goes to the house of a justice of the tice of the peaee, and he proceeds the next morning early to the coast. He finds there a portion of the wreck and two boats of the ship with the oars in them. He finds also that there are many chests on shore, and that the insides of those chests do not appear to have been wet; but they were all empty, the contents having been taken out of them. He asks where were the bodies of the sailors, and for an inquest upon those bodies. Now, who is the person with him? The noble Earl has represented that Mr. Consul Vereker had taken a party of armed men with him, and gone there relying upon this force; but the person with him was the commercial judge of the district the proper person to examine into such transactions. Therefore, it was not upon his own authority that he was acting—he was acting with the authority of this commercial judge, and he asked that commercial judge to institute an inquest. What could be more proper? The wreck took place on the 9th; he was there on the 16th. The bodies of the men would have been found on the shore or near the shore if there had been no foul play, and the natural answer would have been that an inquest should be immediately held. But such was not the answer. The commercial judge said he could not institute an inquest. Mr. Vereker supposes it is on account of the presence of a certain Senhor Silveira, who is the inspector of the district, who was there with a larger body of armed men than the commercial judge had with him. Mr. Vereker may be wrong in attributing that as a reason why the commercial judge re-fused to comply; but it was a natural supposition, and, at all events, Mr. Vereker was quite right in demanding an inquest, and regarding it as a suspicious circumstance when the inquest was refused. Well, what does he do then? He goes back to his usual place of residence. Some time after a ship of war—a gunboat—is sent. The noble Earl seems to think that that was a great mistake; but, considering the state of that district—that it was a wild part of the country—I think he was quite right in asking for the protection of a British gunboat, and the officer in command, in order to give greater effect to the proceeding. Well, about that time a judicial inquiry is held. The noble Earl speaks as if all the bodies of the crew of the ship had been brought before that inquest. The truth is, there were four bodies produced, and the noble Earl entirely suppresses the
1140
fact that there were six other bodies, including one woman, not accounted for.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: The noble Earl could not have heard me, for I distinctly said that the four bodies were found at some distance from the beach, and the others were not found, in consequence of the sands.
EARL RUSSELL: With regard to these four bodies, although they were a good deal injured, it was the opinion that they had died from drowning. With regard to the other six, the noble Earl says they were lost in the sands. I think it requires an immense amount of credulity to give any credence to so frivolous a pretext. Mr. Christie and Admiral Warren support Mr. Vereker in his judgment that it was a mere frivolous pretext, and that the Brazilians did not choose to produce the bodies for fear of the tale which those bodies would tell; and that is the natural inference which Her Majesty's Government draw from the pretence as to not finding the bodies. Some time afterwards, when Mr. Vereker was proceeding along the coast, he found that the inhabitants of all the houses denied that they had ever heard of any wreck, or that they knew what had become of the persons who had perished. The noble Earl may believe that, but I do not; and Mr. Vereker had this reason for not believing it—that he heard a boy who came into the house of Senhor Silveira say something about a corpse. They inquired of the boy what it was, and he said it was the last of the bodies which had been found, and which orders were being given to bury. It was quite clear, therefore, that those persons who pretended never to have heard of the wreck were endeavouring to conceal the truth, and that they knew perfectly well what had happened. In the house of this magistrate, as the noble Earl calls him, was found a portion of the plundered property, and there was every reason to believe that he was at the head of the gang of plunderers who had plundered this British ship, and that this Senhor Silveira, who was his son-in-law, and all the rest of them, were employed in concealing the facts. That there should be such persons on a wild coast is not what I complained of to the Brazilian Government, nor did I say that they should at once have brought this coast into a state of civilization. What I did complain of was that they were themselves accomplices in concealing these facts, that they did not order a vigilant and effective inquiry, and that they left this man,

1141
who as magistrate would be the chief authority of the district, in the same position in which he was before, and that they never attempted to remedy the state of things which existed there. As to the excuse which the noble Earl makes, that it was a wild uncivilized part of the country, I say that a foreign Government must take one course or the other—they must, either be ready to investigate any crime which is committed in that part of the country, or they must say that the district is entirely uncivilized, that they have no authority in it, and that foreign officers, such as captains of ships, must take such measures as they think necessary to obtain redress. I cannot conceive any third course. But the Brazilian Government, at the same time that they pretended to have authority in this district, did everything they could to pre-vent justice being done. The owner of this British ship, I think, had a just cause of complaint against them. He had sent out a ship on a commercial venture, with a captain whom he could trust, and a crew of seven or eight men. He finds that the captain and his wife and the crew are dead, and that the cargo is plundered; he makes his complaint to the British Government, and I think he has a right to claim from the British Government that they should protect his property, and that they should procure a searching investigation into the deaths of the captain and his crew, and to obtain for him redress. Under these circumstances we were bound to make some inquiry, and indeed to insist that some searching inquiry should be made in Brazil, or to confess that the British Government had no power to obtain redress for a grievous wrong. We could not, with any sense of what is due to the lives and property of British subjects, allow this matter to remain uninvestigated. The noble Earl says that I demanded this redress in an imperious tone; and as this is one of his four charges, I must request permission to read the terms in which I first asked for redress. On the 6th September 1861—this offence having been committed in June 1861—I wrote to Mr. Baillie thus—
"Should you not have done so already before the receipt of this despatch, you will lose no time in calling the serious attention of the Brazilian Government to this case, and you will request that a strict inquiry may be instituted into the circumstances, and that the parties convicted of such culpable negligence may he suitably punished, and that those who may be convicted of outrage upon the survivors from the wreck may be brought to justice."
1142
Surely there is nothing imperious in the tone of that despatch. Then, again, on February 8 I say—
"I cannot consider the explanations which have been given by the Brazilian authorities in this matter as being satisfactory, and I concur in the opinion which Mr. Vereker has expressed as to the culpability of the authorities of the district, and as to the insufficiency of the inquiry instituted, considering the serious nature of the case. Under these circumstances, I have to refer you to the instructions conveyed in my despatch of the 6th of September last, and to desire you to state to the Brazilian Government that Her Majesty's Government expect that a more searching investigation shall be instituted, with a view to the punishment of the parties actually concerned in the outrage, and of the local authorities who may be convicted of negligence in dealing with the case, as also with a view to adequate compensation to the owners of the vessel, whose property, by the admission of the Brazilian authorities themselves, has been plundered or wantonly destroyed, and to the surviving relatives of those who may be proved to have been murdered."
There was a great authority in the India Office who used to say that the style of the Company's despatches was "humdrum"—and I must say I do not think the style in which I wrote here rises above the "humdrum." I confess I did think, that having tried every sort of evasion for more than twelve months, the Brazilian Government ought to make some compensation. The noble Earl says I left the case entirely in the hands of subordinates—that I left the demand to be framed by Mr. Christie, Mr. Baillie, and Mr. Vereker. The duty of these gentlemen was to inform me of the facts, and it was upon their statement of facts, and not upon any proposals of Mr. Christie or Admiral Warren, that I framed my demand. It was not in Admiral Warren's department to make any proposals as to the request which was to be made. When I thought there was a demand to be made, I made it, quite irrespective of the opinions of Mr. Christie or Admiral Warren. I cannot agree with the noble Earl as to the manner in which Mr. Christie acted. Mr. Christie acted in entire conformity with the instructions which I gave him, I think he argued the question with great temper and ability; and it was not until I instructed him to make a positive demand for reparatinn that that demand was made. The noble Earl goes on to complain that I told the Brazilian Government, that if reparation were not given, the whole question would he put into the hands of Admiral Warren, without waiting to see whether the Brazilian Government would consent to an arbitration. I never I told Mr. Christie to offer an arbitration.

1143
I told him, in a despatch of the 8th October, that further orders would be given. Further orders were given on the 4th November, and I then said that if the Brazilian Government should propose an arbitration, Her Majesty's Government would be quite ready to consent to one. Mr. Christie was not told to make an offer of arbitration, because I did not think that it lay with Her Majesty's Government to make it. If we had made such an offer, the Brazilian Government might have said, in its evasive way, "This shows that you are not confident of your case," and they would have tried some further delays; but what I said was, that if the Brazilian Government thought they had a case sufficient to refuse reparation, and proposed an arbitration, we should consent to it. In that respect I think we showed a readiness to treat the Brazilian Government with the utmost fairness. But the Brazilian Government did not make any such offer, and it was not until the end of December 1862 that measures of coercion were employed. The noble Earl finds fault with the manner in which the reprisals were made, and he draws a distinction which I cannot find has been drawn by any writer on the subject. What was done was this:—Admiral Warren sent his vessels six miles from the port of Rio Janeiro. He did not execute reprisals in the port. On this point I imagine that the doctrine laid down by Martens is the true one. He says—
"The kind of reprisals most common is the seizure of the persons or the goods which are found, whether on our own territory, whether on the high seas, whether on the territory of the Power against whom this mode of redress is used."
In fact, Admiral Warren executed the reprisals in the manner calculated least to injure Brazilian commerce, and least to disturb pacific relations. If Admiral Warren had sent out his vessels some 200 or 300 miles, it is evident that there must have been a great disturbance of commerce, and until you took the ships back, it would be most uncertain how the fact of reprisal would have been dealt with. As it was, there could be no question of resistance, and no question of collision, but within six days the whole affair was settled. I will not follow the noble Earl into the question of the Forte, which has been referred to arbitration; but I may observe that it was not until the reprisals had been commenced that the Brazilian Government consented to that arbitration. I do not think it is becoming in any Member of this House,
1144
when such a Sovereign as the King of the Belgians has undertaken the arbitration—when the Brazilian Government on its part, and the English Government on its part, has laid the matter before the King of the Belgians for arbitration—to make an attack on the British case, to try and diminish the value of our case, and show himself so nervously apprehensive as the noble Earl seems to be, that the King of the Belgians, weighing fairly all the circumstances, may give a decision in favour of the British navy, I am quite satisfied, without saying a word on our part in addition to what has already been said, to leave to the judgment of an enlightened and impartial Sovereign, like the King of the Belgians, the point in dispute between the two Governments, The noble Earl says that on the whole question we have exercised an extreme degree of pressure on Brazil, and he speaks as if we had done something quite unusual in demanding redress immediately. I have already mentioned, at the commencement of my address, that Great Britain, France, and the United States have in more than sixty cases demanded redress under circumstances such as those in which we have been called upon to act. Lord Aberdeen was not a lover of war, nor an intemperate Minister; he weighed calmly the cases that came before him; but in the case of the proceedings of Rosas at Montevideo, which, doing great injury to European commerce, he, in conjunction with the French Government, sent an order that these proceedings should be put an end to; and the English Admiral, in conjunction with the French Admiral, took possession of the whole of the fleet which was acting under Rosas. This is one instance—and it is the only instance I shall quote. As to these South American affairs, it is often necessary to have recourse to force to protect your commerce and obtain justice. The noble Earl speaks of the proceedings of the Brazilian Government as if it were the model Government of the continent of America. It is true that Brazil, having wisely, as I think, chosen a monarchy for its form of Government, has not, like the South American Republics, been the prize of different military chiefs, who have successfully fought for the supremacy; and therefore the Brazilian Government has been far superior to most of the South American Republics. But it is very far indeed from being a model of justice in its tribunals, or of freedom from corruption in its administration. It requires, no less

1145
than other Governments, to be under the control of opinion. The noble Earl says that the "Civis Romanus sum" position is a very disputable one—that the doctrine is not applicable to us, for we are not in the same position as the Romans. I have no ambition to set up the Roman example—but certainly a great man said, without using a Latin phrase, but adopting plain English, that he was determined to make the name of an Englishman be as much respected as ever that of a Roman had been. He was a true Englishman. During his rule the name of England was respected; and no one can to this day mention the name of Oliver Cromwell, without coupling with it a tribute of respect for the manner in which he upheld the name of England. It is not a thing to be ashamed of, that we should wish to see the British name respected; and where the life or property of a British subject is in question, we think it a duty to interfere. The noble Earl said, that if these reprisals had been made against a great Power, they would have cost us a war; but may not there be something in this—that weak Powers, having confidence that their weakness will save them from the consequences of their acts, may be disposed to do things which a strong Power would never think of? For instance, with regard to the taking of two persons out of a British packet, which occurred last year, the American Government, conscious in its own strength, and conscious in its sense of justice, had no hesitation in yielding at once to our request, that those two Commissioners should be delivered up. Conscious of its own strength, it knew that it might do justice to our demands without the least humiliation. Why did not the Brazilian Government act in that way? Is the Brazilian Government to suppose, that because she is a weak Power, she is to be allowed to wink at the murder of British seamen and to conceal the fact that those four men and two women were actually murdered? Does Brazil think, that because she is weak, impunity for such acts can be allowed to her? No; whatever taunts may be thrown out, and whatever may be said on demands of this nature, we, when a wrong is done, must, without regard to the wrong-doing Power being strong or weak, demand redress; and by demanding redress, depend upon it, we shall insure the protection of our commerce in all parts of the world. I was told the other day by the captain of the Madagascar, who has recently returned
1146
from the waters of Brazil, that not only was it the general impression in Brazil that those sailors were murdered, but that, a wreck having occurred the other day at nearly the same spot on the wild and unfrequented coast which the noble Earl described, the authorities immediately took active measures, and made every exertion to recover the property from the wreck, and the whole of the crew were saved. This, it may be presumed, followed from the just assertion of our rights. My Lords, as long as I remain at the Foreign Office, while ready to make request after request and to urge remonstrance after remonstrance, I cannot suffer flagrant acts of the kind to be committed on British life and property without demanding redress. One of the papers asked for by the noble Earl I can produce at once. The other is a despatch written while Mr. Baillie was Chargé d'Affaires, and I find that it is not in the Foreign Office. It is for the noble Earl, therefore, to say whether he will ask for it. If he does, we shall procure and lay it on the table as soon as possible. My Lords, I cannot help thinking, that if the Brazilian Government had acted in this matter in the same spirit and temper as the British Government have done, it would before this have been settled, as I hope it will be settled. I shall be glad to see M. Moreira again in this country—a gentleman with whom I have always been happy to hold communication; and I can assure your Lordships that no one will be more gratified than myself at the renewal of diplomatic relations between the two countries.
LORD CHELMSFORD: My Lords, the subject before us is of such great importance that I will not apologize to your Lordships for detaining you for a short time. The interruptions of friendly relations with Brazil is a matter likely to be so very prejudicial to the commercial interests of this country, that it is the duty of Her Majesty's Government to take care that the House and the country should be fully Informed of all the circumstances that have led to this unfortunate result. I regret to say that the perusal of these papers has left on my mind a painful conviction that the unhappy differences that have arisen are attributable, mainly, if not entirely, to the conduct of our diplomatic agents in the Brazils; that that conduct has been approved and sanctioned by the noble Earl; that the treatment of Brazil from the beginning to the end has been in

1147
the highest degree harsh, overbearing, and unjust, and that we have made a most ungenerous use of our superior power against a State which is comparatively weak, and unable to offer any opposition except a moral resistance. In support of this opinion I will ask your Lordships to consider two questions: first, whether it was a case that justified reprisals at all; and if it did, secondly, whether the mode in which that right has been exercised was just and proper. In entering on the first question, I think that it will be convenient that I should, in addition to extracts from those writers upon international law who have been already referred to, give a few others in order that your Lordships may perfectly understand the principles of law with regard to the making of reprisals. The first authority, quoted by my noble Friend—Vattel—says—
"Reprisals are used between nation and nation, in order to do themselves justice when they cannot otherwise obtain it. If a nation has taken possession of what belongs to another, if she refuses to pay a debt, to repair an injury, or to give adequate satisfaction for it, the latter may seize something belonging to the former, and apply it to her own advantage till she obtains payment of what is due to her, together with interest and damages, or keep it as a pledge till she has received ample satisfaction."
I cite the authority of the next writer, the Queen's Advocate, because I take it for granted that the noble Earl has sought the advice of my learned Friend in the course of these proceedings. The Queen's Advocate said—
"Letters of reprisals are not to be granted without a full knowledge of the causes which justify them. Moreover, it must be res minime dubia, in which justice has been denied, and it must have been absolutely denied by all the tribunals of the country before which the cause could be brought, and also by the Sovereign in the last resort."
And the Queen's Advocate quotes in a note a letter from the Duke of Newcastle to the King of Prussia in 1753, in which he says—
"The law of nations, founded upon practice, equity, convenience, and the reason of the thing, and confirmed by long usage, does not allow of reprisals except in cases of violent injuries directed or supported by the State, and justice absolutely denied by all the tribunals, and afterwards by the Prince."
In another passage Vattel writes—
"The Sovereign who refuses to cause reparation to be made for the damage done by his subject, or to punish the offender, or finally to deliver him up, renders himself, in some measure, an accomplice in the injury. But if he deliver up either the property of the offender as an indemnification in cases that will admit of pecuniary compensation,
1148
or his person, in order that he may suffer the punishment due to his crime, the offended party has no further demand upon him."
Now, the explanation which my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General gave was this:—If the Sovereign does any of these things—that is, if he executes justice to the utmost of his power, either by paying a pecuniary compensation, or if that cannot be done by the executing punishment on the offender—it is enough. Now, I hope your Lordships will bear these principles in mind in considering the first question to which I desire to draw your Lordships' attention. I do not propose to do more than to consider the circumstances of the wreck of the Prince of Wales. I think my noble Friend (the Earl of Malmesbury) who introduced this discussion was perfectly right in considering the case of the insulted officers, because the noble Earl's demand of reprisals extended to that supposed injury; but inasmuch as that case is sub judice, I am willing to waive the discussion as to that part of the case. The wreck of the Prince of Wales occurred on the 8th or 9th of June 1861—the noble Earl says the 9th, which is rather more to the advantage of the local authorities. It took place on a wild inhospitable coast, in the district of Albardao, which is occupied by a scanty population, thinly scattered over a very extended country; and we have heard that the inhabitants of that district, very like the Cornish men of no distant date, are in the habit of flocking to the shore when there is any prospect of plunder, and they remove the spoil they collect on those occasions into the interior. Of course, in such a district as this, it is hardly to be expected that justice should be administered as promptly, as regularly, and as efficiently as in a country where men dwell closer together, and in a more civilised state of society; and there can be no doubt that when the wreck of the Prince of Wales took place the inhabitants resorted to their usual practices to a certain extent—to what extent it does not appear—of plundering the property, and that they stripped the bodies of the unfortunate persons which were cast ashore—nay, there may be just ground of suspicion that they did not stop short of the murder of some of them. As the noble Earl, however, has asserted his belief that some of the persons were actually murdered, it is fair to say that of that there was not the slightest proof at the inquest that took

1149
place at Rio Grande. Only one of the four bodies examined exhibited marks of violence; and with regard to that body Consul Vereker, who was not a very lenient judge of these proceedings of the Brazilians, stated himself that the man did not come to his death by the hands of another person. The noble Earl has stated that he believes that six persons—four men and two women—were murdered. Now, does the noble Earl believe this upon the evidence of the captain of a vessel called the Hound, or does he not? The noble Earl has not noticed the supposed evidence of the captain of the Hound, who, according to Mr. Stephens, had seen several persons land alive, these being afterwards, it is said, murdered in the woods. The noble Earl did not advert to this evidence at all on the present occasion, and I am bound to think that the noble Earl does not give the slightest credit to the statement, because, if he did, what in that case would have been the duty of the noble Earl? It would have been to have instituted an investigation into the evidence. There being no proof whatever that murder had been committed, the noble Earl had no right to assume it as part of the case of the British Government. Well, it was the duty of the inspector of police, the moment he had intelligence of the wreck, to hasten to the spot for the purpose of protecting the property. When he received intelligence of the wreck does not appear, but he was there on the spot on the 11th of June, and with a small force of five men, for the purpose of protecting the property. The complaint is made against the inspector, that it was his duty, when he knew that the vessel was British property, to have communicated the fact of the wreck to the British Consul at Rio Grande; but the utmost that that could amount to was a failure of duty on the part of the inspector. The consequence of his misconduct is that the Brazilian Government has dismissed him from his office. Mr. Consul Vereker was informed of the wreck in a conversation that he had with Soarez on the 13th of June, and on the 16th he went to the place of the wreck. Consul Vereker, who chose to suspect all the Brazilian authorities of a failure of duty and a connivance at the offences that had been committed, insinuates that the inspector, when he came to the spot on the 11th, had utterly disregarded his duty of protecting the property, and that a number of barrels and crates had been broken
1150
open. Mr. Consul Vereker had not the slightest proof of that charge. He makes a similar charge against the sub-delegate of police, whose duty it was to collect the goods for the custom-house, and he says that by this person's orders many cases were broken open; but he admits that he cannot prove the allegation. Now, your Lordships are entitled injustice and fairness to assume that the work of plunder had been done between the 8th and the 11th, when the inspector came to the spot. There was ample time for the plunder to have been carried away into the interior, according to the practice of the inhabitants of the district. Why do I say this? Because it appears that Consul Vereker came with the municipal judge, who it is admitted discharged his duty faithfully. They searched the district, the municipal judge going one way, and Consul Vereker the other; and they found no property of any kind, only two Bibles and the Commentary in the house of Soarez. Consul Vereker says he strongly suspects that the property had been conveyed into the thicket near the house. But why does Consul Vereker say that, when he could have ascertained whether his suspicions were well founded by searching the wood, as there could not be more danger in doing that than in searching the houses? Certainly, my Lords, it seems to me that the property having been all conveyed away is a circumstance not unimportant in considering the conduct of the noble Earl and the Brazilian Government. Now, let the House consider what, under the circumstances, could have been done, had the most prompt and vigorous measures been adopted. All that could have been done was the restitution of any part of the property that might have been found in the possession of those who were suspected of having stolen it, and the conviction and punishment of those offenders. I hold that consideration to be most important, because I find scattered through the papers complaints that in consequence of the delays of the Brazilian Government in pursuing and prosecuting the offenders a great deal of the property had been entirely lost. Now, I was in hopes that the noble Earl would have been kind enough to have told us, in support of what he called his moderate and reasonable demands on the Brazilian Government, what was the nature of the cargo, in order that we might judge how much of it was likely to come to land and to fall to the plunderers. The noble Earl has stated that part of the cargo consisted

1151
of iron; but besides that I am informed there were kegs of nails, coals, iron fastenings, tierces and barrels of beer, and barrels of soda; so that your Lordships may pretty well imagine how much of a cargo of that description was likely to be swallowed up by the waves, and how email a portion of it would reach the land. I observe that Consul Vereker, when he came to the spot on the 16th, found many crates and barrels that had been broken by the waves, and yet the noble Earl's moderate and reasonable demand amounted to the restitution to the owner of the entire value of the cargo. It is important to follow the action of the Brazilian Government and the local authorities in the matter. Let us see what was the first application that was made by Consul Vereker for the interference of the local authorities. He applied, when he returned to Rio Grande on the 18th June, to the chief of the police, to remove the bodies to Rio Grande, in order that they should be interred in the cemetery there, and that an inquest should be held to ascertain whether the deaths had been occasioned by the violence of other persons. He admitted that his request was promptly complied with. He says the chief of the police was an houourable roan, and was anxious to perform his duty. Now, my Lords, it is true that four bodies only were carried into Rio, and Consul Vereker treated it as a ridiculous allegation that the rest of the bodies could not be found in consequence of the shifting of the sand. It is all very well for Consul Vereker to treat everything said in favour of the authorities in this off-hand manner, but you must remember that he has admitted that the person under whose orders the bodies had been removed was an honourable man, anxious to perform his duty, and there was no reason to believe that he was desirous of concealing any body. I, like my noble Friend, cannot possibly conceive on what ground it was that the noble Earl insisted, under these circumstances, on the Brazilian Government paying the expenses of the conveyance of the bodies to Rio for the inquest and for interment in the cemetery. But it must be satisfactory to the nation to think that the firm manner of the Foreign Minister had secured that sum of £32 1s. 1d., being the amount of the expenses incurred. Whether, if it had been refused, the noble Earl would have resorted to reprisals must, of course, be left a blank in history. What is the next application? It is on the 10th of July,
1152
before the inquest had taken place, and was made to the President of the province. It is not insinuated, from the beginning to the end of these papers, that the Presidents were not all of them honourable men, and most anxious to do their duty in this matter, having no desire whatever to screen anybody. The application having been made, what does the President do? He immediately gives orders to the chief of the police, and tells him to proceed with the utmost rigour against any person or persons suspected of plundering the wreck, and to institute a strict inquiry into the alleged murders. That is on the 20th of June; and on the 11th of July the President reiterated those instructions to the chief of the police. Now, let us pause for a moment to see the situation of things at the time when the active measures of the Secretary for Foreign Affairs were begun against the Brazilian Government. There had been no delay, no neglect of duty; but in the month of September Mr. Stephens, the owner of the vessel, interferes. Now, the noble Earl the Secretary for Foreign Affairs has styled Mr. Stephens a thorough Briton. If strong, not to say intemperate language, if vehement assertion of exorbitant demands entitle a person to that distinction, then Mr. Stephens may claim it. Mr. Stephens, on the 22nd September, wrote to the Foreign Office that the time had arrived when the Brazilian Government ought to give him "retribution," and he claimed from them £5,500 for the cargo and stores; but he forgot the freight. He, however, supplied the omission three days afterwards, when he claimed £1,025 for the freight. The noble Earl does not seem to have paid immediate attention to this demand; and accordingly Mr. Stephens wrote another letter on the 19th of October to the Foreign Office, in which he urged his claim not only to the value of the cargo and stores, but to an additional sum on account of the persons murdered, and called upon the noble Earl, if the claim were not immediately settled, to take active measures against Brazil, so that he might no longer be humbugged. My Lords, no doubt your Lordships are prepared for the grave, solemn, and statesmanlike rebuke with which the noble Earl visited Mr. Stephens. Did the noble Earl tell him that this was not the way transactions with Governments, especially with Governments that were not strong, were carried on, and advise him to

1153
leave the matter in the hands of the Foreign Office? My Lords, I could hardly believe my eyes when I found, on looking at the date of the despatch, that the noble Earl had actually anticipated the eargerness of Mr. Stephens, as will be seen by the letter of September 6, 1861, in which the noble Earl directs Mr. Baillie to lose no time in calling the attention of the Brazilian Government to the case and to insist upon a strict inquiry. Could anything be more insulting? And your Lordships will find that it was followed up by an energetic measure suggested by the noble Earl. Mr. Baillie is also directed to communicate with the Admiral on the station, as it would be desirable that one of Her Majesty's vessels of war should visit the coast upon which the wreck occurred. The Admiral was communicated with on that occasion by Mr. Baillie, but it appears that Mr. Consul Vereker thought interference at that time would not be beneficial, and therefore the matter was allowed to sleep. I now turn to the proceedings of the local authorities. Consul Vereker remained quiet till the 27th of November, when he requested the President to inform him the result of the application that the inquiry should be proceeded with in the most energetic manner. A few days later the reports of the delegate and sub-delegate were sent to him. These disclosed the difficulties connected with the investigation. When they endeavoured to procure the attendance of the witnesses, some became ill, others left, some escaped, and a general reluctance to come forward manifested itself, a number of the wealthiest persons having been concerned in the plunder. [Earl RUSSELL: Hear, hear!] I give the noble Lord the full benefit of that. Only one person, of the name of Pinto, in the employ of Soarez, had been apprehended. Orders were given to proceed against those persons who refused to appear, to investigate the matter thoroughly, and to bring the parties to justice. It was fair to consider the difficulties which existed in the way of this investigation not through the heated imagination of Consul Vereker or the prejudiced judgment of Mr. Christie. The difficulties arose from the character of the district, and from the desire of the many who participated in the plunder to shelter each other from detection. The first application which was made to the Brazilian Government was by Mr. Baillie, on the 27th of November; and I must say, that in common with my noble Friend I
1154
was struck with the fact that it does not form a portion of the papers on your Lordships table—the only reference to it is in the first communication of Mr. Christie of the 17th of March. Now, that Mr. Christie is about to appear for the first time on the scene, I am anxious to point out the menacing attitude he displayed. The noble Earl had armed him with his thunderbolts of war, and it seems that he was not disposed to leave them unlaunched. On the 17th of March he wrote to Senhor d'Abrantes, the Brazilian Minister for Foreign Affairs, and he says—
"I write under Lord Russell's instructions to the Admiral commanding Her Majesty's naval forces at this station to request him to send one of Her Majesty's vessels to the spot with some experienced officer capable of advising and aiding Mr. Vereker in this afflicting case; and this officer will be ready to co-operate in the investigation, if such co-operation is considered agreeable to the Imperial Government."
What answer did Senor Taquez make to this proposal? He said—
"As regards the offer made by Mr. Christie in his note to which this is an answer of the co-operation of a naval officer, who will proceed in one of Her Majesty's ships to the place of the shipwreck, in order to assist the consul in this deplorable affair, the undersigned returns thanks to Mr. Christie, but cannot understand what assistance the authorities of the country could receive from a British officer, nor what he could do in furtherance of the ends of justice, and he declines to accept the Minister's offer."
Before this, Captain Saumarez had made his appearance in the neighbourhood. The first act of Mr. Christie was to send off to the Admiral to ask for a gunboat or two, and Captain Saumarez arrived on the 6th of April. And his arrival was announced in a very curious manner. "Captain Saumarez, of Her Majesty's ship Forte, 51 guns, has arrived." The number of guns carried was, of course, intended to show what an imposing force would be ready to back the application which had been made. Now, what was the object of sending these gunboats? In a despatch to the noble Earl, Captain Saumarez said—
"Thinking the presence of one of Her Majesty's vessels thus far in the province would carry greater weight with the President and strengthen the inquiry."
The President said he could not recognise the intervention of Captain Saumarez in any official capacity; but he says, "I am ready to allow him to attend the proceedings as a private person, and to obtain whatever information he can." It was agreed that an inquiry should take place

1155
before the chief of police, and that notice should be given to Mr. Vereker; and Mr. Christie, who is always seeking occasion of quarrel, actually made this a ground of complaint against the Brazilian Government, and he demanded an apology for their treatment of Captain Saumarez. Having waited from the 8th of April to the 18th, Captain Saumarez rejoined his vessel, and then complained that he had been treated with indignity, because, during the whole of that time, no notice was given him of the inquiry. The explanation was, that the appearance of the vessels—for there were not merely the gunboats, but there was a large vessel, the Oberon, cruising where the water was deep enough—had excited a great deal of feeling on the part of the people, to such an extent that apprehensions were entertained of a resort to violence, and consequently the inquiry had been deferred till the vessels had left. Your Lordships will see that the noble Earl, who says he has exhibited so much patience and forbearance in the transaction, after this renews the expression of his wish that a British officer should be present at the inquiry. At length Consul Vereker, finding that the inquiry was to take place before a sub-delegate instead of the chief, thought it would not be consistent with the dignity of his position to attend such inquiry. He did attend it however; for in a despatch he says—
"I left the inquiry with the irresistible impression that the proceeding was not undertaken for the purpose of discovering the guilty, but rather to satisfy the British and Brazilian Governments by hushing up, through a mock inquiry, that part of the question which relates to the possible violence offered to all or some of those who had been in the vessel."
I venture to ask your Lordships whether there is the slightest pretence for saying, as the noble Earl asserted in unmeasured terms, that the Brazilian Government endeavoured in every possible way to prevent a fair investigation of this matter? Unless the noble Earl can establish, that after the matter passed from the hands of the local authorities into those of the Brazilian Government, there was a denial of justice on the part of that Government, the noble Earl was not in a position, by the well-known law of reprisals, to demand compensation, and to follow up that demand by reprisals. Your Lordships should bear in mind that we have had the matter investigated wider persons of honour, credit, and character—namely, the chief of police, the President of the province (of whom Mr. Christie wrote,
1156
"I hear that he is a man of good reputation"), and the Brazilian Minister of Justice. Of the Minister of Justice, on the 5th of May 1862, Mr. Christie wrote—
"I had an interview with the Minister of Justice, to whose department this question more particularly belongs, and he gave me very strong assurances that everything which can be done in the way of inquiry and punishment shall be done, and I have much confidence in the rectitude of the present Minister of Justice."
What possible interest could the Minister of Justice, in whom Mr. Christie had confidence, have to abstain from the most searching inquiry into all the circumstances connected with the unfortunate affair?—what desire to screen any one of the offenders? And what was the result of the inquiry before that officer? It was the dismissal of two of the officials—the inspector of police and the sob-delegate—the conviction of eleven persons—not, as my noble Friend supposes, the apprehension of those persons, because many of them had escaped across the frontier—and a demand to be made for the extrndition of those who had so escaped. This was done by the Minister of Justice, the person in whom Mr. Christie had confidence; and this was the mode in which the noble Earl made out his charge against the Brazilian Government, and on which he founded his right to make reprisals. The noble Earl says his original demand for compensation was modest and forbearing; but in October his peremptory demand was made. I ask your Lordships whether, up to this time, there is any proof whatever that those persons to whom the inquiry was intrusted, and who had this important duty to discharge, failed in any respect in their duty? I apply the question to the chief of police, the President of the province, the Minister of Justice. The noble Earl is not satisfied with the slow pace of justice. He forces it on, and he asks to be allowed to co-operate and assist in the inquiry which was to take place—an interference with the administration of justice in a foreign country—an interference which, as the Brazilian Minister very properly said, would be an insult to the country. The noble Earl also insisted on singling out the persons to be accused. I now come to the case of Soarez, upon whom the noble Earl made some very strong observations. Soarez, he said was "captain of a lawless band of depredators." That is the way in which he is described by the diplomatic agents. Two persons engaged in the plunder

1157
were in his employ; and therefore it was urged he was connected with them, and not merely as a sharer of the spoil but as the instigator of the plunder. But let us be just. There is no proof that Soarez was on the spot at the time of the wreck, on the 9th of June. On the 12th he was seventy or eighty miles off, at Rio Grande The suspicion was that all the other property was conveyed away, so that there was no trace of it but two Bibles and a Commentary found in his house; and it is also stated—though that was not mentioned at the commencement of the proceedings—that two empty cases were found in his yard. But would a Roman Catholic, as Soarez was, have selected two Bibles and a Commentary, the Bibles being English moreover, for his share of the plunder? Besides, if the books were plunder, how easy would it have been to conceal them. But the Bibles were found openly; there was no attempt at concealment whatever. Soarez was examined; and the result was that there was no proof against him. Then what took place? Why, Mr. Vereker, on his part, said, "Unless Soarez is put into gaol or signally disgraced, we can expect no result from this inquiry." I do not suppose that the noble Earl wished, even on a rough magistrate, to inflict such rough punishment as that. Then comes Mr. Christie, who is a little more moderate in his demand than Mr. Vereker. He said, "The Government ought to prove Soarez's innocence or dismiss him." That is rather reversing the order of things at home. But the noble Earl approves of all that is done, and says, "The Brazilian Government ought to put Soarez on his trial." The only objection I have is that the noble Earl should select his own criminal. Senhor d'Abrantes, the Minister, said, "On exanimation of the plunderers no proof was found against Soarez; how is it possible to put him on his trial, when there is no evidence against him?" Will the noble Earl be good enough to give an answer to that question, instead of merely charging the Brazilian Government with having sought to elude inquiry and prevent the punishment of offenders? Before I go to the claim of the noble Earl for compensation, I should wish to call attention to the tone and style of all the correspondence. It is of a most offensive and insulting character to the Brazilian Government. Even the noble Earl himself has used strong expressions towards the Minister of a weak Power, which I confess I should like to have seen
1158
a little diluted. Her Majesty's Government, being annoyed with what they considered the evasive replies of the Brazilian authorities, proceeded to enforce their demands. Now, what are those demands? The first demand for compensation was made on the 8th of October 1 862, and the amount claimed was £5,550 for the plunder of goods and stores. There was then a demand made for the freight, amounting to £1,025, with the intimation that it would be subject to the owner producing a certificate of the value of the cargo and stores. Now, the Brazilian authorities, in objecting to those demands, complained of the absence of any valuation of the property in question. I submit that it was the duty of the noble Earl to obtain from Mr. Stephens a full account of the value of the cargo and goods before that claim for compensation was made. It is not, in my opinion, a very dignified proceeding for a great Power like England to make such demands upon a weak one when those demands were unsupported by evidence. I ask the noble Earl whether he took any advice upon the question before he forwarded his claims to the Brazilian Government? Did the noble Earl know that Mr. Stephens lost no freight at all upon which he could claim compensation? Mr. Christie, who had been some years practising at the bar of this country, ought to know better than to act as he has done. When the noble Earl proceeded to seek fur reprisals, he ought to have recollected the case of M. Pacifico, where our navy was also instructed to make reprisals. In that case the claim of M. Pacifico amounted to £21,200; but upon an investigation, by arbitrators appointed for the purpose, the amount actually awarded him was only £150. There was another circumstance connected with these claims upon the Brazilian Government which was very ominous. On the 8th October 1862, when the noble Earl wrote to Mr. Christie making the demand of £6,625 on the Brazilian Government, and offering to refer the matter to arbitration, he also sent instructions to the Admiral on the station to make arrangements to prepare for reprisals in case the Brazilian Government declined to entertain these claims. Now, I ask whether this disposition of the noble Earl to proceed to extremities does not show a dangerous desire on his part to proceed hostilely and arbitrarily? In despatches of the 4th and 8th of November it is true that the noble Earl instructed

1159
Mr. Christie to say that the English Government were willing to attend to any reasonable offer to refer all questions to arbitration; but Mr. Christie never communicated those instructions to the Brazilian Government, merely sending in the claim, with the intimation that Her Majesty's Government were ready to accept an offer of arbitration as to the actual amount of compensation. I cannot help feeling that Mr. Christie had reasons for not communicating the terms of the despatches of the 4th and 8th of November, and that he was heated by the communications which had taken place between him and the Brazilian authorities, and was desirous of concealing the offer of arbitration until the very latest moment.
The Marquis d'Abrantes, the Brazilian Minister, refused to acknowledge the responsibility of the Imperial Government; and declared that if force were used to enforce the claims of the British Government, the Brazilian Government would act as circumstances suggested. The claim was subsequently reduced to £3,200. The claim for freight was, of course, abandoned, but it was not clear how the claim came to be further reduced. No answer has been given by the noble Earl to the question of my noble Friend, as to whether Mr. Stephens had received from the underwriters any part of the money to be received for the cargo; and it is still an open question whether the noble Earl had not been fighting this glorious battle on behalf of the underwriters, and whether the greater part of the money recovered will not have to be paid over to them. Now, this is what the noble Earl chooses to style a moderate indemnity and a reasonable demand. I say that the noble Earl has acted in a harsh and oppressive manner, and I agree with my noble Friend that when he found that his diplomatic agents were getting heated by the controversies with the Brazilian authorities, he should have called the case home. If the noble Earl had trusted to his own calm and dispassionate judgment exclusively, the matter, no doubt, would have been settled satisfactorily to all parties. I think I can show your Lordships that this was no case for reprisals. Reprisal is a proceeding extremely hazardous in its character, and very closely bordering upon war. I insist, that in the present case reprisals ought never to have been resorted to, inasmuch as there was no denial of justice on the part of the Brazilian Government. I say that that
1160
Government has acted as promptly as they could have done under the difficult circumstances of their position with a view of satisfying the fair demands of this country. But if the right existed, what was the mode adopted to enforce it? The noble Earl has quoted Vattel to show that you may seize the property and persons of an offending State for redress of injuries. No one denied that, but the question was, should not that right be exercised with the prudence and precaution which ought to accompany every act verging so closely upon war? [Lord KINGSDOWN: It is war.] My noble and learned Friend says it is actual war. But in what manner have we proceeded in this matter of reprisals? As was suggested by my noble Friend, an embargo might have been laid on some of the Brazilian vessels in British ports, and all appearance of flagrant hostilities would have been avoided. But it appears that orders were given to the Admiral on the station to be in readiness for resorting to reprisals. Mr. Christie having given the instructions to proceed, the Admiral hastened to the spot with his squadron, and actually blockaded the port of Rio for six days. That certainly is not the mode in which the perilous act of reprisals should be exercised. The noble Earl has had a good deal to do with blockades lately, and nobody knew, or ought to know, better than he that blockades are only put in force in case of actual war It is also the practice to give notice to the vessels of neutral Powers of the approach of such a measure. No such notice was given on the present occasion. Five Brazilian merchant ships, valued at £13,000, were captured by our squadron. Was such a transaction ever before heard of, where the waters of the offending State were made a sort of pound to keep all vessels confined there until the claims were satisfied? But from the beginning to the end the communications with the Brazilian Government have been made in the most insulting manner. Let me call attention to the unfortunate circumstances resulting from these proceedings. The noble Earl asked whether we were to allow British subjects to be murdered because we were commercially interested in our relations with Brazil? But the noble Earl forgets the utter abscence of proof of those alleged murders. Like Mr. Vereker, the noble Earl is fond of assertion without proof. For a long time this country has carried on a most advantageous commercial intercourse with

1161
Brazil; and we have been upon such friendly terms with Brazil that a jealousy had arisen amongst foreign nations, in the belief that England had been treated by the Brazilian Government with greater favour than any other Power. But this rash movement on the part of the noble Earl has destroyed all the good effects of that intercourse. It is not merely our commercial interest that is concerned, but the character of the nation. Other nations will not look with careless eyes upon these proceedings. They will be apt to contrast our conduct towards the strong and the weak States. They will compare the language used by Her Majesty's Government towards America with that which the noble Earl has used towards Brazil. [Earl RUSSELL: The case of the Trent for instance.] Possibly the occasion may be considered to have arisen when the same remonstrances might be addressed to this country as were addressed on an occasion of similar reprisals being resorted to by Russia upon an equally weak Power as that of Brazil, and when it may be said, "It remains to be seen whether Great Britain, abusing the advantages afforded her by her immense maritime superiority, intends henceforth to pursue an isolated policy, without caring for those engagements which bound her; whether she intends to discharge herself from every obligation, as well as from every community of action, and authorize the Great Powers upon every opportunity to recognize towards the weak no other rule but their own will—no other right but their own physical strength."
LORD LYTTELTONsaid, he had long enjoyed the private friendship of Mr. Christie, and he was sure that he would discharge the duties of any post intrusted to him with honour and fidelity.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, he only asked for the Correspondence with a view of verifying the facts of the case in question.
Motion agreed to.

BRAZIL—PAPERS MOVED FOR.
  WAYWARDENS CONTRACTS BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to prevent Waywardens contracting for Works within their own Districts—Was presented by The Lord REDESDALE, and read 1a. (No. 148.)

  BRITISH COLUMBIA BOUNDARIES BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to define the Boundaries of the Colony of British Columbia, and to continue an Act to provide
  1162
  for the Government of the said Colony—Was presented by The Duke of NEWCASTLE, and read 1a. (No. 149.)
  House adjourned at Nine o'clock, to Monday next, half past Eleven o'clock.