Sitting of 15 April 1864

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN —Edward Mathew Fenwick, esquire, for Lancaster Borough.
SELECT COMMITTEE — On Trade with Foreign, Nations.
Report—On Barnstaple Election.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee*—Committee —R.P.
WAYS AND MEANS—Resolutions [April 14] reported.
WAYS AND MEANS—considered in Committee.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—Bridges (Ireland)*.
First Reading—Bridges (Ireland)* [Bill 70].
Second Reading— Copyright (No. 2)* [Bill 59]; Consolidated Fund (£15,000,000)*.
Referred to Select Committee — Copyright (No. 2) *.
Considered as amended—Registration of County Voters (Ireland)* [Bill 49]; Common Law Procedure (Ireland) Act (1853) Amendment*, and re-committed.

BOROUGH OF BELFAST.—QUESTION.
SIR HUGH CAIRNSmoved that the Copy of the Report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the state of the affairs of the Borough of Belfast, with the Minutes of the Evidence, presented 24th February, 1859, be referred to the Committee on the Belfast Improvement (No. 2) Bill.
MR. MAGUIREsaid, he should oppose the Motion. The corporation of Belfast had been proved to have acted wrongly in the administration of the funds of that borough; and individuals belonging to that body had from time to time sought, by the aid of Parliament, to free themselves from the obligations which the Court of Chancery had imposed upon them. In 1857 they brought in a Bill which they were obliged to withdraw; and in 1858 another Bill which they brought in was rejected by a Select Committee. Subsequently, a Royal Commission was sent down to inquire into the matter. The charges preferred against the corporation before the Commission were, that it had kept the popular element out of the Council, and had closed the representation of the borough to all except those of its own way of thinking. The popular party, however, finding they could do nothing, ultimately withdrew from the inquiry; but the Report of the Royal Commission was nevertheless laid before Parliament. The case concerning the corporation was at present under trial; and it was sought to get the Report of an ex parte investigation

1075
laid before the Committee in order to prejudice those who were seeking an indemnity in the Court of Chancery. If the evidence taken before the Royal Commission were necessary to the Committee, the Chairman of the Committee would have been instructed to make the demand, but no such application had been authorized.
SIR HUGH CAIRNSsaid, he was surprised at the view taken of the question by the hon. Gentleman. When the matter of which he spoke was referred to the arbitration of the Colonial Secretary, it was agreed that the Report referred to should be taken as part of the materials on which the award should be made.
MR. BUTTaffirmed that the Bill referred to was one intended to reverse a decree of the Court of Chancery, and urged the House to give the matter a careful consideration before agreeing to the Motion.
COLONEL WILSON PATTENsaid, he wished to point out that the principle of producing before an existing Committee the evidence taken at a previous investigation was one usually followed. He saw o objection to the Motion.
Motion agreed to.
Ordered,
That the Copy of the Report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the state of the affairs of the borough of Belfast, with the Minutes of the Evidence [presented 24th February, 1859] be referred to the Committee on the Belfast Improvement (No. 2) Bill.—(Sir Hugh Cairns.)

LONDON MAIN TRUNK UNDERGROUND RAILWAY BILL.—INSTRUCTION.
MR. AYRTONmoved—
"That it be an Instruction to the Committee on Group 1 of Railway Bills, if they think fit, to allow the promoters of the London Main Trunk Underground Railway Bill [ordered by the House not to be proceeded with in the present Session] to be heard upon Petition against the following Bills, with which such Bill would, if proceeded with, have been in competition—namely, Metropolitan Railway (Trinity Square Extension), East London Railway, Great Eastern Railway (Metropolitan Station and Railways), Metropolitan District Railways (No. 2), Metropolitan Grand Union Railway (No. 2); Provided that such Petition shall have been deposited within the time prescribed by the Standing Orders for depositing Petitions against Private Bills."
COLONEL WILSON PATTENsaid, he should oppose the Motion. He wished to call attention to the recommendation of the Joint Committee of both Houses, that certain Bills should not be proceeded with during the present Session. The object
1076
of that recommendation would be frustrated if every Bill rejected by it were allowed to come into competition with others.
MR. MASSEYsaid, he would remind the House that the Joint Committee only recommended the postponement of the Bill referred to, and not that the schemes involved in them were to be superseded by others which were recommended to be heard. If the promoters of these Bills were not to be heard before the Committees appointed to consider the more favoured schemes, they would be effectually superseded, and it would be useless for them to avail themselves of the privilege to proceed with their schemes at a future time. They did not ask for their schemes to be sanctioned now, but only to be heard against other schemes.
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he hoped the applicants would be allowed to appear before the Committee, as their object was purely destructive and not constructive. He further hoped other parties might be emboldened to follow their example.
COLONEL WILSON PATTENsaid, that after the observations of the hon. Member for Salford he should not press his objections.
Motion agreed to.
Ordered,
That it be an Instruction to the Committee on Group 1 of Railway Bills, if they think fit, to allow the Promoters of the London Main Trunk Underground Railway Bill [ordered by the House not to be proceeded with in the present Session] to be heard upon Petition against the following Bills, with which such Bill would, if proceeded with, have been in competition—namely, Metropolitan Railway (Trinity Square Extension), East London Railway, Great Eastern Railway (Metropolitan Station and Railways), Metropolitan District Railways (No. 2), Metropolitan Grand Union Railway (No. 2); Provided that such Petition shall have been deposited within the time prescribed by the Standing Orders for depositing Petitions against Private Bills.—(Mr. Ayrton.)

BARNSTAPLE ELECTION.
House informed, that the Committee had determined—
That Thomas Lloyd, esquire, is not duly elected a Burgess to serve in this present Parliament for the Borough of Barnstaple.
That Richard Bremridge, esquire, is duly elected, and ought to have been returned a Burgess to serve in this present Parliament for the Borough of Barnstaple.
And the said Determinations were ordered to be entered in the Journals of this House.
That the Committee had altered the Poll at such Election by striking off the names of John Gould King, William Henry Thomas, George

1077
Smyth, Thomas Hooper, James Hooper, Thomas Lane Blackmore, Matthew Hutchinson, and Francis Hodge, as not having had a right to vote at such Election.
Also, of Richard Garnsey Adams, Francis Bowden, Henry Lewis, Edwin Ley, John Tinson Turner, Arthur Turner, Charles Hancock, and William Harris, it having been proved that they had received money for the purpose of influencing their Votes at such Election.
Also, of Benjamin Williams, Edmund Darke, Samuel Glyde, Richard Bencraft, Charles Snow, and William Verney Sanders, it having been proved that they have been guilty of Bribery at such Election.
House further informed, that the Committee had agreed to the following Resolutions:—
That Thomas Lloyd, esquire, was, by his agents, guilty of bribery at the last Election.
That it was proved to the Committee that Richard Garnsey Adams, Francis Bowden, Henry Lewis, Edwin Ley, John Tinson Turner, Arthur Turner, Charles Hancock, and William Harris had been bribed with the payment of the sum of five pounds respectively; but that it was not proved that such bribery was committed with the knowledge and consent of the sitting Member.
That they have not reason to believe that corrupt practices have extensively prevailed at the said Election for Barnstaple.
Report to lie upon the table.
Clerk of the Crown to attend on Monday next to amend the Return.
Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee to be laid before this House.

PENAL SERVITUDE ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.—QUESTION.
MR. MAGUIREsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he is aware of the fact that the operation of one of the provisions of the Penal Servitude Bill will be to abolish the Refuges for Female Convicts in Ireland; and, if so, whether the Irish Government had been consulted upon the matter, and had approved or otherwise the abolition of said probationary institutions?
SIR GEORGE GREY, in reply, said, it was not the intention of the Government, in preparing the Penal Servitude Bill, to interfere in any way with the practice which prevailed in Ireland of sending female convicts having tickets-of-leave to refuges, both Protestant and Roman Catholic, from which he believed very beneficial results had arisen. He had been in communication with the Irish Government on the subject, and he had given notice of an Amendment in Committee on the Penal Servitude Bill, which would effectually accomplish
1078
the object which the hon. Member very properly had in view.

THE PROPOSED NEW MUSEUMS AT SOUTH KENSINGTON.—QUESTION.
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he wished to ask the First Commissioner of Works, What number of Plans have been sent in for the proposed New Museums at South Kensington, where and when he intends to exhibit them, and who are to be the Judges to decide upon them?
MR. COWPERsaid, in reply, that thirty-two sets of designs had been sent in by public competition, and those designs were now hanging up in the Royal Gallery, where they were accessible at any time to the Members of that House. The judges who would be appointed as a Committee to award the prizes would consist of five, and three of whom were architects of acknowledged reputation and experience, but not at that moment practising their profession. There would be also a painter, who was a professional man, and an amateur.
MR. DILLWYN: What is the object of the Museum?
MR. COWPERsaid, the designs were for the plan of the new building that was to occupy one side of the front of the site which had been purchased at South Kensington, where the late Exhibition building stood, and which would afford space enough to receive the Natural History collection of the British Museum and a Museum of Patent Inventions, if it should be ultimately determined to place them in the building. The first thing would be, to get the designs for the new building as a preliminary step, and the use to which that building would be put would be a matter for further consideration. He apprehended that no steps would be taken which would prevent the hon. Gentleman, if he should think, fit, in any form he might desire, bringing the subject under the attention of the House.
MR. SOMERSET BEAUMONTsaid, he wished to know whether the judges were to be paid?
MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHwould beg to inquire, by what authority all those plans were prepared?
MR. COWPERsaid, it was not usual to offer payment to gentlemen who were kind enough to assent to act as judges in such matters, and it would be going out of the ordinary course to press payment upon

1079
them. With regard to the other question, he thought it was his duty, as administering the affairs of the Board of Works, to endeavour to persuade the architects who were disposed to make designs to favour him with the exercise of their ingenuity and skill, and to prepare those designs for the consideration of Parliament.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, he wished to ask two questions relating to this matter. The one was, whether the Government propose to submit to the House their plans for the Natural History collection, and, if so, how soon; secondly, whether those plans will be submitted to the House before any steps are taken to provide a building for that collection?
MR. COWPERreplied, that he was really unable to say at what particular period of time the matter would be brought before the House.
MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEsaid, he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman what he intends to do with Burlington House?
MR. COWPERsaid, he believed that he would soon be able to lay on the table an estimate for erecting a National Gallery in the Garden of Burlington House, which was one-half only of the site.

TRIAL OF ARMSTRONG GUNS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. H. BERKELEYsaid, he rose to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, Whether, as the Armstrong breech-loading guns, constructed by Sir William Armstrong and now under trial at Shoeburyness, are made chiefly of solid blocks of mild steel (tempered in oil), and consequently totally different from the service guns which they are considered to represent; and whether it is the intention of the War Office to institute any and what trial of the Armstrong guns as at present employed in Her Majesty's service, it being evident, from Admiral Kuper's report, that some trial is urgently needed?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he was afraid that he could scarcely, within the limits of a reply to a question, enter into a discussion of the points which the hon. Gentleman raised. He could only say that he would be very glad to enter more fully into the discussion of those points when they came to the gun Vote in the Army Estimates. He might, however, then state that the Armstrong guns now on trial at Shoeburyness were,
  1080
  with very trifling alteration, the same guns that were in the service. The guns in the service were constructed of barrels of steel strengthened by bands. That was the principle of the guns now at Shoeburyness. The object of the trial was to discover whether Mr. Whitworth or Sir William Armstrong could produce the best gun. As to whether it was the intention of the War Office to institute any trial of the service guns, he could only say that those guns were now undergoing a practical trial. A great many of them were now in possession of the army and the navy. Reports were received at the Horse Guards, and also quarterly Reports of the condition of the guns, stating any injury which they might have received during the practice.
  MR. H. BERKELEYsaid, he wished to know, whether he was to understand that the Armstrong gun, which was to be tried, was not of homogeneous metal?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Only the barrel.

ASSIZE TOWN FOR THE WEST RIDING.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL EDWARDSsaid, in the absence of his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir John Hay), he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he will lay upon the table of the House a Copy of the Letter from the Chairman of the West Riding Quarter Sessions, recently held at Pontefract, and of the Resolution passed there on the subject of the Assize Town for the West Riding of Yorkshire?
  SIR GEORGE GREYreplied that he had no objection to lay a Copy of the document in question on the table.

LABOURERS IN THE DOCKYARDS.

  QUESTION.
  SIR ARTHUR BULLERsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether the Government intend doing anything towards the relief of the labourers in the several public Dockyards, who are at present paid at a rate considerably below the ordinary market value of labour?
  LORD CLARENCE PAGET, in reply, said, the Government had no intention of increasing the pay of the labourers in the Royal Dockyards. The hon. Gentleman said they were paid at a rate considerably below the market value of their labour;

  1081
  but he could only say the Admiralty had very numerous applications for the entry of labourers. It was, however, their intention to carry out—indeed, they were already carrying out—a limited system of building certain ships by piecework, as was recommended by the Committee on Dockyards; and if the artificers used great exertions they would receive somewhat higher pay. The labourers would likewise participate in these advantages.
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, he wished to ask, whether the applications referred to by the noble Lord were not from men desiring to be put upon the fixed list of the Dockyard establishment, and whether there was not at present very serious difficulty in filling up the ranks of the hired men with persons of competent ability in the shipwright and other departments?
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, there was no difficulty in filling up the vacancies with hired labourers.

UNDER SECRETARIES OF STATE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. DISRAELI: Sir, I wish to make an inquiry of Her Majesty's Government respecting the distribution of offices as at present arranged. The point is one of some gravity, and I trust I may be permitted to preface my Question with one or two remarks, which shall be confined strictly within the limits of an explanation of its purport. The matter to which I wish to call attention is the tenure of office by those Gentlemen who at present fill the post of Under Secretaries of State. The House is aware that the distribution of offices is, generally speaking, arranged by statute—by the Act familiarly known to every hon. Gentleman as the Act of Queen Anne, the 15th of Geo. II., and an Act of Geo. III., the celebrated Act of Mr. Burke when he introduced his economical reform. Then it was definitely arranged that two Secretaries of State might sit in the House of Commons, and two Under Secretaries. In very modern times, in the experience of all Gentlemen here—I think in 1855 or 1856—when a new Secretary of State was appointed, the Secretary of State for War, an Act was introduced which, referring to the previous state of the law on the subject, enacted that in future it should be legal for a third Secretary of State to sit in the House of Commons, and also a third Under Secretary.
  1082
  Still more recently, when the President of the Board of Control became also a Secretary of State, in an India Act it was provided that it should be legal for a fourth Secretary of State to sit in the House of Commons, and also a fourth Under Secretary. Although it may not have occurred to them, the House upon reflection will become aware that, at the present moment, there are five Under Secretaries of State sitting in the House of Commons. The House will feel that this is a subject which unless it is capable of satisfactory explanation by the Government, is of a very grave character. It is grave in a constitutional point of view, but it may become still more grave in the consequences which may be entailed on the individual who, if my present view of the case be right, fills the office of that fifth Under Secretary of State. I have no wish at present to enter into any details. I wish to confine myself merely to making the question which I desire to put to the Government perfectly clear to the House. We shall have opportunities, if it be necessary, of entering into the discussion of the subject in a more convenient manner. But I cannot suppose that this point has not occurred to the consideration of Her Majesty's Ministers; and, therefore, I wish now to invite some explanation from the Government why their distribution of offices at present, as far as regards the Under Secretaries of State, should apparently be so opposed to the provisions of the statutes which exist on this subject.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: No change has recently taken place in regard to the distribution of Government Offices. It is the same now as it has been for a long time past. The question of the right hon. Gentleman is one which requires examination, and I am not prepared to discuss it off hand, no notice having been given of it.
  MR. DISRAELI: My explanation of the reason why I did not give any notice of my intention to bring this question before the House is the same, I think, as that which has influenced the noble Lord in declining to consider it now. The fact is I was not before aware of the state of affairs in respect to this matter. But because I was not aware of that state of affairs that does not make the matter the less important. The noble Lord, I am sure, will agree with me that this is a question of great importance. And you, Sir (addressing Mr. Speaker), will say whether

  1083
  it may not be considered a question of privilege, and, being such, whether it may not be brought before you on the first opportunity.

THE HIGHWAY ACT.—DISCIPLINE IN PRISONS.—QUESTION.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, What are his intentions in regard to two subjects which are now exciting great interest; whether he intends to introduce a Bill for the amendment of the Highway Act; and whether he will bring in the Bill he promised for the improvement of discipline in county and borough prisons?
SIR GEORGE GREYreplied, that the Bill regarding highways was in print, and would be soon introduced. With regard to the other measure, he was waiting to receive the Report of medical men as to the dietary of borough prisons before he completed the provisions of the Bill.

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

THE FOREIGN OFFICE AND THE BOARD OF TRADE.

  SELECT COMMITTEE MOVED FOR.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he rose to call the attention of the House to the arrangement between the Foreign Office and the Board of Trade in reference to trade with foreign nations, and to move for a Select Committee thereon. The first point that would suggest itself to any hon. Member reading the terms of his Motion would probably be that it was rather a serious thing to ask the Government for a Select Committee to inquire into the manner in which two of their Departments transacted their business. There were two precedents for such a course, however, to which he might refer—the one was the Select Committee which had been granted to inquire into the constitution of the Board of Admiralty, and the other a Motion by the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Horsfall) two or three years ago, for inquiry into the constitution of the Board of Trade. That Motion was not, indeed, granted, but it was not opposed on the ground of being contrary to the practice of the House. He was quite aware that it
  1084
  would require strong arguments to induce the House to grant a Select Committee in accordance with his Motion. He hoped, however, to show that a grievance existed and was felt strongly by the best informed of the commercial community. The merchants and manufacturers of the large towns, having the means of associated action through their Chambers of Commerce, had held a meeting at which the subject was discussed, and a brief but pithy memorial was drawn up and presented to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. In that memorial nineteen principal towns were represented—including Birmingham, Bradford, Bristol, Coventry, Leeds, Nottingham, Newcastle, Sheffield, and most of the important commercial towns, except those in Lancashire. Although the Chambers of Commerce of Lancashire did not belong to this association, a deputation from the Manchester Chamber of Commerce which represented the whole of the cotton districts attended, and fully concurred in the representation. The memorial was to the following effect:
  "That your memorialists understand that the arrangement between the Foreign Office and the Board of Trade is at present as follows:—That the Foreign Office takes action in commercial matters, solely in concert with the Board of Trade. That consequently communications from Her Majesty's Ministers and Consuls abroad on commercial matters are forwarded by the Foreign Office to the Board of Trade, in order that through such Board they may, if deemed desirable, be communicated to commercial men; and that, on the other hand, the suggestions of such commercial men for action by the Foreign Office in commercial matters are expected to be made to the Board of Trade. That while gratefully acknowledging the desire, both on the part of your Lordship, of the President of the Board of Trade, and of the staff of both offices, to promote the interests of commerce, your memorialists have found by experience that this double action tends to defeat the fulfilment of that desire. That the present movement throughout the Continent of Europe towards free trade, consequent on the reduction of its tariff by the French Government, makes it especially necessary that our Government should give constant and unremitting attention to all questions connected with foreign tariffs (especially to any changes that may be contemplated in them), and should be ready to take prompt action on information obtained, while at the same time it makes it especially undesirable that English manufacturers should find themselves compelled, by want of such prompt action, to make in Parliament or through the press such public expression of their wishes as tends to their defeat by alarming manufacturers abroad. That therefore your memorialists cannot but think that the interests of trade would be greatly promoted if commercial men in this country were put in im-

  1085
  mediate and direst communication with those who are responsible for the action of Government in commercial matters with foreign countries,"
  What was asked was a Select Committee to inquire whether means could not be found to put the trading interest of the country into immediate communication with that Department of the Government which conducted negotiations relating to trade with foreign nations. He had no doubt the members of the Chambers of Commerce would be able to prove their case if the Committee were granted. If the House would allow him he would point out very briefly how the present mode of administration was very likely to lead to the evils practically felt by the merchants and manufacturers throughout the country. The first thing was, that it required, as stated in the memorial, that there should be a concerted action between the two offices—the Board of Trade and the Foreign Office—before any representation relating to trade and commerce could be made abroad, or any negotiations conducted. In other words, it required that the two offices should be of the same mind. That occasioned great difficulty and caused great delay. Feebleness of action was also the result; frequently there was no action at all, or it was not resolved upon till so late that it had little or no weight. Another disadvantage was that the trading interest was forced by the theory of the arrangement to work upon the Foreign Office through the Board of Trade, and consequently it was almost an impossibility to obtain decisive action. The Foreign Office did the work; it made the representations and conducted the negotiations abroad, and it was best qualified to do so, because it received information from Her Majesty's consuls abroad, but the theory was, that the other part of the information — namely, that concerning the interests, objects, and wishes of commercial men at home should be received through the Board of Trade, That was a very inconvenient arrangement, and it would be much better if one office received the information from both quarters. As the Foreign Office did the whole work it should obtain the whole information. The theory was that if any question should be asked in that House with regard to negotiations abroad, instead of asking it of the Under Secretary, or, if they had the good fortune to have him among them, of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, it was ad-
  1086
  dressed to his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, who could not state in reply what he had done, but only what Earl Russell had done, but it would surely be much more satisfactory to the Members of the House, as well as to the country, if a reply could be given by the Minister who had conducted the matter. Then, again, commercial representations must depend on political representations and political negotiations; therefore it was desirable that the office which conducted political negotiations should feel itself responsible for the commercial negotiations, otherwise commerce would be sacrificed, as he feared it had been, to other questions more urgently brought before the Foreign Office. Under the present arrangement, moreover, there was a want of responsibility and a relief from responsibility. The Board of Trade was of very little use to the trading community in matters appertaining to foreign commerce, although possessing the greatest desire to serve the interests of trade, but it was of very considerable use to the Foreign Office by acting as a shield or buffer between them and any pressure which might be brought to bear upon them. These were some reasons why the present relations between the two offices were likely to be disadvantageous to trade; but the chief reason why, at the request of the very influential bodies to which he had alluded, he had been induced to take up the subject, was that, in consequence of the French Treaty, there had been such a movement towards free trade throughout Europe as made prompt action by the Government at this time especially desirable. Some hon. Gentlemen, indeed, supposed that the French Treaty was a reason why there should be slowness and inaction in this matter; but the trading community, on the other hand, thought it should rather beget watchful supervision on the part of the Minister who had the control of Foreign Affairs, with the view to the development of our foreign trade. It was difficult to find any question which was less of a party question, and he must candidly acknowledge the earnest desire not only of the present but also of the late and possible future occupants of the Treasury bench to further the interests of trade in every manner. But while making this acknowledgment he must state that some remarks he had made on a former occasion had been misapprehended by the right hon. Gentleman opposite the Member for Buckinghamshire, who appeared to sup-

  1087
  pose that merchants and manufacturers wished to return to the old system of reciprocity. But they had no such wish. They felt and knew, and were glad to feel and know, that the French Treaty had put an end to the possibility of reciprocity treaties on the part of England. They were prepared to abide every consequence of free trade. That was the almost unanimous feeling. But they did not think they were unreasonable in calling upon the Government to do all in its power to develop the principle of free trade in foreign countries, and in desiring that our agents abroad and our Ministers at home, while fully imbued with the principles of free trade, should be also sufficiently acquainted with the details of British commerce, and the wants of commercial men, that when an opportunity presented itself, the utmost should be made of it. They thought that the interests of commerce were of sufficient importance to warrant the political power of the country being exerted in asking in a perfectly respectful and friendly manner, from foreign countries these two things. First, that when a treaty was made between two foreign countries, England should be put in the position of the most favoured nation—a request that was perfectly reasonable; and next, that when any treaty of commerce or change of tariff was in contemplation in any foreign country, our Ministers should ask to be informed of such intended changes in order that they might be enabled to offer suggestions. It might be possible even in the most protectionist country to make suggestions so manifestly advantageous alike to the foreign nation and to the British producer, that it might be almost impossible to refuse to adopt them. But if those suggestions were not made at the time, they would be useless afterwards. He would mention to the House two or three instances in which the interests of English commerce had not been so well looked after as they might have been. The French treaty offered a great opportunity for developing our trade with foreign countries, but he feared that, to some extent, this opportunity had been lost. If the efforts of the hon. Member for Rochdale had been followed up in the same spirit in which he made them, that treaty would have been of more advantage to England than it had been. There was the old question of the Belgian tariff. When the treaty between that country and France was being negotiated, the Chamber of Commerce at Brad-
  1088
  ford urged the Foreign Office to take some steps in the matter, and to make suggestions which might then have been successful, while the Belgian Government was uncommitted to its own manufacturers. The opportunity was, however, lost, and the consequence had been, he feared, that we had not so good a bargain as we might have had in respect to the Scheldt dues. Then in the case of Prussia, when the treaty between France and Prussia was under discussion, the Chambers of Commerce in this country made an earnest representation to the Foreign Office to send out some one to Berlin to watch the negotiation. After a delay, Mr. Mallet, of the Board of Trade, a highly qualified gentleman, who had cooperated with the hon. Member for Rochdale in making the French Treaty, was sent, but he was too late to do anything useful. He might as well not have gone at all, but if there had been but one office to consult, no doubt he would have been in time. The case was still stronger in regard to Italy. As soon as Italy became one nation it became necessary to establish one tariff for the whole country, and that tariff was decided upon after a treaty with France. He had frequently urged upon the Under Secretary of State the propriety of sending some one to Turin, who was well acquainted with English trade, that the unification of the tariff might be favourable to the interests of English manufacture. The answer always was that it would be of no use to send any one, as we must wait until France had made her bargain. But it was not necessary for us to be dragged after France. Although we had no reductions of tariff to offer, we might have been able to show to the Italian Government and to the men of commerce of that country, that there were many cases in which the tariff might be reduced without injury to any one. Mr. Mallet was at last sent out to Turin, but he was again too late. His presence was then more likely to do harm than good to the commerce of this country, and he (Mr. Forster), for one, was very anxious that he should come home again. In Russia the tariff was almost prohibitory. Upon his own goods, Orleans stuff, the present Russian duty was £26 per cwt. Hon. Members would appreciate the oppressive weight of that duty when they learnt that the 15 per cent ad valorem duty in France amounted to only £4 10 s. per cwt. It was difficult to imagine a country where it was more the duty of the Government to care for the many con-

  1089
  sumers rather than the few manufacturers which Russia possessed. But even Russia was awakening to the impolicy of high tariffs, and last year it was stated that a reduction in the tariff had been made. Those reductions, however, did not assist English goods, and, according to the information he had obtained, the reason was obvious—they were adopted after being submitted to the French Ambassador. Our Ambassador ought to have been instructed to communicate with the Russian Government at the time, and he hoped the hon. Under Secretary would say whether any instructions had been given to the English Ambassador on the subject. His own opinion was that the departments were perfectly innocent of making any communication to him on that occasion. With respect to Austria, he would only say that it appeared to be the opinion both of the Board of Trade and of the Foreign Office that this was not a time to make any representations to Austria. The opinion of those engaged in the Austrian trade was quite different, especially as it was known that the Austrian Government had taken steps to obtain the opinion of the manufacturers of that kingdom. In reply to a memorial that had been presented, the Foreign Minister, after communication with the Board of Trade, said that this was not a right time to move in the matter. He would wish to know whether that reply was based upon political or upon commercial grounds. If it were based upon political reasons, he could only say that any political differences which existed would not be increased by appealing to the interest of both countries in the encouragement of mutual trade. It might be asked how it was that matters had got into their present condition. It was a general opinion among commercial men that our Ambassadors and our consuls abroad were in fault; but in that view he did not share. He believed that the fault really lay in the machinery of the two offices, rather than in any want of desire to do their duty on the part of our officers. Our Ministers abroad might have too little knowledge of commercial affairs, but he believed they were well disposed to assist commerce if they could. When representations upon commercial matters were sent by these gentlemen to the Foreign Office, that Office sent them to the Board of Trade, but those gentlemen looked to the Foreign Office for their promotion, and knew that they were not
  1090
  so likely to get it for exertions in matters which were considered by the Foreign Office to be not the business of that Office but Board of Trade business. It might be said that fault was attributable to commercial men for not bringing sufficient pressure upon the Government. Perhaps they did err in allowing the Government to lead too quiet a life; but for himself he must say he was weary of making representations to the Government. The difficulty that the commercial community experienced was in getting the two offices to work together. They had, first of all, to see that the Foreign Office was put in communication with the Board of Trade, and then to take care that the latter received the requisite information. This arrangement resulted in much delay and inaction, and when any failure occurred it was almost impossible to tell with whom lay the responsibility. It was the old story of Lord Chatham and Sir Richard Strachan over again. They all knew how in former days—
  "The Earl of Chatham, with his sword drawn,
  Was waiting for Sir Richard Strachan;
  Sir Richard, longing to be at 'em,
  Was waiting for the Earl of Chatham."
  So it was now with the Foreign Office and the Board of Trade—
  "The Earl Russell, with his pen made,
  Was waiting for the Board of Trade;
  The Board of Trade, in helpless bustle,
  Was waiting for the Earl Russell."
  What was complained of, in two words, was this, that while responsibility rested on one body, the power of action rested on another body. Their desire was that the office where the work was transacted should also bear the responsibility. The first objection to the alteration would in all probability come from the Board of Trade, and would, from its nature, carry with it some force. It would be said that the Board of Trade must not be made less powerful than it was, because it acted as the representative of the commercial interests; and that, if any change were made, it would be better to lodge the power as well as the responsibility in the hands of that body. That, of course, would be a question for the consideration of the Select Committee, if the Government would grant one. One thing, however, was certain. They could not have two sets of negotiations carried on at the same time. If his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade cared about the influence of his office, he would remind him that a

  1091
  powerless responsibility carried with it no influence. Then came the question — if the work could not be given to the Board of Trade, why could not the responsibility be laid upon the Foreign Office? There was, however, one objection to this, which would proceed from the Foreign Office, and one which was very natural and hardly blamable. The state of things by which an office became relieved of responsibility was undoubtedly a very pleasant one, and one that the office so relieved would be loth to see changed. He did not believe that that objection would be expressed, but he was none the less convinced that it would be felt, though perhaps unconsciously. It might also be urged that the work of the Foreign Office was already so great that it could not be increased without injuring its efficiency; but he considered that no work was more legitimately within the province of that office than the furthering of our commercial interests with foreign nations. If any other subject received prior attention its claims ought indeed to be very great. He believed both his hon. Friend and the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Office to be greatly mistaken if they imagined that they could escape this work by maintaining the existing arrangement. At present the commercial interest invariably applied to the Foreign Office, upon which was consequently entailed the additional labour of applying to the Board of Trade. He had already said that he believed they had missed the opportunity which the French Treaty had offered them, but they had now another opportunity of which they could avail themselves in consequence of the success of that treaty. The success of the Commercial Treaty with France had been wonderful, and he could not but believe that other nations, seeing that success, would enter into similar reductions of their tariffs, whereby their trade with England would be greatly increased. The French imports had increased in 1863 11 per cent as compared with 1861. In exports the manufactures showed an increase during the same period of 38 per cent, and the Customs had brought a larger amount to the revenue by 33 per cent. There was no part of the kingdom which had benefited from the French Treaty in a greater degree than the town he represented, and yet the French exports in woollen goods, the manufactures of which were supposed to be imperilled by the treaty, had increased by 54 per cent. That was
  1092
  the result which all true free traders had anticipated, for it was one of their first principles that any loss experienced in one branch of manufacture would be compensated for by increased industry and energy in another. There was one reason for the alteration he proposed essentially English. The nation was, he believed, generally, but not universally, prosperous. They heard less about the Lancashire distress than they did some short time since, but the effects of that distress were still perceptible, and rendered necessary every exertion on the part of our Government to provide fresh markets for our manufactures, especially those connected with cotton. The inhabitants of Europe numbered 260,000,000, and our exports were above £50,000,000. Of that sum, France, with a population of 37,000,000, took a little above £9,000,000; Austria, with 35,000,000 inhabitants, about £780,000; and Russia, with a population of 74,000,000, little more than £2,000,000. Here then were countries civilized and interested in extending their trade with England, and every effort ought to be made to induce them to make alterations in their tariffs which would admit of such extension. He begged leave to move the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the arrangement between the Foreign Office and the Board of Trade in reference to our trade with Foreign nations.
  MR. HEYGATEseconded the Motion.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the arrangement between the Foreign Office and the Board of Trade in reference to Trade with Foreign Nations,"—(Mr. W. E. Forster,)
  —instead thereof.
  MR. LAYARDsaid, that he could not allow the subject touched upon by his hon. Friend to pass without observation, as it was one that was worthy of great attention. His hon. Friend had made it his study and possessed as much information upon it as any hon. Member of the House; in addition to which he believed that some resolutions passed by a deputation from a large number of Chambers of Commerce of the most considerable cities in the country, had a short time ago been confided to his care. Those resolutions, or rather memorials, had been somewhat largely circulated among the Members of the House. He had himself received one,

  1093
  and the value of the opinions expressed in it had been enhanced by the advocacy of his hon. Friend. The document had, however, been drawn up under an entire misapprehension as to facts, and the assertions which in it assumed the appearance of realities, were without any foundation: whatever. The same thing might be asserted of much which had fallen from his; hon. Friend. He did not for one moment mean to say that his hon. Friend had made any statements which he knew to he untrue, but he believed that his hon. Friend did not understand the relative positions of the Foreign Office and the Board of Trade. It was not unnatural that the Chambers of Commerce in this country should consider their interests as paramount to almost everything else in importance; but it should be remembered that the duty of the Government was not to watch over one interest to the exclusion of all others, but that its aim should be the promotion of the general welfare of the community. He was the last man in the world to doubt the importance of our commercial relations. Our greatness and prosperity were, in his opinion, greatly dependent upon our commercial relations with other countries, and he could assure his hon. Friend that the Foreign Office was fully alive to that fact. His right hon. Friend near him (Mr. Milner Gibson) was one of the leaders of the free trade movement in this country, and therefore it was hardly necessary to say that neither the Foreign Office nor the Board of Trade were insensible to the representation of the commercial interests of the country. The position of our country was different from that of almost every other country in Europe. Some years ago, after a long and arduous struggle, the principles of free trade were accepted by the House. After we had carried out the reform of our own fiscal system, our attention was turned to the possibility of introducing the principles of free trade into our commercial relations with foreign countries. The first country to which the attention of the Foreign Office was turned was naturally France, with which, looking at the situation of the two nations, England ought to maintain the largest commercial relations. Commercial relations on the basis of free trade were proposed to the French Government, and, fortunately, at the head of the French Empire was a Sovereign of great liberality and intelligence, with Ministers who equally understood the advantages of the free trade system.
  1094
  France itself was, however, by no means prepared for the introduction of anything like free trade; but, happily, the Commercial Treaty was carried through. He was not going to repeat the history of that treaty, but he would remind the House that the most eminent diplomatist in the employ of the Crown (Earl Cowley) represented the Foreign Office, and that the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Cobden), than whom there could be no higher authority on commercial questions, acted as joint negotiator with Earl Cowley. The articles of the tariff were discussed one by one; the hon. Member for Rochdale was able to make such amendments as, from his knowledge of the subject, he believed to be necessary, and the result was that a most satisfactory treaty was concluded. After the conclusion of the treaty a very different course was pursued by the two Governments. The wisest policy, in his opinion, was to do as the British Government had done, and give to all the world what they had given to France. But the French Government adopted another policy, reserving to themselves the right of negotiating with other countries upon the same terms as with ourselves, and they did not extend the provisions of the treaty to any other country. By following a different course England deprived herself of the means of making bargains with other countries, believing that those countries would in time be induced to follow her example, and that the increased prosperity of England and France, derived from that treaty, would have its effect in the course of time, would convince other nations of the vast advantages of free trade, and would lead them eventually to enter into more liberal commercial relations with us. He believed it was the opinion of the hon. Member for Rochdale, as it was the opinion of other men competent to judge, that after the conclusion of the Commercial Treaty with France it was not advisable to open negotiations for commercial treaties with other countries, that further tariff bargains were not advisable, and that it was better to leave free trade to carry its own conviction to the minds of foreign nations. It was impossible to make those nations understand as yet the importance and the advantage of free trade principles, and he believed that although many eminent statesmen did, there were very few countries in Europe, not even excepting France, which yet appreciated those advantages. It must be recollected that speeches were still made in

  1095
  this House by the hon. Member for West Norfolk among the rest, insisting that free trade had ruined some interests in England, and that the time must come for the re-imposition of protective duties. Whatever might be the value of those arguments they were repeated abroad; and the result was that when free trade arguments were used to foreign Governments, people were apt to say that, having lost our own tail, we wanted them now to cut off theirs; and the more our Chambers of Commerce urged these tariff reductions the more convinced were foreigners that we had some interested object in trying to induce them to adopt our system. The Foreign Office could only use diplomatic means in trying to bring about a better state of things. They could not go about to all the Prime Ministers in Europe with a blunderbuss, saying, "A commercial treaty, or your life!" All they could do was to lay before foreign nations the commercial prosperity of this country under free trade and the advantages which they would derive from a more liberal commercial policy. The Foreign Office must watch their opportunities, and the best moment for making representations must be a question for their consideration and for the consideration of those who represented us abroad. His hon. Friend complained of the British Government for following in the wake of France; but that instead of being a reproach, ought to be a cause of praise. It was the interest of England to get France to enter into commercial relations with other countries, because, until she did so, England had no locus standi. When a country made tariff reductions for the benefit of France, we could go to that country and say that the comity of nations entitled us to ask for similar reductions; that we had nothing to offer in return, but having given before all we had to give the same reductions ought to be made in our favour. This might be said, or there might be "a most favoured nation" clause, under which we could demand as a right what had been conceded to France; or if the treaty negotiated with France proved successful, we could point to the advantage gained by more liberal intercourse with her, and promise equal advantages from similar intercourse with ourselves. Thus, a treaty with France, or with any other nation, formed the strongest argument which could be urged in our own favour. The case of Belgium, which his hon. Friend had mentioned, was exactly in point. It
  1096
  was a mistake to say that the Foreign Office had not entered into negotiations with Belgium, for as soon as they knew that the Belgian Government were about to negotiate a treaty with France, they communicated with that Government on the subject. But what was the answer given to them? Why, that Belgium could not negotiate with this country until she had finished her negotiations with France. The reason was obvious. France had something to give in return for tariff concessions, and what was said to England by foreign countries was, "If we reduce duties in your favour without any equivalent, we then cut ourselves off from asking for anything from France, since France would say, 'Why should we give you an equivalent for that which you have given to England for nothing?'" That was a fair argument, and one with which the Foreign Office were met.
  Then, again, commercial questions were often so intimately mixed up with political questions that they could not separate the two. The fate of a Ministry might depend upon such a question. But Chambers of Commerce did not consider that, and did not take into account, and were often ignorant of, the political condition of the country with which they desired more liberal commercial relations. As in this country, a strong opposition to the Government of the day might exist. The Government might be willing to enter into negotiations, but the Opposition might dissent from that policy. Why, what would have been the result if, when the great struggle between free trade and protection was going on in England, a strong Power in Europe had been constantly pressing us to reduce our tariff? Such an attempt would have furnished a strong argument to the Opposition, and might have endangered the adoption of free trade. Something like that happened constantly on the Continent. It would not be prudent to give instances, but there were many statesmen in Europe who were convinced of the advantages of free trade, and who were yet either fettered by the existence of a strong Protectionist party, or by political considerations, from adopting free trade. As to the propriety of these constant solicitations from our Chambers of Commerce, there was a paragraph in a letter written by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Cobden), which was so wise and true that he would beg permission to quote it. The hon. Gentleman said—

  1097
  "As a general rule, I should say that recommendations emanating publicly from our own commercial bodies must afford very disadvantageous grounds for the Foreign Office in attempting to move other Governments to reduce their tariffs, I can understand that our diplomatists abroad might, in a quiet way, by keeping Foreign Governments well informed of the benefits which a free trade policy has conferred not only on the prosperity of our people, but—what is still more precious to rulers—on the interests of the public revenue, induce them, from motives of self-interest, to follow our example. But from the moment that it is known that our diplomacy is set in motion by our Chambers of Commerce to urge a reduction in the tariffs of other countries, it places Foreign Governments, which are generally more enlightened and disinterested on economical questions than their people, in the disadvantageous position of appearing to move under foreign influence for the benefit of aliens, and thus the most seductive arguments are furnished to the Protectionists, who can appeal to the prejudices, and even the patriotism of the public, in defence of what they call the rights of native industry. I have, whenever an opportunity has offered, expressed these views to the members of our Chambers of Commerce."
  With the opinions expressed in that letter he entirely agreed, and they were precisely the opinions on which the Foreign Office had acted, and, he hoped, would act. He would then turn to some of the facts mentioned by his hon. Friend. With regard to the Italian tariff, it was quite at variance with the facts to adduce that as an instance of want of attention on the part of the Foreign Office. The hon. Member said that if they had sent Mr. Mallet to Turin in good time he would have been able to obtain a reduction of the tariff. The hon. Member was entirely in the wrong. As soon as Her Majesty's Government were aware that the Italian Government were about to enter into commercial relations with France, they lost no time in communicating with the Government of Turin on the subject of the tariff; and he also wrote to several official persons there, pointing out that it would be of great advantage to Italy and the Italian Government to conclude a liberal commercial treaty with this country. In consequence of these representations, Signor Marliani, a member of the Italian Senate and a man of great knowledge and experience, was sent to this country, who, however, was bound by his instructions not to open any negotiations whatever until the French Treaty was settled. The reason for that was, that the Italian Government were afraid that France would avail herself of any concessions made to us, without giving any corresponding concessions on her own part. When the treaty with
  1098
  France had been agreed to, then the Italian Government offered to make an arrangement with us, and Mr. Mallet was sent to Turin. Even then, however, the Italian Government refused to enter into the question of the tariff, or to do more than put us in the position of the most favoured nation. Her Majesty's Government in vain endeavoured to induce them to change their decision; but the Italian Government said—
  "We will give you the same privileges as we have given France; but we will not make any further concession, because if we do the French Government would claim to have it extended to them, without giving us an equivalent."
  He could not help thinking that the Italian Ministers did not quite understand the true principles of free trade, for they said they would not make any sacrifices. The English Government did not want them to make any sacrifice or to agree to any reduction which would not be mutually advantageous. In regard, for instance, to the duties on iron and coal, they believed that a redaction would be as much for the benefit of Italy as of England. The same proceeding had taken place in regard to Sweden as to Italy. The Swedes declined to enter into negotiations with us, until they completed their treaty with France. His hon. Friend complained that Her Majesty's Government were not earlier in the field in these cases, and that they did not insist upon being admitted to the negotiations. But how could the Government enforce admission? If there was one subject more than another about which secresy was scrupulously observed, it was the adjustment of a tariff, and it was, therefore, impossible for the Government to obtain the information to which his hon. Friend had referred. Then, in regard to Austria, the Government were constantly in communication with that country on commercial matters, but had received the usual answer, that they could not negotiate until they had settled their arrangements with the Zollverein. He believed, however, that there was a disposition on the part of Austria to enter into a more liberal course of commercial policy. On the subject of cured herrings, a question in which Scotland was very much interested, Her Majesty's Government had made repeated applications to Austria, but the same answer which he had mentioned had always been returned. It was an error to suppose that the treaty between Prussia, the Zollverein, and France would, as a matter of course, come into

  1099
  operation in 1865. A treaty had been under negotiation for some time, and Prussia, as the mandatory of the Zollverein, had arranged certain terms with France; but in consequence of the Zollverein not having confirmed those terms, the agreement had not been ratified. Her Majesty's Government were in constant communication with Prussia, in reference to a commercial treaty, but the reply was, that nothing could be done till matters had been settled with France and the Zollverein. His hon. Friend had also spoken of Russia. There had been, he believed, some negotiations between Russia and Prussia—not between Russia and France; but he understood they were now at an end. Again, Her Majesty's Government had made repeated efforts, but without success, to enter into a commercial treaty with Spain. The policy of that country naturally depended very much on the Ministry and the Chambers, and they all knew how frequent were the changes which took place in that respect. There was an important question pending with Portugal in regard to a wine monopoly. Over and over again the Portuguese Government had promised to abolish the monopoly, and had once brought in a measure for that purpose; but when reminded that they had not fulfilled their engagement, the answer was, that it could not be carried out on account of the opposition of a large and influential party in the Chamber. It must be borne in mind that there were constitutional Governments in Europe, and the Chambers had to be consulted on these matters.
  He then came to the subject of the Motion of his hon. Friend. The accusations of his hon. Friend with respect to the relations between the Foreign Office and the Board of Trade were not well founded. There was no divided responsibility at that time; but there would be if the proposal of his hon. Friend were carried out, and in that case it would be impossible to conduct the business. Complaint was made that our agents abroad bad no means of direct communication with the Board of Trade. [Mr. W. E. FORSTER said he did not make that complaint.] If not made by his hon. Friend the complaint was at least to be found in the memorial which he supported. It was impossible for agents abroad to have direct communication with the Board of Trade. If they had there would be a double machinery, and the agents would
  1100
  receive instructions both from the Foreign Office and the Board of Trade, which might sometimes happen to be contradictory. He believed the division of labour and responsibility between the two offices was then just what it ought to be. All our agents were instructed to report on all matters occurring in the countries where they resided which were connected with trade and commerce to the Foreign Office. These reports were at once transmitted to the Board of Trade, who advised upon them, and the Foreign Office acted on the opinions thus given. The same thing happened with regard to the Colonial, Indian, or any other office. It was the duty of the Board of Trade, which had special knowledge and experience, to give its opinion on the subjects brought before it by the Foreign Office, and it was the duty of the latter to give effect to the views thus elicited. He wished to draw the attention of his hon. Friend to what had already been done. The Foreign Office had directed all the consuls to make periodical reports on the trade and commerce of the places in which they resided, arid these Reports were first sent to the Board of Trade to be examined and digested, and were then printed and laid before Parliament. Moreover, the secretaries of embassies and legations were also required to make annual Reports of the commerce and finance of the countries to which they were accredited, taking, of course, more enlarged and comprehensive views; and these Reports were also laid before the House, and had been received with favour by the country as containing valuable and important information. Again, since he entered the Foreign Office, he had caused instructions to be sent by circular to all our representatives abroad to communicate to the Department all alterations or notices of alterations connected with tariffs, navigation, or any question of trade and commerce in the countries where they were stationed. The consequence was that nothing was published in the local papers abroad, or in official papers connected with trade and finance, that was not at once communicated to the Government. Again, two years ago, when the cotton famine began, the Foreign Office sent instructions to all our representatives abroad to send homo Reports as to the quantity of cotton raised or about to be cultivated in the countries where they resided. Those reports had been of great value, and many persons

  1101
  connected with the cotton associations in this country had told him that they had derived the greatest possible assistance from them. So also our policy in Japan and China was founded almost entirely upon our commercial interests. We had few political relations with either of those empires; we were there because we wished to protect and extend our commerce. During the last few years we had entered into commercial treaties with France, Italy, Turkey, and other States. The question of rags had recently excited some interest in this country. Some time ago the Foreign Office sent circulars to all their representatives abroad, calling upon them to obtain information as to the possibility of a reduction of the duty on rags. Satisfactory assurances had been received from some countries. He was not at liberty to say from which, as every thing depended on secrecy in negotiation, but there was every reason to believe that in many countries in Europe the duty on rags would shortly be reduced. The Foreign Office took every opportunity to promote the commercial interests of the country, and he really believed the existing system was as good a one as could be well adopted, though he was willing to make any improvements in it which might be thought desirable. When the representatives of the Chambers of Commerce were assembled in London, he invited the hon. Member for Manchester, the hon. Member for Leeds, and others to discuss the whole question at the Foreign Office, with the view of seeing whether any such improvements could be made. His hon. Friends did not think fit to accept his offer, but if they had visited the Foreign Office he should have placed the whole system before them, and have paid every attention to their suggestions. Perhaps some slight departmental changes might be adopted with advantage, though he was not prepared to go even that length; but he felt quite certain that any proposal to amalgamate the Board of Trade with the Foreign Office was altogether impracticable. It would be useless to attempt to introduce the machinery of the Board of Trade into the Foreign Office, and yet, if the Foreign Office was to be responsible for giving an opinion on commercial questions, it must be supplied with all the organization of the Board of Trade. At present the Board of Trade furnished the Foreign Office with the requisite information and
  1102
  advice, and thus enabled it to carry on negotiations with foreign Governments. The functions of the two Departments were perfectly distinct, and it would be simply preposterous to lay upon the Foreign Minister, whose Department was the hardest worked Department of the State, the responsibility which rested with the President of the Board of Trade. The former was willing to be responsible for carrying out the instructions he received from the Board of Trade, but the latter must be responsible for those instructions themselves. His only desire was that our commerce should be extended as much as possible. He was, consequently, quite ready to give the Committee asked for, though he was afraid they would not get much from it.
  LORD STANLEYsaid, he inferred from the words uttered by the hon. Gentleman that the House would not be put to the trouble of dividing. In the event of a division, he was in favour of the Motion of the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), though, at the same time, he could not have supported it, had it involved any censure upon the conduct either of the Foreign Office or of the Board of Trade. Though the arrangement between the two Departments as to the conduct of business did not seem to be satisfactory, it was much easier to point out defects than to state the precise manner in which they ought to be remedied. But the hon. Member for Bradford asked only for an inquiry. He had made out a fair primâ facie case for investigation, and there could be no doubt that a strong feeling on the subject prevailed among the mercantile and manufacturing classes. Their complaint was, that although in the consular service we had an admirable agency for collecting facts connected with trade, yet when those facts were obtained no sufficient use was made of them, or else that the information did not arrive in time. If that statement were true—and its accuracy was a point upon which he did not wish to express any opinion—he should not be disposed to find fault with those who had the conduct of public affairs; for he did not think it could be said that either the Foreign Secretary or the President of the Board of Trade was indifferent in the discharge of his duties. But if the Foreign Office had, as at present, the whole diplomacy of Europe upon its hands—if it had to undertake the settlement of the affairs of all the countries in Europe—it must

  1103
  follow as a necessary consequence that questions of trade would receive comparatively little notice. He held the opinion that the Foreign Office should undertake much less than at present, and that if it were to leave many questions in which we had no direct concern alone, in all probability the diplomacy of Europe would be managed, not worse, but better. Still, no one would deny that the Foreign Office was overworked. It was no exaggeration to say that within the last fifteen years, since the general introduction of telegraphic communication throughout Europe, the business of that office had more than doubled. That was not a temporary state of things, but one likely to last; and as coincidently with it there had been an immense increase of trade and extension of commercial relations among the different countries of the world, so, if European peace were preserved, there would be a still increasing trade, a constant growth of industry, and still more complicated commercial relations between different countries. He thought, therefore, that the manner in which the Foreign Office was able to deal with commercial questions might properly be investigated. It appeared to him that there were only two courses open for adoption. One was to give to the Foreign Secretary greater assistance within his office, by placing there, for the management of this special business, an official holding a higher position than that of a mere clerk. The other was indicated in some of the memorials of the Chambers of Commerce—namely, to transfer the commercial business bodily to the Board of Trade. To the latter course he entertained the most decided objection. He did not think the business could be managed in that way. There would be a complete separation between political and commercial negotiations, which frequently ran into one another, and there would be all the confusion of a double correspondence between different Departments of the Government at home and the same set of officials abroad. Members of the diplomatic service would be placed in subordination to a department from which they did not receive their appointments, from which they did not expect promotion, with which they had in other respects nothing to do, and to the good or bad opinion of which they must be comparatively indifferent. He thought the House must make up its mind that the business should remain in the Foreign Office. If so, the
  1104
  responsibility must rest more completely than it did now upon the Foreign Minister. He was likewise of opinion that a great deal of good might be done by an inquiry into the organization of that heterogeneous Department the Board of Trade. The duties of that Department had been increased as new interests had arisen, and he was disposed to think that the President should hold a position of greater dignity in the official scale than he did at present. He had always thought that the Vice President, whose duties at present were not very obvious, should be placed more definitely in the position of an Under Secretary. If these things were to be done, the House must take the initiative. The reform of a department, bow-ever, would never originate in itself, because those who were most familiar with it had commonly been brought up under the system, and had come to regard it as necessary. But he would not dwell further upon that subject, because it was not included in the Motion before the House. The inquiry proposed by the hon. Member for Bradford would probably be attended with valuable results; at any rate, it would satisfy large and important interests that their claims and feelings had not been neglected.
  MR. BAINESsaid, it was true that the Under Secretary of State had most courteously offered to receive a deputation from the Chambers of Commerce at the Foreign Office, and to give them every assistance. The deputation, accompanied by himself and the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Cobden), did go to the Foreign Office a few days after the invitation was given, and waited upon the Chief Secretary for Foreign Affairs, and also upon the President of the Board of Trade, and stated the view of the Associated Chambers upon those matters. He could confirm what had been said by the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) as to the strong views entertained by the Chambers of Commerce on the subject, and their opinion was entitled to great weight, not only from the fact that they represented the mercantile communities of England, Scotland, and Ireland, but because they were frequently able to obtain from foreign merchants intelligence which was unknown to the Board of Trade. To give an illustration of how far the Department of the Board of Trade was behindhand in information, when the deputation waited upon the Board of Trade in February last, the President was asked whether

  1105
  he had seen a project which had been put forth by the Austrian Government for a new treaty with the Zollverein, and the right hon. Gentleman confessed that he had never seen or heard of it, though the schedule of the treaty had then been in the hands of the Chambers of Commerce for two months. He understood the hon. Member for Bradford did not intend to charge either the Board of Trade or the Foreign Office with neglect of duty, but simply to express an opinion that their duties were too heavy to enable them to give sufficient attention to an interest so vast as to be represented by a receipt of £450,000,000 per annum. Such an enormous interest might well; claim to have a department or sub-department specially assigned to it.
  MR. BASSsaid, he was glad that the Government had consented to grant a Committee. In the French and Prussian Governments there was now a department in the Foreign Office which had charge of affairs of commerce exclusively, and he believed that a similar arrangement prevailed; also in Russia. No one would question the ability with which the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Cobden) had conducted the negotiations for the French Treaty, but there had not been uniformity of advantage, and great dissatisfaction was felt by many of his constituents, that the opportunity of altering tariffs in certain cases during the negotiations was lost. English subjects were only allowed to introduce some goods into France a year after the treaty was concluded, although France entered immediately upon her exports; there was still a suspense account, and for some years to come England would not be able to enter into fair competition with the French silk manufacturers. Considering the advantage that France derived from the treaty, and the enormous increase in her trade which it had produced, he believed that the Foreign Office might be well employed in inducing France to do away altogether with the suspense arrangement. The Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs had told them that the Government had done what they could in the case of Spain, but that their efforts had been totally unsuccessful. It would, he thought, have been only reasonable on the part of Spain, with the advantages she had derived from the French Treaty, to make some little concession to this country. Her commerce in wine with this country had doubled since the treaty was concluded, and the price of her wines had been increased 50 per cent, so that in point of
  1106
  fact the Spaniards were putting into their pockets very nearly the whole amount of the duty we had taken off. The wine growers of Spain were at the present moment enjoying an increase in the returns derived from their produce of from £800,000 to £1,000,000. He thought if the subject were fairly brought under the notice of the intelligent men who had now the commercial affairs of Spain in their hands, they would take a reasonable view of the matter. He was quite persuaded that if the Foreign Office devoted a small proportion of their efforts to the cultivation of trade which they now employed in writing despatches which almost smothered hon. Members when they received them, the country would derive double the benefit. It could not be doubted that if proper representations were pressed upon the Spanish Government we should have a more satisfactory condition of commerce with them. Portugal had derived great advantages from the treaty, but its tariff was prohibitory.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, that he too was glad to hear that the Government had agreed to the Committee. The importance of the subject could hardly be overrated, and he only regretted that the arguments of the Under Secretary of State seemed to him to be rather in opposition to the Committee which he had granted. The hon. Gentleman concluded his speech by telling the House that he had given the subject a great deal of consideration, and that, in his opinion, it was impossible that the business of the various Departments could be carried on in any other manner than it was at present. Having made that statement, the hon. Gentleman then said he agreed to the Motion. The principle of the matter was very simple and was one that applied to every transaction in this country. In every transaction of business in this country a man was never satisfied, when he wanted to get anything done, unless he could go direct to the persons who were to do it. When A was obliged to go to B to get C to do something, the work was multiplied, and was not done satisfactorily. He agreed with the noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn (Lord Stanley), that it was not very clear how there was to be an amendment; but, in his opinion, the present system was so palpably unsatisfactory that it was desirable there should be an inquiry to see whether some improvement could not be devised. He was not prepared to say whether the

  1107
  system could or could not be amended, but he was quite sure that the subject was one that ought to be looked into, and if it turned out that no remedy could be devised, at all events those great mercantile interests who entertained very strong opinions on the matter would have had their views heard and considered, and would, in consequence, feel much more satisfied than at present. He did not understand that the present Motion was made with any desire to blame the Foreign Office or the Board of Trade, but that the hon. Member desired to express the opinion, that if parties interested in commercial matters could get their views more directly brought before the persons who ultimately had to decide the case, it was possible that the work might be better done. According to the Under Secretary, the person interested went to the Board of Trade, which formed an opinion upon the case, and the duty of the Foreign Office was then merely to carry out the judgment of the Board of Trade. But it was possible that, though the judgment of the Board of Trade might have been right, and the duty of the Foreign Office rightly performed, the parties might say that the measure had failed through remissness in carrying it out; and in that case, where would the responsibility rest? He was of opinion that there would be a divided responsibility, and he believed such a system could not possibly answer as satisfactorily as one in which the duty was done by a single set of persons. He could not help thinking, that when the matter was carefully looked into, some arrangement might be made which would be more satisfactory to the commercial interests than the system at present existing. Nothing could be more objectionable than the present double system, and he hoped there would be a Committee to inquire whether it could not be amended.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that some years ago he had taken great interest in the collection of commercial statistics, which he was happy to say were now submitted to the House. It was at that period necessary that he should collect that information for himself, because when he commenced that task of calculation of the balance of Trade, the real value of the exports and imports of the country was not given, and he had to seek the information through his own channels. He (Mr. Newdegate) had also commenced the system for the adoption of which the coun-
  1108
  try had to thank the noble Lord at the head of the Government—the system of requiring from our consuls information as to all changes, prospective and positive, in foreign tariffs—had not, when he commenced his labours, been carried out. Commercial men and Chambers of Commerce had derived great assistance from the system introduced by the noble Lord. It appeared to him that in the Board of Trade there was scarcely that distinct organization for information connected with the foreign commercial legislation which it was desirable to secure, and he thought the inquiries of the Government and of the proposed Committee might well be directed to the separation of the different functions of the Board of Trade and the allocation of distinct tasks to each sub-department when formed. He was afraid the commercial public would be in some degee disappointed with the results of the pending inquiry, for it could but indirectly facilitate negotiations with foreign countries as to commercial tariffs. One of the main objections he had taken to the Commercial Treaty with France in 1860 was, that under it the Emperor of the French was treated as the representative of all mankind, and the Under Secretary had explained to them to-night, when subsequently to that treaty the Government had approached foreign States, with a view to enter into commercial negotiations, England had been reminded that she was anything but mistress of the universe. It followed inevitably, from the conditions of the treaty, that England must come off second best. The energies of the Government ought to be directed towards liberating England from that position. The claims of England upon Spain and other countries ought not to rest on the reductions of duty which France might be inclined to make or refuse, but upon the commercial facilities and boons which the English nation had granted to those nations. Yet, under the treaty, there were stipulations on the importation into France of foreign including English goods. Thus if England obtained the most favoured nation clause, the most favoured nation being France, the clause contemplated the existence of many duties which England had abandoned, but which France retained, and the clause referred to some treaty in which these French import duties were considered as matters to be countervailed by equivalent duties, though these duties could not be imposed by England, owing

  1109
  to the terms of the French Treaty. He did not wish to say anything painful to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Cobden), as he believed he did the best he could under the circumstances in which he was placed by his antecedents; but the ruin month to month wrought on his (Mr. Newdegate's) constituents was painful to contemplate. The population depending on the silk trade in Warwickshire, in the district especially adjoining his own residence, had much decreased under the action of the French Treaty, and the district had been generally in a very depressed state; that population had much decreased, and between 1,600 and 1,700 empty houses were to be found. This made him the more anxious that the Government should make every exertion to induce the Government of France to hasten the period of the removal of the import duties on the introduction of silk goods and mixed goods. The Government might well say to France that she, having derived such enormous advantages from the treaty should, accelerate the period for the reduction of these duties, in recognition of the sufferings inflicted on our silk manufacturers. It had never appeared to him that the nations of the world would follow exactly in their footsteps. His conviction was that while France was deriving a great revenue from import duties and great benefits by her export trade, England might just as well have equivalent import duties, and yet share in that increase of revenue and extension of trade. That was his conviction. He had always thought that the French tariff was more wisely regulated than the tariff adopted by this country in 1860. He might be wrong, but he thought the present commercial state of France sanctioned that opinion. He hoped that the opinion of the House and of the country would become accommodated to those facts; and that it was their duty to hasten the period when the French duty on silk goods should be reduced. They had a right, he thought, to claim that reduction from France, because, while she had benefited largely by the treaty, some of our own interests—silk interests especially—had suffered grievous injury. There was another subject to which he wished to call the attention of the House. In the instructions given to our consuls there appeared to be some confusion. In many cases the business of consuls ought to be strictly limited to commercial objects. His question had
  1110
  reference to a particular case. Six or seven years ago Mr. Plowden was sent out to Abyssinia as consul, and he should like to he informed as to what instructions that gentleman actually received. It was generally believed that the object of his mission was to open commercial relations with that country. It appeared that Mr. Plowden became mixed up with the internal politics of Abyssinia, and the result was that he was murdered. That was not an old story. He had a copy of the Jewish Intelligencer, a publication that was issued by some persons interested in the conversion of the Jews in Abyssinia, and he found that, at the present moment, our consul who succeeded Mr. Plowden had unfortunately mixed himself up with the politics of Abyssinia, and was a prisoner in the hands of the King. Those were two instances of the impolicy of allowing consuls commissioned for commercial purposes to mix themselves up with the politics of the countries in which they had to reside, and which were at best but in an imperfect state of civilization. A distinction ought to be drawn between the functions of a consul sent merely for commercial purposes and those of a chargé d'affaires, because the person who might be competent for commercial purposes might be totally unfit for political negotiations. The instructions given to those persons ought to be so drawn up as to advance the purposes of trade, and to make them feel that they should keep clear of politics in the countries to which they were sent. It was unbecoming the dignity of this country that we should employ agents so incompetent as that one should fall a victim, and the next a captive, of the Government to which he was sent. He hoped to be assured that Captain Cameron had been liberated, and that in future such a limit would be put to the functions of any person sent to Abyssinia as would secure his personal safety, otherwise the dignity of the country would be endangered abroad, and the operations of commerce disturbed if not destroyed.
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, that as there was no objection on the part of the Government to grant the Committee, he did not know that it was necessary to prolong that debate, or to enter into a general discussion upon the mode in which commercial negotiations had been conducted between this country and foreign Governments. But he wished merely to notice some remarks made by the right

  1111
  hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) on the immediate question before them. That right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that a divided responsibility now existed, and that it was very inconvenient that a person having business of a commercial kind to be transacted with a foreign Government should first of all be compelled to go to the Board of Trade, that then the Board of Trade should have to submit its views to the Foreign Office, and that the Foreign Office should afterwards make a representation to a foreign Government; or, in other words, that A had to communicate with B, and B had to communicate with C, in order that D might be induced to do something. That, certainly, appeared inconvenient, but the argument, if carried to its full extent, would make it necessary that they should have only one department for the general government of the country. There was nothing peculiar in the relations between the Foreign Office and the Board of Trade. Precisely the same relations existed between the Foreign Office and every other Department of the State. Questions of international law were constantly arising, and recently those questions had been of a most important character. Merchants whose property was in jeopardy, or whose ships had been captured under questionable circumstances, went to the Foreign Office, but the Foreign Office did not possess any knowledge which enabled it to make the fitting representation to the foreign Government, and it was obliged to refer the subject to the Law Officers of the Crown, and frequently to the Committee of Privy Council, consisting of the most eminent authorities in this country on questions of international law. When it had acquired the requisite knowledge, and received instruction from those who were competent to give it, the Foreign Office made the required representation to the foreign Government. The right hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) to put the matter concisely—said that the knowledge was in the Board of Trade and the power in the Foreign Office, and thought the two things should be united in the same Department. If that were a sound principle, it applied to all the Departments in the State. When the House considered the matter calmly, it would be seen that there was really no divided responsibility. The Government, as a whole, was responsible for the conduct of foreign as of domestic affairs. The executive Government, as a whole,
  1112
  was responsible to Parliament; and upon all branches of public business it was entitled to obtain the knowledge and advice necessary for carrying on that business with wisdom and safety. It would be inconsistent with the first principles of our system of Government to place a special responsibility for particular acts or a particular policy upon this or that department. The particular relation between the Foreign Office and the Board of Trade— namely, that the latter was a consulting department, and that the former made such representations to foreign Governments as after consultation might seem desirable, was in theory, he was inclined to think, a very good arrangement. From what he had observed, he believed that if they were to merge the Board of Trade in the Foreign Office, the commercial classes would be less likely to have an independent representation made to the Foreign Office of the merits of any commercial question when communications were going on between this country and foreign Governments. He believed it was of advantage that there should be an independent department, making representations on the purely commercial merits of the question, without reference to, and unbiassed by, the political or diplomatic negotiations that were proceeding. When the Foreign Office and the other Departments of the State were at least in entire possession of the impartial and strictly commercial aspect of the question, they could estimate it at its full value; and in the course of negotiation it was for them to consider whether the objects they had in view of a political nature conflicted materially with the commercial merits of the proposal, as explained after consultation with the Board of Trade. He thought the proposed Committee would be useful, because nobody for a moment contended that the internal arrangements of any of our offices were not susceptible of improvement. He could quite conceive that the mechanical part of the relations between the Foreign Office and the Board of Trade might, without interfering with principles, be made to work more smoothly and with greater advantage to commercial interests. Consequently, on that ground, and without admitting that there was divided responsibility, he saw no objection to the appointment of the proposed Committee. He thought that some hon. Gentlemen had over-estimated the power of this country to induce foreign nations

  1113
  which were hampered by protected interests to adopt more liberal tariffs. It was objected that this country went in the wake of France. Now, what had France been able to effect, though France was in a more advantageous position than this country to influence foreign Governments, to induce them to reduce their tariffs? Why, France went to foreign nations with a great bribe, being able to offer them those great reductions in her duties which she had already given to England; yet, after all, she had only been able to accomplish commercial treaties between two countries—Belgium and Italy. No doubt there were engagements between Prussia and France, but as the States of the Zollverein had not ratified them, they were not carried into effect as a treaty between France and the Zollverein, though they probably might be in 1865. France, then, had only concluded two treaties — one with Belgium and the other with Italy. But after France had concluded the treaty with Belgium, making those reductions in her tariff which Belgium now enjoyed, this country made a treaty with Belgium by which England obtained the "favoured nations clause" and thus came in for all the advantages which Belgium had granted to France. He did not believe that the English Government would have obtained that result if they had attempted to negotiate a treaty with Belgium single-handed; and it was with great difficulty it was obtained after all, on account of the fear felt by the protected interests of English competition. Not that the Belgian Government was not a most enlightened one; the difficulty was, that the Belgian manufacturers feared English competition. The Belgian manufacturers were not nearly so much afraid of French competition as of English competition; and he was convinced that the prestige enjoyed by England on the Continent, on account of her great manufacturing power and skill in producing articles at a cheap rate for the consumption of the masses, was the very thing which alarmed those foreign manufacturers, and made it more difficult for England than for France to induce foreign countries to reduce their tariffs. In fact, France, as matters now stood, was a better pioneer in the path of commercial freedom than England, and approached Belgium with offers which it was not within the power of this country to make. However, "the favoured nations clause," which the English Government
  1114
  obtained from Belgium, was very advantageous, for the effect had been that the import duties on British manufactures into Belgium had been reduced from 40 and 30 per cent to 20 and 10 per cent. That, then, was the result of the policy pursued, however much criticised it might be; and any impartial man, considering the power of the protected interests, and the state of parties in Belgium, must admit that the effect accomplished was a great success. With respect to Italy, it had been said that the English Government were too late in the field, and allowed France to negotiate a successful treaty; whereas if they had been there in time they could have got the Italian Government to make their tariff more conformable with British interests and less exclusively in accordance with French interests. That was a mistaken view of the question. The basis of negotiation between France and Italy would not have allowed of England obtaining any advantage which she has not already obtained by the "favoured nations clause." The fact was that at the time of the negotiation all the duties in the Italian tariff, with some few exceptions, were lower than in the reformed French tariff, and therefore it was only in some few cases—in silks, he believed, and in one or two other articles—that Italy was asked to make any reduction in favour of France. The Italian tariff was already more liberal than the reformed French tariff; and France not making further reductions, the basis of negotiations did not admit at that time of those reductions in favour of England, which it was supposed would have been accomplished; and though Mr. Mallet, from the Board of Trade, went to Turin to do all he could, that gentleman observed that the Italian Government were little disposed to do more in the direction of commercial freedom than could possibly be helped. The Italian tariff had not heretofore been a high tariff; and, though there had been no change as affecting English productions, still the activity given to industry by other changes in Italy had occasioned a great increase of trade between England and that country. With regard to the Motion before the House, the Government regarded the proposal as manifesting a sincere desire on the part of his hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) to effect something practically useful, and they wished cordially to co-operate in such an object.
  MR. COBDEN: Sir, as the Motion of my hon. Friend has been agreed to, there is little ground for prolonged discussion at the present moment, but I am anxious to say a few words to prevent any misapprehension here, and especially abroad, as to the scope of the proposed inquiry. It must be remembered that our manufacturers do not present themselves to this House at the present moment in the position of complainants as to the operation of the free trade policy carried out as we have carried it out in this country, irrespective of the action of other countries. The manufacturers do not come here asking the Government to forward their interests by promoting commercial treaties. The French Treaty arose from an accidental conjuncture of circumstances, and nothing of the kind can happen again. It so happened — opportunely happened — that we had considerable reforms of our tariff still to accomplish, which it would have been our interest to have effected, whether or not the French Government had simultaneously taken a large step in the same direction. But it so happened, fortunately, that the French Government was just in the disposition to make the first great step in the path of commercial freedom in that country. The two Governments were enabled with much more ease and advantage to perform these two operations together than they could have done separately. But it would have been equally their interest to have done it separately as by commercial treaty. Now, with regard to the argument that has been urged from time to time, that we have lost advantages by having carried out the principle of free trade so largely ourselves, without having first gone to other countries to induce them to go step by step with us, I venture to say there are not two opinions in the country amongst the mercantile and manufacturing population as to the gain we have made during the last twenty or twenty-two years by advancing without waiting for other countries to take any step with us in this policy. The immense increase in our commerce, as shown by the financial statement of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, has been the reward we have received for having anticipated other countries in the policy we have adopted. Now, having entered this caveat against any possible misrepresentation of the object of this Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), I would ask whether,
  1116
  without commercial treaties, or without any attempt publicly to agitate the question, it would not be possible for the Government of this free trade nation to diffuse those principles which have been so beneficial to us amongst other countries. I will give you an analogous case. I think in 1806 we abolished the slave trade. We did that by a municipal law as an act of humanity and justice. That was the result of a long and intense agitation, which deeply stirred the religious feeling and the national conscience in this country. We carried free trade after nearly as long, as anxious, and as intense an agitation. Did the Government remain passive with other countries after we had abolished the slave trade? On the contrary, they made it the constant object of their diplomacy abroad to induce other countries to follow in the same enlightened and humane course. Almost the only ground on which I can look back to the Treaty of Vienna with satisfaction is, that it contains engagements, entered into at our instance by other countries, to abolish the slave trade. Our merchants and manufacturers think it would be a legitimate occupation of the Government of this free trade and commercial country if they would try to diffuse these principles in other countries. And how is that to be done? This brings us to the question which my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) has so very usefully raised. We have two Departments concerned in this matter; one is the Board of Trade, the other is the Foreign Office, situated on the two sides of Downing Street. Well, one of these Departments, during the last fifty years, has taken the most enlightened views upon questions of commerce, and has always been in advance of the community in its appreciation of our true interests with regard to commercial policy. I am speaking from my own knowledge when I say that that Department has constantly had within its walls gentlemen of the most enlightened views on that subject. But if we go to the other Office, it is no reproach to the Foreign Department to say that neither its Foreign Minister, nor its diplomatists, take charge of, or inform themselves on, commercial questions, because hitherto it has been considered that that Department has had no commercial objects in view in its negotiations. Well, now, my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford asks whether you cannot import into the Foreign Office some of the intelligence which rules in

  1117
  the Board of Trade. How that may be done, and how that spirit may be made to diffuse itself abroad, is a question that may faily be considered in the Committee which is now to be appointed. I will not enlarge upon that subject further than by saving that there ought to be greater intelligence on the part of those who are engaged in the diplomatic service of this country upon these commercial questions; and in order to insure that, there must be a provision made henceforth (for it is too late to adopt it with reference to our present diplomatists) which will require a knowledge and appreciation of these commercial questions on the part of those engaged in our diplomatic service. We are a commercial and manufacturing people, and are so only considered abroad. We should be a third-rate people if we depended merely upon our agriculture. I desire that our interests, and that the spirit which rules in this country, should animate our diplomacy abroad. I think, for instance, that our diplomatists should be required not only to understand Adam Smith, the classic of free trade, but to be acquainted with the commercial policy of this country for the last twenty years. Let them read, for instance, the volume of speeches of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, lately published, and let them undergo an examination on the course of our commercial policy during the last twenty years. Let them know what has been done, not merely in the history of the past, but down to the present moment. Now, without publicly professing to be propagandists, without saying one word about it in public or in our despatches, if our diplomatic representatives knew that by exerting themselves in the cause of free trade abroad they would be as likely to get the decoration and rank of G.C.B. as if they had been successful in assisting at the ceremony of a dynastic treaty or some Court marriage, I think you would very soon find these young gentlemen begin to take an interest in commercial questions. Now, let us suppose a Minister living at St. Petersburg, where he has little to do, and where, of course, he has his secretaries and attaches, what might be not effect with a Government like that of Russia, if he were imbued with a free trade feeling, and were fully acquainted with free trade subjects. He would have every opportunity of converting the Government to his own views of free trade, by merely presenting clearly before them the facts of the case as
  1118
  we have exhibited it for the last twenty years. Russia, like most other Governments, is in want of money, and the reform of their tariff in the direction in which we have been going for the last twenty years would be like the discovery of a gold mine at St. Petersburg. If we could only show other Governments that the reform of our tariff had increased the prosperity of the people, and the amount of our revenue, and that simultaneously we had progressed in skill and civilization, we need not ask them to reform their tariff in our interest; they would do so in their own interests. There is much ignorance about these subjects even in this House. An hon. Protectionist on an opposite bench, to whom I have listened for the last twenty years, has spoken to-day in the very terms which he used when I first entered this House. In order to present the facts of this case before foreign Governments I would suggest to the Board of Trade that as one means of instructing our diplomatists in commercial matters the Board of Trade should prepare a manual of our free trade policy, showing the progress of our legislation and its results, and should place that manual in the hands of those who represent us at foreign Courts. Let it be translated into the languages of those Courts, in order that it may be used as one of the means of converting them to our free trade principles, and let not those who belonged to the past generation of diplomatists imagine that it was a proposal to be treated with levity. This course is just what the commercial and manufacturing people of this country have a right to expect at the hands of any Government. And if the present Administration do not adopt a policy of this kind it will be adopted by a Government formed from the other side of the House. I do not ask for any discussions in this House, nor for any reports or blue-books. We have done more harm than good by discussing this question in this House in reference to our own interests. We have a vast and expensive machinery engaged in our diplomacy, and our manufacturing and trading community expect that our diplomatists shall devote some attention to our commercial interests abroad. Will anybody say that the employment of that machinery during the last few years has been satisfactory to this House or to the country? We have little mountains of blue-books on Schleswig-Holstein and does not everybody agree that they are unsatisfactory? Diplomacy has broken down in its own vocation, and

  1119
  the dynastic arrangements of Europe and the balance of power are questions which have ceased to engage the sympathies of the British public. In the interests of the Foreign Office, I exhort it to take a hint from my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford. By promoting the triumph of free trade principles, which can only be completely effected when they are adopted by other countries, our diplomatists will be laying the foundation for peaceful relations between the nations of the earth of a far more enduring nature than by anything they can achieve through the recognized arts of diplomacy.
  MR. BAZLEYobserved, that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Milner Gibson) had said that France must take the lead upon the Continent in reference to commercial treaties.
  MR. MILNER GIBSONbegged to explain that what he had said was that France, not having given to other countries those advantages which she has given to us, it was inevitable that the negotiations should be commenced by France and other foreign nations.
  MR. BAZLEY: But the circumstances of our country were very different, and the manufacturers of England could not be fairly dealt with upon the basis of a treaty between France and other continental countries. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that our consuls should not be employed in negotiating commercial treaties; but for what better purpose did they keep up their consular and diplomatic establishments, at an expense of half-a-million sterling? Why should those gentlemen be kept in particular positions if they were not to perform duties which would be useful to the country? If foreign Governments were reminded of the advantages of free trade without there being any treaties, a great deal might be done. The vast amount of exports from the country required that more attention should be paid to the interests of commerce. During the last twenty years our imports and exports had quadrupled in amount, while our consular representation remained the same. He did not attribute any blame to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, nor to the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, whom he had always found most courteous and attentive to any representations; but until our consular arrangements were amended, our com-
  1120
  mercial interests must suffer, and had, he contended, a perfect right to complain of the system by which they were bound.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and negatived.
  Words added.
  Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
  Ordered,
  That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the arrangement between the Foreign Office and the Board of Trade in reference to Trade with Foreign Nations.—(Mr. W. E. Forster.)
  SUPPLY—Order of the Day again read.
  Motion made, and Question, "That this House will immediately resolve itself into a Committee of Supply," put, and agreed to.
  Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

INDICTABLE OFFENCES (IRELAND)

  RETURNS MOVED FOR.
  MR. WHITESIDEsaid, he rose to ask for certain Returns of indictable offences committed in particular counties in Ireland, and laid before the Judges at the late assizes for Roscommon, Cavan, Longford, Limerick, and Westmeath. He did so with the object of eliciting an explanation of the causes for the prevalence of so large a proportion of undetected crime in those counties, and to ascertain what course the Government proposed to adopt to lessen the same. The assizes having now terminated the subject might properly be considered by the House, and if they could discover the causes of the defects in the administration of justice they might possibly suggest a remedy. The condition of Ireland had been described by the Attorney General for that country in very favourable terms, and the right hon. Gentleman had declared that no country in the world was so free from crime, and that although agrarian offences did occur, they were merely local, and left the normal condition of Ireland one of peace and order. The documents which he asked for were two in number. The first was a list of indictable offences and of persons indicted in, the several counties named in his Motion. The second was a list the existence of which was not known to many hon. Members, and therefore he would describe it. When a Judge arrived in the town where

  1121
  the assizes were to be held, the principal officer of police was required to furnish him with a list of the offences which had been committed in the county since the previous assizes. It was not usual to make public, those lists, although he did not know what. reason there could be against doing so, but the reason for his asking for those lists was, because they would give the real state of facts at the time of the last assizes in Ireland. He had he believed a correct extract from the calendar for one county—. Roscommon, which he would take as an example. The list of offenders for trial was small, being seven in number. But the question was, did the calendar of offences show the real state of crime in that county? He could not, of course, give the official figures, but he had been supplied by a gentleman resident in the county of Roscommon with a statement which he believed to be correct, and from which he found that the number of offences committed for which the offenders had not been brought to trial was no less than eighty-seven, including eleven incendiary fires, five cases of maiming cattle, fifteen of writing threatening letters, seven of attacking dwelling houses, five attempts to upset railway trains, and fifteen aggravated: assaults. He had also been favoured with another document bearing upon this subject. The number of applications at the last assizes for compensations for malicious injuries was fifteen or sixteen. Then came the question as to the provision made for the maintenance of the peace. As far as Roscommon was concerned, the state of things which he had described was by no means owing to a numerically inefficient police. The population of Roscommon was 157,000, and it had 412 members of the constabulary, while the county of Down, with a population of 300,000, had only 280 police. Upon those facts the learned Mr. Justice Christian made certain observations, and asked how it was that there were so many offences for which there were no prosecutions. The learned Judge said it could only be attributable to intimidation of the injured parties or to a general disinclination to assist justice, or to a deficiency of energy and skill on the part of the police. When the same learned Judge visited Galway he congratulated the grand jury upon the wholesome administration of the law in that county, as contrasted with others through which he had passed, and where he said there was not so much an absence of crime as a paralysis of justice. With respect to
  1122
  the county of Cavan, he had not been able to get a list of the undetected crimes in that county. The next county was that of Limerick, in which crime was considerable, but the Returns showed that in the case of highway robberies (four in number), burglaries, arson, killing and mutilating cattle (six in number)—a very serious offence in an agricultural country—sending threatening letters (ten in number), not a single person had been made amenable to justice. The Judge thought it necessary to comment on such a remarkable state of things, and he stated in a neighbouring county that it was a matter of great gratification to him to find that the remarks which he thought it his duty to make upon the subject had received the concurrence and approval of so respectable a body as the grand jury of the county of Limerick. In the county of Westmeath the Lord Chief Justice informed the grand jury that the convictions, as compared with the offences, were infinitesimal, and he had scarcely left the assize town when an honest farmer was attacked by, he believed, a band of Ribbonmen, who beat him almost to death, and said that they would return next day and do the same to his father. With regard to Longford, which did not stand well in the matter, he would not trouble the House, nor with respect to Donegal, where the cases were principally connected with the policy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which had led to a great increase of crime; but the House would have an opportunity of expressing its opinion on that subject when he (Mr. Whiteside) submitted his Motion on the spirit duties. The right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary for Ireland must allow him to say that it was not in his power to dispute the opinions of the five Judges, Of all things there ought to be certainty in the administration of the criminal law, because the whole peace of the country depended upon it, and in the counties to which he had referred there had been a complete failure of justice. It had been said that it was difficult to detect threatening letters. But let the Executive look sharply after the schoolmasters of the district. He had had occasion to deal with threatening letters, and had not found the difficulty quite insuperable. In one case a letter was sent threatening to shoot a respectable gentleman, in the county of Kildare, and the writer was now ruminating on the consequences in his trausportation. When they looked to the

  1123
  facts which he had stated, they might be disposed to ask whether it was all the fault of the constabulary. He could not bring himself to believe so. He held in his hand a letter from a gentleman in one of the counties he had named, a magistrate of the highest respectability, and in it he was desired not to confine his attention merely to the police, but to ask what sort of men were the stipendiary magistrates, the age of the county Inspectors when they were appointed, how the whole administration of local justice was carried on, and what were the rules which governed the constabulary force. That gentleman said of the constabulary that he was informed they were instructed not to interfere with a crime that came under their notice unless they were absolutely on duty at the time, and that they were decidedly discouraged from what was called "officiously" exerting themselves to prevent the commission of offences. Was that the fact? [Sir ROBERT PEEL asked to see the letter, and the right hon. Gentleman handed it to him, though he stated it was a private one.] The real truth was that they had as moral, intelligent, and respectable a body of men as any in the world in the Irish constabulary; they were truthful witnesses, and in that capacity very fatal to the offender. But it was not persons that could march well or fight well that were wanted in Ireland; they had no one to fight with now; there were but few men in the counties, and every day was reducing the number. When he stated that fact on the second day of the Session he was contradicted, but it would be found that he was right. But he would ask the right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, if a man were to put on his head a heavy helmet, then a belt round his waist, side arms, a big coat and other heavy accoutrements, and then he was to tell him, "There's a criminal, go and catch him," whether that man would be likely to do so? On one occasion, a very respectable gentleman, a Mr. Mauleverer, was murdered at one o'clock in the day, near the borders of the county of Louth. Some distance from the spot a police-officer, and a fine young man in the force, were accosted by a car-driver, who, he believed, was privy to the murder, and told that a gentleman had been killed on the road some distance off. They made the car-driver return to the spot, and found the body upon the road. He himself heard the constable describe what it was necessary to do. The officer remained with the body, but the
  1124
  young man threw off his helmet, his coat, his belt, and then he pursued the murderers for three miles through the fields, came up with them, and they were arrested before they entered a house. It was not, then, a question of breaking up the force, for that would be the greatest loss to the country; but some reasonable change should be made in the details of its organization, with a view to the pursuit of criminals, and the detection of crime. But there was another matter. He was informed by country gentlemen in Ireland, who would not attack the Government, but do all in their power to support it, that attempts were made to deprive them of all authority over the police, to transfer it to the stipendiary magistrates, and to centralize the control. Nothing could be more injurious, as regarded the detection of crime. In Carlow the Lord Chief Justice found that every criminal had been detected, and he said that that must have arisen because the magistrates and police worked in harmony together. In the North of Ireland there was not so much crime, but that was chiefly owing to the fact that the people were in a more prosperous condition. He believed that what Mr. Justice Keogh had said in passing a severe sentence upon the young men detected in drilling was quite true, and from what he had heard in the House as well, it was evident that there was a very strong feeling in certain quarters of Ireland in favour of what was termed "nationality." There was no use in blinking the fact. The right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary for Ireland, had described the country as being in a tranquil state. He might mention that on one occasion, when he was going to the college chapel in Dublin, he found himself in the midst of a very well-dressed assembly, so much so indeed that he at first believed that the gathering was in honour of a wedding. He made inquiries of a policeman, who informed him that it was the funeral of Mr. M'Manus, and that 7,000 young men had accompanied the body to the grave. He remembered that Mr. M'Manus was tried for high treason. It would be a great mistake to imagine that those young men who accompanied the funeral were either immoral or profligate. They were nothing of the kind. The right hon. Baronet would be told by them if they happened to meet him that there was not the slightest objection to him personally, but that the people would be very glad to get rid of him and his col-

  1125
  leagues. The same feeling extended itself towards the Government; but the fact that a feeling of discontent prevailed certainly would not justify the Government in making any attack upon the people. The House ought, however, to be on their guard, and not encourage theories which might prove destructive to the regular Government of the country. He moved
  "For copies of the lists of all indictable offences laid before the Judges of Assizes at the late Assizes for the counties of Roscommon, Cavan, Longford, Limerick, and Westmeath; and also for the names of the parties made amenable at the said assizes, and of the offences for which they were severally indicted, as appearing in the calendars of said counties; and for an explanation of the causes why so large a proportion of undetected crime prevails in said counties, and what course the Government means to adopt in order to lessen the same."
  He believed he was putting a very practical question in asking his right hon. Friend the Secretary for Ireland whether he had reflected upon the matter since he had last addressed the House upon the subject, and whether the Government had adopted, or was prepared to adopt, any plan which would have the effect of lessening the number of instances in which crime had taken place without leading to detection.
  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, Copies of the Lists of all Indictable Offences laid before the Judges of Assize at the late Assizes for the counties of Roscommon, Cavan, Longford, Limerick, and Westmeath, and also for the names of the parties made amenable at said Assizes, and of the offences for which they were severally indicted, as appearing in the calendars of said counties,"— (Mr. Whiteside,)
  —instead thereof.
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, he had given the subject much consideration since it had last been submitted to the attention of the House. He assured the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University (Mr. Whiteside) that the observations he made upon a former occasion were not intended to cast any slur upon the remarks of the Judges. His object on that occasion had been to show that the state of the country generally was not what it was sometimes described to be. Before, however, alluding to the subject, he wished to make one remark. They all knew that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Whiteside) was a very spirited and dashing speaker, and that when he made an assertion, which
  1126
  probably in his own mind he was fully aware at the time was not literally true, he endeavoured to give it weight by stating that the assertion he had made had been erroneously corrected. Now, he would not allow the right hon. Gentleman to make any such statement concerning himself without correcting it. The right hon. Gentleman had stated on that occasion that 100,000 fighting men had left Ireland in the course of twelve months, and he had respectfully assured the right hon. Gentleman that such was not the case. He had acknowledged that 119,000 people had left Ireland, but he had also stated that 58,000 out of that number were women, and 12,000 children under twelve years of age. The severe correction which he on that occasion administered to the right hon. Gentleman he still maintained was well merited. The right hon. Gentleman might repeat that he had no right to correct him, but so long as he persisted in repeating his statement so long would be (Sir Robert Peel) continue to point out to the House and to the country that that statement was incorrect.
  MR. WHITESIDE: I beg your pardon. What I stated was—
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman would have an opportunity of referring to the subject afterwards. As regarded the Motion then before the House, the Government were quite ready to furnish the right hon. Gentleman with the copies he required. The right hon. Gentleman had also asked him if he could give any explanation as to the cause why so large a proportion of undetected crime prevailed in the country, and what course the Government intended to adopt in order to lessen the amount of undetected crime. The right hon. Gentleman had then gone seriatim through the counties of Roscommon, Cavan, Longford, Limerick, and Westmeath. He desired the attention of the House to the subject, because it was important for them, when learned Judges commented upon the amount of undetected crime, to know the difficulty under which they laboured respecting the detection of offenders. It was true, as the right hon. Gentleman had stated, that in the county of Roscommon the Judge had said, in March, that the total number of outrages since the previous assizes, a period of eight months, had been eighty-seven, and that out of that number the parties who were concerned in forty-seven of them were totally unknown. It was true that there had been

  1127
  eleven incendiary fires, five cases of killing cattle, one of demanding arms, and five of firing shots at night, without the perpetrators in any instance being discovered. It was also true that there had been fifteen cases of sending threatening notices, seven of injury to houses, and several attempts to upset trains, or cases in which stones had been thrown at them, without any person having been made amenable. Immediately that statement was made, he wrote to the county Inspector to ascertain the reason for the existence of such a state of things, and his answer was, that in thirty of those cases the injured parties had declined to lodge any information upon oath. How was it possible for the Government to compel injured parties to come forward and to lodge information against their will? There were thirty cases in which depositions were sworn but no individual offenders charged, and twenty-seven in which the offenders were sworn to, thus making up the total of eighty-seven. The right hon. Gentleman had also alluded to the county of Cavan. The Judge at the assizes held in that county in March last, had remarked that the return of offenders reported since the previous assizes showed fifty-four cases, in only sixteen of which had any person been arrested. Among the catalogue of offences in that county, he found that four incendiary fires remained undiscovered; that nine cases of house-breaking or burglary had occurred without more than two persons having been arrested, and that those two had been discharged; that there had been two cases of demanding or robbery of arms, two of administering unlawful oaths, and twelve of sending threatening letters. For the latter offence two persons were made amenable. He took the opportunity of making the same inquiry of the county Inspector in this instance as he had in the cases which had occurred in Roscommon. His reply was, that there had undoubtedly been four incendiary fires, but that in one case it did not appear to have been malicious, at least the landlord was of that opinion; in another that the owner said it was malicious and that he had £64 in the thatch, but that no one appeared to credit him; in the third case, the burning of a dwelling house and shop, it had since been ascertained to have been a wilful attempt to defraud creditors, and that the perpetrator was now being punished; in the fourth and last case, the fire, though reputed to have been a wilful one, was
  1128
  now believed by the sub-Inspector of police and the public to have been accidental. In one of the cases of robbery of arms, the gun was stolen from the cabin of a care taker while he was away at night. In the other a number of persons came to a house and carried away a gun. The owner and his family were examined before the magistrate, and swore they could not even give a description of any one of the party. That circumstance alone would give the House some idea of the difficulty they experienced in the due administration of justice. A party of men came in broad daylight without any disguise and took away a gun, and yet the parties aggrieved would not come forward and give evidence of the robbery. In cases of sending threatening letters, of which there were twelve, and one conviction, every one acknowledged the difficulty of bringing such offenders to justice. The remaining cases of undiscovered crime were principally assaults at public places or on the return home from fairs and markets by persons whom the injured parties swore they did not know. There were offences peculiar to some counties which were unknown in others—for instance, in Cavan there were threatening letters, which had generally something to do with the Ribbon system. Injuries to cattle and incendiary fires were also peculiar to that county. In the opinion of the county magistrates, however, Cavan had not been for several years past in a more peaceable state, and the Judges confirmed the statement that the constabulary enjoyed the respect of the magistracy and the public. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had told the House about the 7,000 persons who went to the funeral of Mr. M'Manus, in Dublin; but he had not stated that there was no breach of the peace committed. He did not know why it should fall to the province of the right hon. Gentleman to lower his country by raking up those cases and making the worst of a state of things which was not so bad as it seemed. Limerick had also been spoken of by the right hon. Gentleman, and there the learned Judge observed—
  "I have been furnished by your county Inspector with his Report, containing a return of the amount of offences committed, and I am struck with suprise at the numbers set down for which no one has been made amenable, and others where the prosecutions had been altogether abandoned."
  It was true that there were thirty-three cases brought before the Judge in which

  1129
  there were no informations, but in eight the injured persons declined to give any evidence, and in the remaining twenty-five the magistrates considered it either useless or injudicious to take informations, as they could implicate no one. That Report did not represent so bad a state of things in Limerick county as the right hon. Gentleman would have the House believe. It was true that in three or four counties the Judges did blame the constabulary for want of efficiency, as is evinced by the number of persons convicted; but in the remaining twenty-nine counties the Judges and the magistracy concurred in declaring that the state of those counties was satisfactory, and in speaking most favourably of the efficiency of the constabulary, that force which the right hon. Gentleman had ventured to criticize. He had spoken of their being armed with a helmet, with bayonets at their belts, as though a man could use his weapon there, and that they had as much on their backs as that table could carry. The constabulary had been organized for forty years as at present, and they were admitted to be the finest force in the world. The right hon. Gentleman had asked him whether he had turned his attention to this matter since last he had brought it before the House.
  MR. WHITESIDE: I never brought it before the House.
  SIR ROBERT PEEL: Well, then, the right hon. Gentleman had ventured upon erroneous statements which he was obliged to correct. He had had drawn up for his own information the statements of the Judges of twenty-nine separate counties, and in every instance they had spoken favourably of the state of the country and of the constabulary. He would not weary the House by going through the whole of the charges, and would, therefore, only allude to the charge of Chief Justice Monaghan at Kerry, who said that he would not join in the cry that had been raised by his brethren, the other Judges, to run down the constabulary. The Chief Justice, on the contrary, expressed his belief that the police honourably and conscientiously discharged their duty. In twenty-eight other counties similar reports had been made by the Judges. So active and energetic had been the constabulary, indeed, within the last few years, that the annual Report of offences, arrests, &c., showed a decrease of offences last year compared with 1862 of more than 1,200. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of the popula-
  1130
  tion of Roscommon, Cavan, and Limerick and endeavoured to prove that a greater number of crimes were committed in the southern and western counties than in the north of Ireland. The population of Roscommon, Cavan, and Limerick was 483,979; the number of offences and arrests reported in the three counties for eight months was 227, and the number of arrests was 114. So that in those three counties there was one offence to every 2,132 persons during the eight months. The population of England and Wales, exclusive of the metropolis, was 17,263,857. The number of offences during eight months was 26,624, and the number of arrests was 15,871. In England and Wales, therefore, there was one offence for every 648 persons, while in Ireland there was only one offence to every 2,132 persons. The House could scarcely imagine the difficulty experienced by the authorities in Ireland in inducing persons to come forward and swear informations when offences had been committed. He had only that day received two remarkable statements respecting the unwillingness to assist the course of justice. He would read the report of the resident magistrate in Westmeath—
  "County Westmeath, Kilbeggan, April 13.
  "On Sunday night last, about eleven o'clock, James Casey, about twenty years of age, of Boston, county Westmeath, within two miles of Moate, was returning with four others from Ballycumber, in the King's County. Some talk about their respective fighting powers ended in one William Galvin's giving Casey a blow with a large stone held in his fist over the left temple. I saw him on Monday evening, and though perfectly sensible and collected he refuses to say one word about the affair, saying he knows nothing about it. [An hon. MEMBER: That is a common case.] The information of Reynolds, who was of the party and present, clearly fixes it on William Galvin, who, he says, was provoked by Casey. We should have succeeded in arresting Galvin, who has got off, but that Casey's father, who sent for Dr. Mathews, at half past twelve a.m. on Monday morning, never called at the barrack, which was passed on the way to the doctor's, through whom, I understand, the police heard of the affair about noon of Monday last. William Galvin was at his usual employment up to that hour of that day, but did not return to it after dinner hour, for we were near him."
  He would give another instance of the general unwillingness to assist the police from King's County—
  "Parsonstown, April 11, 1864.
  "I have to report that at ten o'clock a.m. on the 1st inst., two men, names unknown, went into a field in the above townland, where Michael Coughlan, his two brothers, and seven men (in the employment of Coughlan) were ploughing, and

  1131
  told Coughlan 'that he had no right to come there without first settling with John Doorley (the former tenant, who had been evicted from that farm in December last), and that if he did not settle with Doorley, that he, Doorley, would, if it was to go for three or five years, get a man to go into the field and shoot him.' Although there were nine men with Coughlan at the time, there was no effort whatever made on their part to arrest or even trace those men, nor did Coughlan report the matter to the police (although the barrack was within half a mile of the lands which they were ploughing) until the 8th inst. From the description Coughlan gave of the parties the constable at Rapemills at once arrested the parties I have named, whom I have no doubt (nor has Mr. Curran, R.M.) but that the two former were the two men who threatened Coughlan, but as he refused to identify them when brought before him on the 9th inst. they were discharged. The reason assigned for the outrage is that Coughlan refused compensation to Doorley for improvements done to the property."
  He could have entered much more lengthily into the statements made by the right hon. Gentleman, but he felt that he had already trespassed upon the attention of the House. He was anxious, however, to disclaim any intention of having cast a slur upon learned Judges, one of whom was an intimate personal friend of his own. In what he had stated upon the occasion referred to he thought he was justified, because one of the Judges had, as he believed, made sweeping statements against the magistracy, although in twenty-nine other counties the most complete and thorough approval had been expressed from the judicial bench of the harmonious manner in which the magistracy and constabulary were acting together for the detection of crime. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would feel satisfied that he was always ready to pay immediate attention to any remarks from him upon matters properly within his province, and that his desire was that the Executive and magistrates should as far as possible act together in harmony upon all matters affecting the internal condition of the country. He only hoped that the favourable opinions which the Judges had been able to express in twenty-nine counties would, in the ensuing assizes, prove equally applicable to the other four. He was happy to say, that during the three years he had had the honour of being connected with the Government of Ireland, a vast improvement had manifested itself in the feelings and character of the people; and if irritating causes would only cease to agitate the people of that country, a corresponding advance would be observed in their social condition year by year, and the House might congratulate itself that
  1132
  the state of crime in that country was rapidly and sensibly diminishing.
  MR. WHITESIDEsaid, that in a former debate he had stated the number of fighting men who had emigrated from Ireland at 100,000 men. He afterwards applied to the proper quarter, and was told that he had stated the figures accurately.
  MR. M'MAHONsaid, in his opinion, the Irish Members of that House ought to be thankful to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Whiteside), for having brought that subject before the notice of the House. At the same time, he regretted that the debate was of a mere abstract character, and could be attended with no practical result. He would rather that the right hon. Gentleman had moved for a Committee to examine into the efficiency or inefficiency of the Irish police. If the right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary for Ireland knew more about the country, he would not be so strenuous a supporter of the Irish police. That body, according to the judgment of most people, resembled more closely an army of occupation than a civil organization for the detection of crime. The Irish police were armed with swords, guns, and bayonets. They lived in barracks like fortresses, and did not mix with the people; thus they knew nothing of their character, and possessed none of the facilities which the English police force had for the detection of criminals. Every year, too, they were becoming more and more military. In the case of the English police, they lived among the people in their own houses, and knowing thoroughly all the various districts in. which they lived, as well as the general character of the inhabitants, when a crime was committed they were in most cases able to pounce upon the criminal. Unfortunately, in Ireland, everything was managed in such a manner as to conduce to a job. In the case of a felony committed in England, the person who had been robbed gave information to the police, who generally succeeded in detecting the criminal. Then the person robbed employed his own attorney and barrister, and the offender was brought to speedy justice. In Ireland, on the contrary, a person was not allowed to vindicate the law by means of professional men of his own choice, and in consequence of the system upon which prosecutions were conducted juries would not convict. There certainly was a Crown prosecutor in Ireland, but he generally lived in Dublin, or the chief town of the county

  1133
  with which he was connected, and knew nothing and cared less about the details of those matters. He believed that it would be far better if the people were to employ their own attornies or law advisers. In every country where public prosecutors were part of the establishment there had been a gross failure of justice. He complained of the apathy of the public prosecutors, and expressed his opinion that until the system of conducting prosecutions in Ireland by the Crown prosecutors was abolished, justice would never be properly administered. He suggested that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University (Mr. Whiteside) should move for a Committee to investigate the whole subject.
  THE O'CONOR DONsaid, that as the county Roscommon, with which he was so intimately connected, and which he had the honour to represent in that House, had been so pointedly alluded to in the course of the present debate, he wished to make a few remarks. He was very desirous of ascertaining the true state of the facts connected with crime in Ireland; but he greatly doubted whether the Return asked for by the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Whiteside), would give the information which he desired. The last list of crime in the county of Roscommon presented eighty-seven offences, but let not the House suppose that eighty-seven outrages had really taken place. In Judge Christian's charge, at the last assizes, he alluded to eleven incendiary fires as having been reported. Now, it should be remembered that there existed in Ireland a system under which compensation was granted for malicious injuries. Consequently there was a great temptation to induce persons to invent or exaggerate the character of offences. He found by a reference to the presentments made before the grand jury at the last assizes of Roscommon, that out of those eleven alleged incendiary fires there were only three instances in which compensation had been given. It was not, therefore, to be concluded that those eleven outrages had actually been committed. In three other instances the parties did not even swear informations, which proved the fact that they themselves did not believe that the fires were attributable to the deliberate designs of any person. When Judge Christian delivered his charge, in which he spoke of the disturbed and criminal state of Roscommon, he made inquiries into the nature of the offences
  1134
  entered on the list, and although they were described with high-sounding names, in reality they turned out to be mere trifles. The first case was described as homicide; but it turned out to be an accident. A carman who was driving home from Roscommon races accidentally knocked down a man, who died of the injuries which he received. The next was firing at the person, which turned out to be a joke. An old pensioner had a dispute with an old woman about a heap of manure, and he fetched a pistol loaded with powder, and snapped it at her. The next case was described as one of "burglary and robbery," which, it appeared, originated in the mistake of a bailiff, in serving a process in the wrong house after nightfall. There was a case of demanding arms, which turned out to be a hoax; and there were said to have been fifteen cases of threatening letters it support of which there were no sworn informations. They presented no great feature of criminality. The detection of such a crime at the best of times was a great difficulty, and he thought it was a great injustice to the police to charge them with neglect in not discovering the writers. These offences differed very much in degree, in some cases the letters being sent out of mere foolishness and ignorance, without the slightest intention to carry out the threats; and it was but just to the police to say that the discovery of their authors was a most difficult task. An analysis of the calendar showed how wrong it was to form conclusions by merely reading the headings of the charges. Allusion had been made to the efficiency of the English police, and it had been quoted as against the Irish police; but he found, from a Return that had been published, that in fifteen of the English police districts, the proportion of arrests and convictions presented a worse case against them than had been made out against the Irish police.
  LORD CLAUD HAMILTONobserved, that the question of detection of crime in Ireland was not then before the House, but as it would have to be discussed he should reserve what he had to say about it till a future occasion. When the hon. Member for Roscommon (The O'Conor Don) sought I to establish that only a small proportion of what he called incendiary fires were proved to be malicious, he merely proved that there existed extreme difficulty on the part of those persons who were the sufferers by those offences, in making clear the existence of ma-

  1135
  lice in those cases. This was owing in some degree to the fact that they had to submit their claims to what might be regarded as in some degree an adverse tribunal. The number of serious charges also to which the hon. Gentleman alluded, such as homicide and burglary, as having been made against persons who were guilty of, comparatively speaking, much lighter offences, instead of being an argument in favour of the present system of prosecution in Ireland, plainly demonstrated that it required amendment. Into the larger question of the detection of crime he did not that evening propose to enter at any length; but as one who had experience as a magistrate for a period of twenty-nine years, he must protest against the absurd system of giving to the police in Ireland, who ought to be the main instruments in that detection, the military organization which they now received. It was impossible to expect that the police, who had been spoilt by military organization, could detect crime. It was their foolish military organization which made them useless as a detective police force. Had the right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary for Ireland been in his place, he should have advised him to study gravely, and with filial reverence, the regulations which had been laid down by his illustrious father in reference to that body when they were called into existence, and from which of late there bad been a serious departure. He would confer a great benefit on the people of Ireland if he would adopt those instructions, and have them carried out. He knew it would be said that to have an efficient force the men must be armed with the most efficient weapon. That was true, and that argument was used by the noble Lord at the head of the Government, and, owing to his influence and popularity, it seemed to satisfy the House on a former occasion; but he would venture to point out that, in discussing what was the most efficient weapon for a body of men, you must have reference to the duties those men have to perform. What, he would like to know, was the use of giving a policeman a rifle which would kill at 900 yards? Who ever heard of a member of the force taking a flying shot at a runaway pickpocket at that distance? Much better would it be to arm the men with the old carbine, which would carry only fifty or sixty yards, which was used as a weapon of defence and not of offence, which was light and handy, and which did not prevent
  1136
  the police from giving effectual chase to a criminal. But, besides the rifle now in use, there was also the sword scabbard, which dangled about their legs, and rendered it almost impossible for them to he active in pursuit; while, being an expensive implement, and a stoppage being made from their pay for an injury done to it, they not unnaturally would prefer letting a man escape occasionally to running that risk. The consequence was that they dandled it like a baby rather than injure the precious weapon. The force, as a detective force, was a mockery. It would be far better to get rid of all that useless military organization and encourage the men to become good detectives, and thereby be able to trace criminals and to prevent crime. He believed the Irish police to have been a most excellent force until the military mania came over it. But worse than all was the fact that, owing to some secret instructions—and from whom they emanated he was not in the slightest degree aware, the police showed great reluctance to communicate with the local magistracy, standing aloof from them, and affecting a preference for the stipendiary magistrates of the district. Instead of the existence of a complete understanding between the resident country gentlemen and the police, it appeared that secret instructions were issued, and that the police were told to communicate only with the stipendiary magistrates. In illustration of the operation of that system he might mention that, on the occasion of the late assizes, when Mr. Justice Ball, a highly respected Judge, visited the county of Down to preside in the Crown Court, he, in speaking of the state of that county, expressed his regret at finding in it so lamentable a state of crime; and when his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down (Lieutenant Colonel Forde) who was foreman of the grand jury, assured his Lordship that he and his colleagues knew nothing about the crime of which he spoke, the answer was that the facts had been reported to him by the police; to which his hon. Friend replied that the police had not reported the crimes alluded to by his Lordship, to the resident magistrates and landlords of the county. Now, that was a state of things which ought not to be allowed to exist, and the Government would, he hoped, take the whole question into their serious consideration.
  MR. O'REILLYsaid, he must deny that the amount of undetected crime could

  1137
  be estimated by a comparison of the number of offences alleged to have been committed with the number of persons brought to trial; because he was prepared to show that, in numerous instances, offences had been alleged where none had been committed. He had moved for a list of the outrages alleged to have been committed in Ireland, in order that it might be compared with the cases actually brought before the Judges of assize, and thus determine the actual amount of undetected crime. He would take three cases in the county of Longford and the county of Westmeath. In one of these there was a charge that a threatening notice had been served upon a particular gentleman, but the gentleman himself denied that any such notice had been served. In another case of a similar charge, after some inquiry, the person who had made it was threatened with a prosecution on the ground that he himself was the writer of the letter which he said had been sent to him. In the third, a copying book was found in the house of the person who made the charge, in which book there was a torn sheet corresponding with the one on which the threat was written. Again, with respect to incendiary fires, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Whiteside) were a country gentleman he would know that many of the claims made on counties in respect of such alleged fires, were rejected by the grand juries. Out of eleven cases of alleged fires submitted to the grand jury of the county of Roscommon, only three were prosecuted. One gentleman, who in a more distant part of the country had alleged more than one case of malicious outrage as having been perpetrated against himself, came to reside at Swords, near Dublin, and made a similar accusation. He alleged that stones were constantly being thrown at his house. Policemen were sent to watch it, and whenever they were in the house no stones were thrown, but no sooner did they take their departure than the alleged attacks were again repeated. At length the police resorted to the expedient of hiding in a ditch, without the knowledge of the owner of the house, and having heard a volley of stones strike the buildings, they rushed out and found that the delinquent was the gentleman himself.
  MR. BERNAL OSBORNE: Was the case referred to that of a clergyman?
  MR. O'REILLYthought that the person in question was a clergyman. He hoped he had stated sufficient facts to show that a comparison of the number of alleged offences with the number of persons brought to trial would not show the amount of undetected crime in Ireland.
  MR. BAGWELLsaid, that he must agree with most of the statements of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dublin University (Mr. Whiteside). He believed the disinclination which at present existed among the Irish peasantry to give information against criminals was one of the effects of the police system, which did not afford protection to prosecutors. Not only had the magistrates and the grand juries no control over the police, but it was believed that their recommendation of a constable would prevent the man from getting promotion. The men composing the force were exceedingly fine men, but they had no inducement to exert themselves, as it was impossible for them, under the existing system, to improve their position in connection with the force.
  MR. O'HAGAN (THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND)wished to say a very few words before this discussion concluded, with reference to some observations which appeared to him to have unwarrantably dealt with the administration of criminal justice in Ireland. The general effect of the debate was very satisfactory, for it had dispelled delusion and done justice to public officers who had been assailed without sufficient reason. He did not think it necessary to go at length into the general question; but now, at the close of the debate, and after the testimony which had been given as to the condition of Ireland by so many representatives of large and important constituencies, he thought himself entirely justified in repeating the assertion he had made on a former occasion in that House, and to which his right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Dublin, adverted in the opening of his statement, that there was not at this moment in the world a people less tainted with vice or crime than the people of Ireland. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wexford had denounced the system of crown prosecutions in Ireland and urged the substitution of that which prevails in England. He confessed he did not admire the continual reiteration of the preference for all English institutions with

  1139
  which they were familiar in that House, and as to the matter in question he believed the Irish system to be incomparably superior to the English, and it was so considered by every man at the bar acquainted with their working and results. The Law Amendment Society and the Social Science Association were distinctly in favour of the establishment of a system of public prosecution, aiming to have justice fairly and calmly administered, without interest or passion in the prosecution or undue pressure on the accused. At the late meeting of the Social Science Association in Dublin, the venerable Lord Brougham expressed his high approval of the appointment of public prosecutors, and his desire that they should be appointed for England. As to the detection of crime, the Judges, whose opinions on such a subject should be received with extreme respect, had not pronounced the condemnation of the police. In three or four counties there had been complaints, but the learned Judge whose brilliant career in that House was so well remembered, Judge Keogh, whilst he lamented that some offences had not been discovered in Limerick, spoke in the highest praise of the police force, and his approval of it was echoed by the grand jury, who returned him their warm thanks for his address on the subject. Mr. Justice Fitzgerald, who had also held such a distinguished position in Parliament, had given it his equally emphatic approval; and many other Judges of the greatest eminence expressed the same opinion. In the vast majority of the counties of Ireland, at the last assizes, there was no objection taken, nor the slightest pretence for any, to the action of the constabulary, who were on all hands admitted to be a most intelligent, well conducted, and trustworthy body of men. Some difficulty they undoubtedly encountered, because in Ireland the people were not, as in this country, in perfect relations of amity with the law. Long years of partial and unjust legislation—laws not made in their interest or administered for their advantage had produced a deep impression on their minds. The traditions of the past were not forgotten. The brief quarter of a century which had elapsed since the tardy recognition of the principles of religious freedom and equal justice had not been sufficient to obliterate its painful memories. But a manifest improvement was taking place, and by persisting patiently in a firm and kindly course—by
  1140
  securing legal protection and fair play to all, the Government could induce the people to love the law and assist in its administration. He had been grossly misrepresented as having asserted that justice in Ireland was now satisfactorily dispensed to a contented community. He had never thought or said that the Irish community were content with their general condition, depressed and suffering as they were, but he had stated, as he believed, that they were more content than they had ever been with the manner in which prosecutions were directed, and with the conduct of the Judges and the tribunals. He lamented extremely—he thought it was a pity and a shame that there was still such a disposition amongst some Irishmen to exaggerate the criminality of their own country and lower it in the estimation of other lands, instead of boasting of the wonderful and unexampled purity and virtue which distinguished it, notwithstanding so many evil influences of poverty and temptation. In England, men were not found to throw discredit upon their poorer countrymen, although far larger masses of undetected crime existed there than in Ireland. Had they not heard of such terrible mysteries as the Road murder, the Waterloo Bridge murder, and the Hay-market murder? And were these things made the subject of attack by Englishmen on the authorities or the people of England? He had looked into the last volume of the English judicial statistics, and he found that whilst in a single year 13,289 crimes had been committed in the metropolis, only 5,444 persons had been apprehended; in the pleasure towns, as they were called, 940 crimes were committed, and 362 persons arrested; in the towns depending on agricultural districts, 472 crimes were committed, and 324 persons arrested; in the commercial ports, the crimes were 5,271, and the arrests 2,899; and in the seats of the cotton and linen manufacture, the crimes were 9,370, and the arrests 2,738. He believed that when the Irish judicial statistics, which he hoped to lay on the table of the House in the course of the Session, were compared with those of this rich and prosperous kingdom, the comparison would be found most favourable to Ireland as to the amount, the character, and the detection of crime. On the whole, he was satisfied that this discussion would be serviceable to the interests of truth, and not in any way detri-

  1141
  mental to the character of the constabulary of Ireland.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONbegged to observe that there was a very important matter of deep public interest to be disposed of that night, the Report of the Committee of Ways and Means on the Sugar Duties. Very great commercial inconvenience would be experienced if the Report were not brought up that night, and it was then past ten o'clock. He therefore appealed to hon. Members to have the kindness to postpone their observations on the topic now before the House, and on any other subjects of which they might have given notice, to some other evening, as it would be a very great convenience to the public service.
  MR. BERNAL OSBORNEexpressed surprise that the noble Lord did not make this appeal before his own Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. O'Hagan) made his long and rather singular speech, in which he quite led the House away from the real subject. He was the last man to doubt the purity or impugn the morality of the Irish people; but the present was a question not of national morality, but of the organization of the police force. The Government of Ireland was framed on a vicious system, which had long been abandoned in England. It was a system copied from France. Everything in Ireland tended to Dublin, every question must be referred to the Castle. The only point on which Irish Gentlemen, who differed from one another on every other matter, were agreed was the utter inefficiency of the system of a military police. The constabulary were riflemen, but without the activity and discipline of soldiers. It had been said that they were a fine body of men, and that in one sense was true, for they were six feet in height. As a detective police, however, they were altogether useless, Irish gentlemen, whether magistrates, Judges, or grand jurors, all shared that opinion. Ireland might be pure and moral, but he doubted whether the Irish Government was so. Everything in the country was transferred to that sink of iniquity—the Castle. If such a Government were in existence in England the country would not go on for twenty-four hours. Irish gentlemen were reproached as absentees in this country, but what inducement had they to remain in Ireland? Their opinions were set aside, their services were declined; the Castle was everything, and except the Law Officers
  1142
  every official there was English. No Irishman was admitted to office; as Swift said, "The curse of Ireland was upon him." Hence it was that men illustrious for their ignorance of and inability to understand Ireland were preferred to Irishmen. As long as that system lasted, so long would crime remain undiminished, and the Irish Secretary and the Attorney General would talk about Irish purity and morality, neglecting the means of lessening crime and of placing the police on a better footing.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to,

COURTS OF JUSTICE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. ARTHUR MILLSsaid, he would beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works, Whether the Government have abandoned the intention of introducing any measure for the concentration of the Courts of Justice? The present suspense was extremely inconvenient to the profession and injurious to the owners of property on the site recommended by the Commission of 1859. He knew of one man of the latter class who a few years ago derived about £2,000 a year from his property, and who was now almost ruined by the proceedings of the Government in issuing notices year after year.
  MR. COWPERsaid, the Government had not abandoned the project. It was at present under consideration, and he hoped shortly to be able to bring the matter before the House.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.

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

WAYS AND MEANS — THE SUGAR DUTIES.
Resolutions (April 14), reported.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said Resolutions be now read a second time."
MR. CRAWFORDrose, and said:* Sir, I have undertaken to invite the House to consider, this evening, the important question of the manner in which the sugar duties should be assessed, from a point of view very different from—very antagonistic to—that taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in submitting his financial statement to the House. I am not unaware of the responsibility which every Member incurs who seeks to interfere with the legislation proposed in the Budget of the Government; nor am I insensible to the boon which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has conferred upon the country, in the great remission of taxation which is involved in the relinquishment of 4s. per cwt. on all sugars imported into the United Kingdom. But, Sir, I have taken too active a part with those who disapprove of the manner in which the sugar duties are now levied, to accept the decision of the Government without inquiry and discussion. The question is a very important one. It affects the whole course of the sugar trade with our colonies, and with foreign parts. It relates to a trade which employs immense sums of money, and it involves, moreover, some of the most important principles of political economy. If I had had the good fortune to secure the attention of the House at an earlier period of the evening, I should have been tempted to answer some of the remarks which the Chancellor of the Exchequer made in the course of his financial statement the other evening. I should have been glad to refer to some of the authorities which he cited on that occasion, to notice some of the analogies which he quoted, and to examine some of the illustrations which he cited. But, Sir, I feel that at this late hour I should be unduly trespassing upon the indulgence of the House if I were not at once to go to the question at issue. That question may be briefly stated. For some time past the duties upon sugar have been levied upon the principle of a classification of the qualities, and the imposition of a differential rate of duty upon each quality. Those who object to that plan advocate the adoption of one uniform and fixed duty upon all sugars. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, in the course of his financial statement—
"At present we have classified duties upon sugar—approved by many, a scandal and offence to many more. Now, I am not able to deny that
1144
a classified duty has been the growth of experience."
Again, further on, he said—
"I am not able to say that this system of classified duty has been condemned by experience."
It will be my duty to show, or, at least, to endeavour to show, that the statement of my right hon. Friend is founded in error, and that the system of classified duties is condemned by experience. The Chancellor of the Exchequer adopts, as what I may call the cardinal principle of his legislation, a suggestion thrown out in a memorial of the Manchester Chamber of Commerce, forwarded to him a few days before he submitted the Budget to the House. That suggestion was, that the duty should be levied upon the extractable crystallizable saccharine matter contained in sugar, so as, the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us, in an illustration he used, not to include the minor products of the refinery.
Now, the proposition I shall submit is, that the duty should be imposed upon the commodity as it is brought to the market for sale. My right hon. Friend illustrated his argument by the case of two cwts. of "jaggery" imported into this country from India; but I venture to say, with all due respect to him, that his illustration was not accurate. I assume that there are two parties principally and primarily interested in this question. The first of these is the consumer of sugar; the other is the Government, as guardians of the revenue of the country. The producer is interested in a less degree; and there is a fourth party, whose interests the classified system of duties protects, but who has, properly speaking, no locus standi before the House. That party is the refiner. He is the only party taken into account in the Indian case cited by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The refiner holds in relation to sugar the position, if I may use the term, of an economical scavenger; his business is simply and solely to clean and purify the sugar brought to this country. Now, our argument is that the sugar brought to this country ought to come, and, but for the duties, would come in a condition fit for use. In the Indian case the only person damnified by a uniform duty would be the refiner. The consumer would be benefited because he would get his sugar

1145
cheaper. The revenue could not be injured, because the proposition of the Government is to charge the duty on the saccharine value only of the sugar; the producer would also be benefited; in short, all parties except the refiner would be benefited, and the refiner, I repeat, has really no locus standi before us, and no claim, economically speaking, to our consideration. But there is another point in connection with this case of "jaggery," to which I desire to draw the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer and of the House. My right hon. Friend supposes that these two cwts. of "jaggery" will, when refined, yield, without including the minor products of the refinery, one cwt. of sugar fit for consumption. Now, the cardinal principle of his proposition is that the crystallizable saccharine matter only is to be taxed. If, therefore, I sell to the refiner a quantity of this "jaggery," he pays me in the price a sum equivalent to the duty which I have paid upon the crystallizable saccharine matter only contained in the article; whereas, he gets out of the "jaggery," in addition to his refined produce, a large quantity of the minor residuary products—treacle and molasses—upon which no duty has been paid. In reference to this point, I may quote from a letter written to The Times a few days ago by a gentleman named Thomson, who has evidently had a good deal of experience, and who makes the following remark:—
"There is another reason of a practical kind which ought to tell in favour of low duties for inferior sugars, and it is this, they contain a great deal of treacle, which is quite uncrystallizable, and almost valueless in sugar-growing countries, but it is worth a good deal here."
Now, the refiner in the case supposed, having paid in the price the equivalent of the duty upon crystallizable saccharine matter only, gets a larger quantity of treacle or molasses, which he sells in the market, but upon which he has paid no duty, because the duty has been levied upon crystallizable saccharine matter only. But see, on the other hand, the position of the importer of treacle and molasses from abroad. Large quantities of molasses come from the West Indies, and under the proposition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the importer would be subjected to a duty of 3s. 6d. per cwt. in competition with the refiner, who has got his molasses altogether free of duty.
1146
I have another remark to make with respect to "jaggery." My right hon. Friend assumed that it contains about 50 per cent of extractable saccharine matter. Now, I can inform the House that this "jaggery" sugar (and I could, if necessary, produce samples at this moment) contains fully as much as 70 or 75 per cent of crystallizable substance. It contains also from 10 to 15 per cent of what is termed in technical language "glucose;" that is, sugar that is not crystallizable in the form of treacle. As far, then, as my right hon. Friend's illustration from "jaggery" is concerned, it is clear that it is not to the extent which he assumed it to be, a fair case in point; and from the manner in which I have described the working of the duty, I think it will be evident, that if the principle is adopted of charging the duty in proportion to the extractable saccharine matter in sugar, it will do injustice to many members of the community.
I now pass to the proposition itself, which have to submit to the House. I have stated that it is not possible for the officers of the Customs to ascertain by inspection the quantity of crystallizable saccharine matter contained in any sample of sugar; and I will undertake to show, from the evidence adduced before the Committee two years ago, that it is not practicable to do that which the Chancellor of the Exchequer asserts to be the basis of his proposition. I do not intend to occupy the time of the House by reciting the evidence taken before the Committee upon that particular point; but I hold in my hand extracts from the evidence given before that Committee by Sir Thomas Freemantle, which I think will suffice to show the House, that if the object is, as it is stated to be, to ascertain in an accurate manner what the amount of crystallizable saccharine matter in sugar is, it is not possible for the Custom House officer to do that by inspection in the ordinary way of business, to the satisfaction of the public. It is, of course, perfectly possible for the chemist to test and measure the separate quantities of the several constituents of sugar; but it cannot be done by practical men at the Custom House by ocular inspection; and there is no other mode in which the operation of the Custom House can be carried on as regards sugar than the mere inspection and handling of sugars by the

1147
Customs' officer. Sir Thomas Freemantle is asked—
"Is the comparison made entirely by the eye?"
And he says—
"There was a time when those questions of appeal were very numerous, and before we had adopted the practice of sending all sugars to one room to be assessed there, it was difficult to come to a decision; we then endeavoured to ascertain the saccharine qualities of the sugar by an instrument that was called the saccharometer."
I may here observe that subsequently Mr. Ogilvie, an officer of the Customs, stated to the Committee that the saccharometer was of no possible use. Sir Thomas Freemantle is further asked—
"Does not the judgment of the officers differ very much upon the same sugar?"
He answers—
"Yes; no doubt it is a very nice operation; I cannot say they could bring it to mathematical precision."
He is also asked—
"Their judgment is guided now entirely by the colour and the grain, is it not?"
He replies, "Yes." The House will see here that the Custom House officer does not in fact ascertain that which the Chancellor of the Exchequer says is the basis of his proposition, namely, the saccharine qualities of the sugar he has to assess. Sir Thomas Freemantle, in answer to a further question, stated—
"It is difficult to say how far the qualities of grain, and colour, and whiteness are indices of saccharine matter: if you consider them as the indices and exponents of saccharine matter, it becomes a mere question of saccharine matter altogether. I apprehend (he goes on to say), with respect to what are called grocers' sugars, and so forth, that the buyers purchase those sugars, and that those sugars have a value with reference to colour, irrespectively of their saccharine qualities."
So that here we see that colour and grain are taken into account to determine the value of the sugar. In fact, it was required by the Act of 1854, under which the duties upon sugar were levied, that you should adopt collectively the criteria of colour and grain, and the saccharine quality of the sugar. But my right hon. Friend now proposes to drop that which the Custom House authorities say it is necessary to keep before them as guides to a proper appraisement of value—namely, colour and grain, and to depend entirely
1148
upon the saccharine qualities of the sugar only. Mr. Fairrie, one of the largest sugar refiners in this country, stated, in his examination before the Committee—
"In consequence, I believe, of my representations, they (the Custom House officers) have been much more liberal than they were formerly; but still it is not a thing that the officers are able to judge of; they often lay the 12 s. 8d. duty on melado, which is good for nothing, and let excellent quality pass at 10 s. 4d. Not being refiners, they do not know exactly whether the melado is good or bad."
Here, then, is the evidence of one of the first refiners in London, who states that of that which is the principle of my right hon. Friend's proposition, the Custom House officers are unable to judge. Another important witness, Mr. Fryer, is asked by the Committee—
"You have assumed that a certain portion of each (sugar) is saccharine matter, and a certain portion is not?"
And he says—
"In this calculation I have not assumed that; I have simply taken a calculation in the ad valorem sense. I am quite able to show a similar calculation with respect to the saccharine matter, if desired, though I have not prepared such a statement; that is to say, I can produce a sugar that has paid the 13 s. 10 d. duty that contains 95 per cent of crystallizable saccharine matter."
So here we have a sugar containing 95 per cent of crystallizable saccharine matter, or 5 per cent less than absolutely pure sugar, admitted at the 13 s. 10 d. scale, while, if it were only 5 per cent better, it must come in at the highest duty of 18 s. 4d The other day a sample of sugar was passed through the Custom House at Liverpool at the 13 s. 10 d. duty, which was found on examination, in London to contain 96 per cent of pure sugar; so that, if it had had in it only 4 per cent more of pure sugar, it would have been liable to the 18 s. 4d. scale, as against the 13 s. 4d. one, the difference arising from the difference in colour and grain.
I ask the House, then, to bear in mind that whereas the Chancellor of the Exchequer founds his proposal entirely on the principle of ascertaining the crystallizable saccharine matter in sugar, all experience shows us from day to day that in the assessment of these duties by the Custom House, other considerations, namely, colour and grain, must be kept in view. Now, a personal friend of my own, Mr. Guthrie, who appeared before the Committee, gave evidence to the same effect. He placed

1149
certain samples on the table, and when asked—
"Have you found that different rates of duty are sometimes assessed on exactly similar sugars?"
He answered—
"Yes; I have some samples here to show that; it happens sometimes, not only upon sugars of, you may say, exactly the same quality, but upon others. These are samples of Mauritius sugars, This one by the Speedwell is taxed at 13 s. 10 d duty, and was sold at 37 s.; here is one, per Winterthur, taxed at 12 s. 8d., which was sold at 39 s. 9d. on the same day and in the same sale,"
That is to say, the sample that was taxed at a lower duty by 1s. 10 d. than the other sold at 2s. 9d. more in the market. And why was that? Simply because of the colour and grain. There, again, the saccharine quality of the sugar was no index whatever of the market value of the article. I might proceed by quoting a good deal more of the evidence taken before the Committee, demonstrating more particularly how difficult, nay, how impossible it is for the Custom House officer to perform the function which the plan of the Government intrusts to him, and that he cannot, as experience has proved, satisfactorily appraise the correct value of sugars upon the saccharine principle. But there is another case which occurred not many days ago, to which I would especially desire to call the Chancellor of the Exchequer's attention. I believe it has already been brought to his notice. The firm in the City to which I have just, referred, Messrs. Chalmers and Guthrie, imported some sugar from Natal. Of this sugar samples were drawn by the Custom House officers in the usual manner for the ascertainment of the duties to which it was liable. Those officers reported that the sugar was subject to a duty of 12 s. 8d. The sugar was then put up for public sale, as it usually is in the City of London, with the duty marked in the catalogue for the guidance of the buyers, and it was sold subject to the 12 s. 8d. duty. Two or three days later, however, intimation was sent from the Custom House to say that its officers had made a mistake—that they had looked at the sugar again, and found that the duty on it ought to be 13 s. 10 d. The sugar had, in the meantime, changed hands and been sold, as I have said, subject to the lower duty first fixed upon it; but the Custom House authorities insisted, nevertheless, on the duty fixed at the second inspection — namely, 13 s. 10 d., and determined that it
1150
should be made chargeable at that rate. A correspondence took place on the subject, and I will read one or two passages from it for the particular information of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Mr. Ogilvie, in a note from the Custom House, dated March 22nd, 1864, wrote to Messrs. Chalmers and Guthrie, saying—
"Mr. Ogilvie presents his compliments to Messrs. Chalmers and Guthrie, and begs to inform them that having inspected the trade samples of sugar herewith returned, he finds that it is decidedly liable to the duty of 13 s. 10 d. per cwt. It appears from the inquiries he has made that the small sample by which the assessment was first made contained an undue proportion of the syrupy sugar, which misled the officers; but that soon after, having some reason to suppose they had made a mistake, they, as soon as they could, caused a second sample to be drawn, when they at once detected the error, and did their best to correct it, but, unfortunately, they were after the sale."
Mr. Ogilvie then goes on to represent that in cases where mistakes have been made in favour of the Crown, they have afterwards been set right, and the trade have received the benefit; but it must be remembered that in this particular instance the sugar had been sold subject to the lower duty. I know not whether that dispute has been settled yet; but I cite the case only to show that, even with all the experience of the Custom House officers, they are unable to tell accurately what rate of duty ought to be placed on a particular sugar. The case deserves the more notice because the sugar in question comes from Natal; and nothing can be more discouraging to the planters and merchants of that colony than to find such an extraordinary course of proceedings taken in the assessment of duty payable on their sugars. Then Mr. Ogilvie proceeds to make some remarks, which are valuable as showing the treatment which the trade sometimes meets with at the hands of the Custom House officials. He says—
"Of course, Mr. Ogilvie has no right to expect that parties should point out mistakes to their own detriment, though it is but justice to state that there are parties who have done so; but if a party knows that a mistake has been made, which was obvious in this case and prefers the chance of its passing unnoticed or undiscovered, and if afterwards those chances do not turn out so favourable as expected, there does not appear to be very strong grounds of complaint."
That is to say, Mr. Ogilvie takes upon himself to say that Messrs. Chalmers and Guthrie's firm were parties to a decided and deliberate fraud on the public. The

1151
object of these remarks has been to show that it is not possible for the Custom House officers under this classified system exactly to distinguish what amount of duty sugar ought to pay. I know there have been numerous instances of exactly the same parcels of sugar having been shipped from a colony to the ports of London and Liverpool at the same time, upon which after arrival two very different rates of duty have been assessed according to the judgment of the different officers who inspected them at the respective ports. I have known the same thing occur in London with the same shipment. I have known different rates imposed on the same sugar at different periods; nay, more, I have known the same sugar subjected to different rates according to the state of the weather, and according to any circumstances which may have influenced the Custom House officers at that particular time when the survey was made.
I cannot but think now, that I have shown the House that this system of classified duties is difficult and even unfair, and that it cannot be worked to the general satisfaction of the public. I can show also that the objections taken to the system of classified duties are not objections of recent date? I can show by reference to discussions which took place in this House, even as far back as 1845, when a differential duty was first proposed on raw sugar, that there were persons in this House who at that time objected to the system on the same grounds as we object to them at the present time. On February 25th, 1845, Mr. Ricardo made a speech in this House strongly objecting to the differential duties then proposed for the first time; and I find that on the 14th March, 1845, Mr. Hume, who, I believe, was always regarded in this House as an economist of authority, moved an Amendment "that the duty on refined sugar should be reduced to the rate of duty charged on clayed sugar," considering the difference to be a premium or protective duty. He was supported by Mr. B. Hawes, and by the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright). My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham took exception, I am bound to say, to the plan of differential duties, not upon the point of protection, but because he anticipated great difficulty in assessing the duties on the classified system. It has been stated that there is no ground for the assertion that the differential duty is a protection to low
1152
sugar as against refined. I should like to quote a few words from a speech delivered m this House, in 1848, by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for India, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer. I shall be able to show from his speech that he anticipated in 1848, when an additional grade of sugar was introduced in the sugar duties, that it would act as a protection to low sugars. The word "protection" occurs frequently in the speech of my right hon. Friend.
"There is another fault found with the Act of 1846, and that is also referred to in the Report of this Committee in the 10th Resolution—namely, as to the mode of levying the duty. It is said that the Act does not, in point of fact, give the protection it professes to give, that various sugars are subjected to one duty, and hence the whole of our colonial Muscovado sugar is exposed to the competition of the best brown clayed Havana. That is most clearly stated in the evidence of Mr. Greene. I will not trouble the House with quotations, but he states that there are differences of from 8s. to 9s. in value in the articles, and that what he wants is actual protection, whatever the amount may be which is given, and not a nominal protection as at present, which in many cases amounts to but 1s. or 2s., and in some cases to nothing at all. We propose, therefore, to introduce a new classification into the brown sugars, and to divide those sugars of foreign growth which at present come in under one duty with 'brown clayed' and 'Muscovado.' "
He then proceeds to show that this is done for the purpose of protecting the West Indian interest—
"If we are right in supposing that the greater part of the foreign sugar will come in at the higher rate of duty—if in fact the really formidable competition with colonial sugar is this description of foreign sugar—then we shall give a protection for a year higher than is now enjoyed by the West Indian proprietors."
In other passages of his speech my right hon. Friend goes on to propose to extend protection "in one way or the other." The word "protection" occurs very frequently in his speech.
My purpose is to show that the real object of establishing differential duties upon sugar was to protect certain interests, and that protection remains as the practical effect of differential duties. That effect is to protect low made sugar. I find that in July, 1848, when the subject was under discussion in this House, Mr. (now Sir) H. Barkly, now Governor of the Mauritius, objected to the differential duties, and proposed one uniform scale. In 1854 I find that when the late Mr. J. Wilson introduced the classified scheme—the one which is now in force practically—Mr. Ricardo made a speech in this House protesting, in

1153
the name of free trade, against these differential duties as being unequal awl contrary to all the doctrines of true political economy. Mr. Ricardo was supported by the present President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Milner Gibson). The President of the Board of Trade asked then on what principle a difference had been made in the scale upon raw and fine sugars.
I have, then, the advantage of the opinion of the President of the Board of Trade in favour of the view of the sugar duties which I am now advocating. As to the effect of these duties on what we may term the interests of the producer, I will read an extract from a despatch of Governor Barkly then at Guiana, dated 10th of November, 1852, in which he forcibly points out the impediment which a system of differential duties places in the way of the improvement of sugar. In that despatch Sir H. Barkly says—
"The discouragement which the existing arrangement of duties offers to an improved system of manufacture will be best conceived from the following facts:—
"First. That the process of 'spoiling' sugar, when it seems better than would be likely to pass the lowest standard, is not of unfrequent occurrence on estates where the vacuum pan is used
"Second. That a gentleman in charge of an estate on which vast expense has been incurred for steam clarifiers, bog and charcoal filters, vacuum pans, and pneumatic pumps, assured me that for a further trifling outlay of £100 he could, were it not for the quasi-prohibitive duty, ship the whole of his crop (1,000 tons) of a quality equal to refined sugar, though made bonâ fide by a single process from the raw material."
I have received a letter from that same gentleman, in which he goes into details as to the manner in which his sugar is made. I have no doubt whatever in the perfect integrity of his statement, that, with some little outlay for additional machinery, he could make the whole of his stock equal to refined sugar, had he not a motive in keeping the quality down in the protection which our classified system gives to low sugars. Governor Barkly, in his despatch, goes on to say—
"I venture most respectfully to conclude the observations which I have felt it my duty to make on a subject of so much importance to this colony in the words of a report addressed by the celebrated chemist Peligot to the French Colonial Minister in 1842:—'If colourless sugar cannot be produced from the cane (as was supposed a few years ago), if the molasses which impregnates and colours this sugar cannot be removed, if the production of colonial brown sugar must remain stationary as to quantity, if the quality cannot be improved, the excess of duty upon white sugar may to a certain extent be comprehended and
1154
justified. But if, on the contrary, this colouration is the consequence of a bad mode of working, if it be demonstrated that the sugar which preexists in the cane is white, that it is obtained white when a part is not destroyed, that the proportion extracted is consequently as much greater as it is less coloured, what must be thought of a legislative measure which imposes upon that industry the exorbitant obligation of making small and bad products, and which places a barrier before one of the things which the laws should most respect—improvement?' "
The Despatch in question was submitted by the Colonial Office to the Board of Trade, and the Board of Trade made this Report upon it to the Colonial Office—
"In the present instance, my Lords are disposed to allow considerable weight to the arguments adduced by the Governor of Guiana; and they would observe that the application of ad valorem duties on sugar appears to be in many respects less appropriate than to several other articles in regard to which it has been found expedient to abandon them. To impose a discriminating duty upon distinct kinds of a given produce, such as the produce of vineyards varying in richness, different qualities of tea or tobacco would appear to be a legitimate application of ad valorem duties, but to strike with a superior duty one pound of sugar which, by a better mode of manufacture, contains more saccharine matter than another pound obtained from the same raw material, is to inflict direct discouragement upon improvement."
These are the words which I have introduced into the Resolution I have proposed, and I hope the House will be satisfied with their authority, for they are the words used by my right hon. Friend the present Secretary for the Colonies, who was then President of the Board of Trade. If these were the views he entertained then, I do not see how, in his present position, he can gainsay or deny the force of them. Now, if that was the view entertained by my right hon. Friend at that time, and giving him all credit for further enlightenment as years have passed by, I think it will be exceedingly difficult for him on the present occasion to unsay or to deny the force and truth of the language which he then used upon this subject. Other evidence was given before the Committee on the part of the producers in the West Indies, in the Mauritius, in India, and elsewhere, to show what was the effect produced upon their industry by these discriminating duties, and it was shown most conclusively that the object of the sugar-makers under the influence of those duties was always to degrade the manufacture of the article, so as to bring it just within any one of the different grades of duty here. Now, with regard to the question of the supply of sugar to

1155
the consumer, I wish most especially to call the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the figures I am about to read. He may not arrive at the same conclusion upon them as I do, and perhaps he has not examined so narrowly as I have the tables prepared by Mr. Messenger, of the Custom House, appended to the Report of the Committee. He will find from these tables that the consumption of sugar per head, from 1848 to 1854, showed an increase in quantity of not less than 9 lbs. The consumption per head in 1848 was 25 lbs., and in 1854 it was 34 lbs. Now, since 1854, in the nine years which have since elapsed, the progressive increase has been only 2 lbs. per head. That is, there has been an increase of consumption to the extent of 2 lbs. per head in the series of nine years, during which the differential duties have been in full force, against an increase in the previous seven years of 9 lbs. per head. Now, it is important to observe that during the first period the average duty paid was 12 s. 3d. per cwt., and the average price 36 s. 3d.; while in the second period the average duty paid was 13 s. 5d., and the average price 40 s. 4d. There has, therefore, been a very great increase in the price, but there has not been any great increase in the average amount of duty paid. I, therefore, attribute this arrest in the progress of consumption to some other cause than the duty. It is clear that the duty could have nothing to do with it. Now, let us consider to what cause this arrest in the progress of consumption is really due. The quantity of sugar which comes into this country has largely increased. It would naturally be supposed from that fact that the consumption also of sugar had greatly increased; but the fact was, that the quality had been gradually degraded and deteriorating under the influence of these duties. And when these sugars are refined and delivered to the consumer for use, they produce a much smaller quantity of sugar fit for the consumption of the population. That is the inference which I deduce from the arrest in the progress of consumption which is shown by the figures of Mr. Messenger. Now, as to the influence of these duties upon the supply of sugar, I would wish to refer to the estimate that was made by the late Sir Robert Peel, in the year 1845, when, for the first time, he proposed a scale of discriminating duties on sugars. Acting upon the information —the same information as that upon which
1156
the chancellor of the Exchequer is now acting, that is, information from the Custom House—Sir Robert Peel assumed that the quantity of British plantation Muscovado not equal to white clayed consumed in this country in 1845 would be 160,000 tons, and the quantity of white clayed at 70,000 tons. No doubt the officers of Customs had good grounds for the information which they gave to the Chancellor of the Exchequer at that time; but what were the facts? Sir Robert Peel's estimate, based upon this information and reliance upon experience of the past year, was, that 160,000 tons of the lower quality would be received in this country, but the real quantity that did come in was 237,000 tons. Again, instead of 70,000 tons of white clayed, there were only 1,107 tons. In the same way upon foreign free labour sugar, Sir Robert Peel was told that he might rely upon receiving 5,000 tons of the lower quality, while the actual quantity received was 3,809 tons; and instead of receiving from those sources 15,000 tons of white clayed as he anticipated, we received only 54 tons. Now, what was the effect of all this upon the public exchequer? Why, it resulted in a deficiency of duty received, as far as the calculations for that year were concerned, of no less than £463,327. The deduction I make from these facts is this, that the effect of lowering the duty upon certain grades of sugar invariably is to offer a premium to the colonies to make worse sugar in order to bring it in under the lower scale of duty. I think it has been proved by the result of the calculations which I have made upon the figures before us. What said Mr. Wilson, in 1854, upon the same point? That gentleman, in recommending the House still further to increase the scale of differential duties in favour of the lower qualities of sugar, proposed to levy a duty of 12 s. upon the great bulk of colonial sugar, and a duty of 11 s. upon the lowest qualities. Mr. Wilson then said that—
"With regard to the lowest scale which would be charged with 11 s. duty," (that corresponds with our 12 s. 8d. duty at present,) "on sugars of a standard not equal to brown clayed, it was a very low standard, and therefore admitted only a very small quantity; last year he believed only 9,000 tons out of 390,000 tons consumed."
Now, let the House hear in mind that, in 1853, we imported 390,000 tons of sugar, of which, upon the authority of Mr. James Wilson, only 9,000 tons of

1157
the lowest quality came in under the 11 s. duty. But look at 1863, when, out of a total consumption of 495,050 tons, no less than 298,000 tons were not equal to brown clayed. In 1853, only 9,000 tons out of 390,000 of this low sugar was imported, but, in 1863, the amount was 298,000 tons out of 495,000 tons, or something like 60 per cent of the total importation. Now, I would like the House to hear the opinion of a foreign writer — a writer in France — upon this subject. He will tell you what the people of France consider to be a true description of those low sugars, which come here purely to find occupation for and benefit to the refiners. This gentleman, M. Dureau, says—
"So that it may now be said on the banks of the Ganges, as well as in the West Indies, and in our own sugar factories of the North, the dregs, the fermentations, the leavings of molasses, are good enough for England."
That is an independent French opinion with reference to this proposition. Then again M. Dureau says—
"And thus it is that the English consumption is completely at the mercy of the refiners, from whom alone they can obtain the sugar they prefer; while, on the other hand, the planters of the West Indies, the Mauritius, and India, shackled by a barbarous legislation, and having no other outlet than the demands of the English refiner, take no pains to increase their produce, or to improve their implements, and are ten years behind the French planters."
That is indeed the fact. The sugar manufacture in Guadaloupe and Martinique, French colonies, is conducted upon methods far superior to those in practice in our colonies. I would like to quote to the House another French opinion upon this subject. It is a singular fact, that when the present Emperor Napoleon was in captivity at Ham, he considered among other things the question of the sugar duties, and he wrote a book about it. His object was to obtain an alteration of the French law.
There was then a system of French standards in France, but by subsequent changes those standards have been altered; and although in the conference which took place in Paris the other day it was stated that the Dutch, French, and English had agreed upon a uniform plan, (the Belgians alone dissenting, and taking the view which I venture to submit to the House), and although a projet de loi was brought into the French Chambers some months since, we have heard nothing about it
1158
having passed into law. Public attention has, however, been directed to this subject, and one great writer, to whom we all in this country look with respect—M. Chevalliér—he protests against the change in the interests of the public of France.; The public mind of France is against the change, and it has been brought to bear upon the French Government, and I have strong reasons for believing that the propositions of the English Commissioners at Paris will not be allowed to be carried into effect. But what did the Emperor Napoleon say of the differential duties? He said —
"It is evident that the obligation imposed upon the planter to send nothing but impure sugars to France, in order to preserve for that produce its greatest portable weight, is a law only fit for barbarians,"
Those are the terms in which such a law as this is described by the French Emperor. There is one other passage in this book which I will trouble the House with reading. M. Dureau says—
"Never has England received a greater quantity of the worst sugars, and never has France received richer or finer.
That is during the period over which our differential scale of duties has extended. The French mid Dutch beat our refiners out of the market. Every neutral market is closed against us, and open to the French and Dutch. Why is that? It is generally attributed to the system under which the drawbacks are regulated in France and Holland, and that may be true to a certain extent, but the real explanation is, that the foreign refiners have a better quality of sugar to refine from than we have. It will be seen, on referring to the Report of the Commissioners, that—
"The sugar refined in Holland is almost entirely the produce of Java, which is perhaps the best raw sugar in the world."
I take that to be undoubtedly one reason why the Dutch are able to beat us in neutral markets. Formerly, we used to export sugar to the Levant and to the Mediterranean ports, but that trade is gone now, and the French, and Dutch beat us there. Those countries have a law which I wish to see introduced here—a law which gives them a supply of the best sugar, and by that advantage they are enabled to beat us in all neutral markets. M. Dureau tells us that—
"Since 1860, thanks to the suppression of the standards, France has become the market for the first sugars, both in colour and quality. Let the standard be re-established, and a contrary direction

1159
will be taken. France will receive those coarse sugars we have lost sight of—those sugars dripping with molasses, and losing as much as 10 per cent on their voyage, those sugars smelling of fermentation, smelling of burnt matter, reeking with the odour of bad manufacture; those bottoms, those greasy, clayey sugars, only fit for the refining pan, and which bear the indelible stamp of routine, want of care, or low cunning; for in order to escape from a higher duty, and to remain below what the English call the standard of colour, they will do what evil they please, and mix lamp-black, dirt, or ashes with the sugar. Such things have been, and will be again, and you call that encouraging manufacturers. For our part, we cannot see what the nation gains by such tricks and such frauds, which are not suitable to the present times, and are repugnant to the dignity of commerce and industry."
The terms which M. Dureau here employs are, I submit, most justly applicable to the system under which we, in this country, are condemned to suffer at present.
There is one other subject to which I wish to direct the attention of the House; that is, what is called the free trade argument. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said the other night that free trade was invoked by both parties in this dispute. The makers of low class sugar say that a uniform duty would operate as a protection in favour of the better class of sugars. The makers of the better kinds of sugar contend that a differential scale of duties acts as a protection in favour of low-class sugars. I take the bases of the argument to be this. You must go back to the raw material. The raw material is the sugar cane, and the juice which is expressed from it. That juice comes from the cane in a pure white liquid state. There are two kinds of manufacturers, the good and the bad. The good or the enterprising manufacturer possesses capital, command of labour and intelligence, and applies his machinery at once to the conversion of this liquid into marketable sugar. He makes sugar perfectly good and fit for the highest purposes of domestic use of this country. He sends it here, having expended 5s. or 10s. per cwt. in perfecting the quality, and making really good sugar, and immediately you take away his chance of profit by charging him an equivalent duty upon his product. Now, take the other case of the manufacturer who is not so good, who has not the means, or the intelligence, or the energy to apply himself to the production of a good kind of sugar. What does he do? He goes upon some old worn-out system, and in the conversion of this white syrup into sugar, he destroys it to a great extent, and converts a large portion of it
1160
into treacle. And you offer him a premium to do so. His goods come here not fit for use. Of the 295,000 tons which I referred to just now as being of this sort, of sugar, not a pound is sold over the grocer's counter; the whole of it goes to the refiner. Will you tell me that can be done without great injury, in fact, a great robbery of the consumer?
I say that it is for the interest of the consumer that you should give encouragement to the production of fine sugar everywhere, whether in Cuba, in the Mauritius, or in Brazil. Your object ought to be to hold out every encouragement to planters to send good sugar fit for use to your markets, because you get it necessarily at a, cheaper price than you can procure sugar for, of similar quality, from the refiner after he has had it in his hands to refine. I hold that to be the real argument in this matter. I will, for example, take the enterprising planter to be a planter in the, Mauritius, and the man not so enterprising, generally speaking, to be a planter in the West Indies. I know that there are some estates in the West Indies where sugar is manufactured upon the highest and best processes. The West Indian planters generally complain that they have not the means or the power of going to such great expense as is necessary for the production of sugar of the best kind. And what are you asked to do? You are called upon to aid them by fiscal regulations, and to make good to the West Indian planters their deficiencies of energy, climate, labour, soil, and capital; and by the same process you are to deprive the manufacturers of sugar in other parts of the world of the just rewards of their labour and capital. In order to show that it is a protection, I have the words of a witness, Mr. Rennie, before the Commission, who was asked what in his opinion would be the effect of a uniform duty upon imports, and his reply was that he thought the immediate effect would be to put an end to the working of all estates producing the low kinds of sugar. That may be so, but it is no business of ours to legislate for the sugar producer of any particular country; we are legislating for consumers. What does Mr. Rennie then say? He says, "The West Indians are now struggling under a protection of 1s. 2d. per ton," and what does the Chancellor of the Exchequer propose now to do? He establishes a new grade of duty of 8s. 4d. with the same object, that of protecting the West Indian

1161
planters. Now, what has already been the effect of that proposal? Why, since this scheme has been promulgated, only eight days ago, instructions had been sent out to lower and degrade the sugar, so that it may come into this country under the new 8s. 4d. duty, so that we shall soon find, if this plan be adopted, a still larger proportion than 60 per cent of the sugar imported into this country of a character that will require the aid of the refiner before it can be made fit for use. To show the opinion of some persons in the retail trade as to the quality of the sugar which comes from the refiners, I beg leave to read a letter addressed to me a day or two since by a grocer and tea-dealer in the country, whose name I never heard of before, but whose letter I think will be instructive upon this question. He says—
"There seems to be one very important element overlooked in the sugar controversy among the confusion of fixed or graduated scales of duty, namely, that the process to which the imported sugars are submitted by the refiners of this country deprives them in a great degree if not altogether of their conservative qualities. This does not apply, of course, to the hard lump sugar, which is in every way unexceptionable, but to the remaining products—crushed lump, pieces and bastards."
The first, of course, is the sugar we use upon our tables, but the other kinds of sugar are extensively produced, and especially in the town of which my hon. Friend near me (Mr. Dunlop) is the representative, and those are the kinds of which this experienced grocer speaks. Pieces and bastards are not nice names, but they are well understood in the trade. This gentleman goes on to say—
"The first and second, though good in flavour and appearance, lack the sweetening properties of good raw sugar, and for preserving fruit, or wine-making, are almost worthless. The third named (bastards) are bad in taste, stinking in odour, spoiling everything coming in contact with them. Of these last named, because they are generally sold at a less price per pound than raw sugar, the poor people in the agricultural districts make their little keg or jar of elderberry wine."
And these are this gentleman's words—
"And the chances are that before Christmas it has become sour as vinegar. That is not the case with wine or preserves made from raw sugar, which will keep for many years."
That is the sugar which is brought into this country fit for use.
"Even the lollypop makers will not buy either of the three products named for their purposes, well knowing that disappointment is very likely to attend their operations. There is also another
1162
objection to the refiner's goods,—the quantity of water they contain not in chemical combination. Of course they are constantly losing this by evaporation, and we little know our losses in this respect."
That is, the refiners of this country, who refine these low descriptions of sugar—the stuff I have been describing—accommodatingly sell to the consumer a large quantity of water in their goods. But this gentleman goes on—
"The great bulk of the retail trade, who alone are brought into immediate contact with consumers, know by experience the facts as detailed in the foregoing letter. Upon our shoulders fall, all the complaints of preserves that will not keep, and wine that turns sour; and we believe that a great deal of this state of things will be removed by a uniform duty on all kinds of soft sugar."
And he goes on to say that he believes the course I am advocating will meet with the approbation of the great body of the consumers of this country.
I will now refer to an article which appeared the other day in the Economist newspaper, to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer alluded in his speech. Now, I fully admit the authority of that paper. I believe there is no publication in the kingdom which has done more for the cause of free trade and for commerce generally than that paper founded as it was, and successfully conducted for so many years, by my late friend Mr. James Wilson. It is very well and ably conducted now, but I cannot but think that the opinions of the editor upon this subject lose somewhat of their authority from being as it were hereditary opinions. The Economist argues that the proper way to consider these duties is to consider that the "purification," as he terms it, of sugar is a process which ought to be carried on "inside" the Custom House. But I do not see how he draws that line. I say that in the interest of the consumer the object we should have in view is, that the commodity, one cwt. or one ton of sugar, should be subject to duty just as it comes to the customer, whereas now you say, "This sugar contains so much valuable substance, and you must pay so much duty." I think I have shown that the principle upon which that is done is really a discouragement to the introduction of good sugar, while it helps to introduce the worst kind of stuff at the lowest rate of duty. But the Economist remarks—
"It has been justly remarked that those more moderate advocates of a uniform duty who would have what they call one duty on 'refined' and one duty on 'unrefined' sugar, or one duty on 'liquid

1163
and another on 'ordinary' sugar, have put themselves in logic and upon principle out of court."
He goes on to say it is not at all material whether the saccharine substance is connected with solid matter and with liquid matter; whether it is in the state which the trade calls "refined," or in what it calls "unrefined," is entirely immaterial. And then the writer uses this strange expression—
"A uniform duty on liquid cane-juice, on the coarsest 'excrements' of the sugar-cane, and also upon the nicest and most delicate product of the manufactory, is consistent and intelligible."
But to show that the Economist, great as its authority was, is not entitled to all the authority which was claimed for it, I will simply mention that the writer did not tell his readers that the "excrement" of sugar was merely the result of imperfect and wilfully bad mauufacture of sugar at the place of its production. A writer in another paper of great ability and authority and influence on public opinion, the Spectator, made a similar statement, which is material, as showing the imperfect information of those who assume to instruct the public on these matters. He went into a long argument, ending in the designation of the extractable crystallized matter of sugar, proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as the sole subject-matter of the tax, as the "raw material."
These facts show the imperfect manner in which public writers, who set themselves to instruct the public, are really informed on these matters. There is an authority to whom I desire particularly to refer for one minute, Mr. Stuart Mill, and he, I am sure, will be listened to with respect in this House. He says that
"If a commodity is capable of being made by two different processes of manufacture, as is the case with sugar, it is for the interest of the consumer that that process should be adopted by which the best article will be produced at the lowest price; and it is also for the interest of the producer, unless he is protected against competition, and the process most advantageous for the community at large, and which it will be most for the advantage both of the consumer and producer, is that which is least interfered with by Government."
He also says—
"That all Customs duties which operate as an encouragement to the home production of taxed articles are an eminently wasteful mode of raising revenue."
There is only one other point in connection with the free trade argument which I should like to mention. It has been argued that no system could be fairer
1164
than that under which no duties at all are charged, and that that would be fairest to all parties. If there were no duties at all, the maker of refined sugar abroad could send his sugar to the market on equal terms with the maker of low or bad sugar. But if you have a system of differential duties, you immediately alter the case, and you put the maker of refined sugar in a positively disadvantageous position. This subject is one on which I should have liked to speak at much greater length, but I have had neither the opportunity nor the time of fulfilling that desire. I have been, therefore, obliged to leave unnoticed many matters which I should like to have spoken of. I can only hope that I have been successful in showing that the terms of my Motion are such as can be fairly accepted by the House. I contend that I have shown that it is not possible for the officers of the Custom House to ascertain by simple inspection the quantity of crystallizable matter in the raw material of sugar. I have also shown, that to lay different duties on the produce obtained from the same raw material is unjust and unreasonable, because, according to the authority of the Secretary for the Colonies, it strikes a blow at all improvement. I think I have also shown, by reference to the figures connected with the supply, that the operation of the classified system of duties as at present existing is to exclude a large quantity of fine sugar from the market, and that the consumer and the revenue are therefore both injured by the system. Having discharged this duty, I have only to thank the House for the great indulgence it has shown to me, and whatever be the result of the Motion, I entertain a full and confident conviction in the integrity of the arguments I have used.
I conclude by moving the Resolution of which I have given notice.
MR. POTTERbegged to second the Motion. He had served on the Committee which had been appointed two years ago on the subject, and had paid some attention to the facts of the case; while personally he had no personal interest in the matter, nor, as far as he knew, had any of his constituents, he begged to say that the conclusion to which he had come was that a single uniform duty was the most desirable. After subsequent communications with grocers and with consumers he still retained that opinion. The present duty was called an ad valorem duty—it was

1165
imposed upon the scale system; and the system was almost as bad as that which existed under the sliding scale for corn. Another strong objection was that the course was to fix by sight the value of the article and the consequent duty to be imposed; and the result was that as much as 50, 60, and even 90 per cent of real sugar had been admitted under the lowest duty. The right hon. Gentleman proposed to continue that system, though no doubt he reduced the distance between the scales; but, in his opinion, a fixed duty would yield a better revenue. The right hon. Gentlemen the Chancellor of the Exchequer had laid down the true principle in his financial statement, when he said—
"The proposition which I lay down, and which I invite the Committee to proceed on is that the form of our duty should be such as will least interfere with the natural course of trade, and be the-least open to the charge of offering to the producer or manufacturer a premium on doing something different from that which he would do if there were no duty at all."
But if the right hon. Gentleman carried out his present intention it would be offering a direct premium to the refiner. The House would admit if they laid on indirect taxes great care should be taken that they were judiciously imposed, otherwise they would act oppressively on the consumer. The real duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was to obtain his revenue by the means which would effect the least injury to commerce, and he hoped that the House in legislating upon the sugar question would bear that principle in mind. He now came to the main point; how the proposed duty would affect the consumer. By an uniform duty the consumer would be benefited, as he would get sugar whereever he could, regardless of the duty, and the revenue would thereby receive no injury. There was no danger of a failure of the supply on the increased consumption which would be the result, as there were fifty sources of supply still to be opened up. The right hon. Gentleman, in support of his proposition, had sheltered himself under the name of the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Cobden); but surely even the right hon. Gentleman would allow that that hon. Member; was mistaken on some subjects. The right hon. Gentleman had quoted the petition of1 the Manchester Chamber of Commerce; but he would inform him that it was at his request that the words "saccharine crystallized matter" were introduced into that document. In the course of the
1166
debate reference had been made to the Economist newspaper, but Mr. Wilson's 10 per cent protective duty in India would show the value that was to be attached to the free trade opinions advocated by that gentleman. He was certain that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would soon recoup himself for the proposed reduction, and he believed that in the course of three or four years that he would derive a revenue of £6,000,000 from the sugar duties, when he would in all probability propose a uniform tax of 6s. or 7s. per cwt.
Amendment proposed,
To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "it is not possible for the Officers of the Customs to ascertain by inspection the quantity of crystallizable saccharine matter contained in any sample of Sugar; and that a law, which seeks to effect such an object, is unjust to the producer, inasmuch as by striking with a superior Duty one pound of Sugar which by a better mode of manufacture contains more saccharine matter than another pound obtained from the same raw material, it inflicts direct discouragement on improvement; whilst at the same time it excludes large quantities of fine Sugars from the market, and thereby injures both consumers and the Revenue by limiting the supply,"—(Mr. Crawford,)
—instead thereof.
MR. CARDWELLsaid, he had no desire to prolong the debate, as it was past midnight, but as his hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Mr. Crawford), who had advocated his Motion with so much ability, had referred to him in the most marked manner, and as he had acted as Chairman on the Committee to which the subject had been referred, he did not think that it would be respectful either to him or to the House if he were entirely silent. He trusted that his hon. Friend would excuse him if he used the greatest brevity in his remarks, and did not deal with the subject at the length which he should have devoted to it, but for the lateness of the hour. He should endeavour, in the few remarks he would make, to satisfy his hon. Friend that the three propositions into which his Resolution was divisible were not, either collectively or separately, worthy of the adoption of the House. The first of his hon. Friend's propositions was that it was impossible for the officers of the Customs to ascertain by inspection the quantity of saccharine matter contained in any sample of sugar. In answer to that he should appeal to the evidence before the Committee and to the practice of the

1167
trade throughout the world, in order to show that what his hon. Friend believed to be impossible was actually done, and could therefore be accomplished. The next was that a law which sought to effect such an object was unjust to the producer, inasmuch as by striking with a superior duty one pound of sugar which by a better mode of manufacture contained more saccharine matter than another pound obtained from the same raw material, it inflicted direct discouragement on improvement. His hon. Friend had done him the compliment of introducing these words as an extract from a letter of his written several years ago. He had no desire to alter those words as they stood in the original context, but he certainly disputed their meaning as rendered by the context in which his hon. Friend had placed them. The third proposition of his hon. Friend was, that the process suggested by the Government excluded large quantities of fine sugar from the market, thereby injuring both the consumer and the revenue by limiting the supply. He would show that, since the graduated scale had been adopted, the consumption had gone on increasing until it was larger than ever, and the object of the scale had been attained, because quantities of a class of sugar most valuable to the consumer in this kingdom had been imported—a class which, before the adoption of the scale, had been entirely excluded. If, then, those three propositions of his hon. Friend failed, the Resolution could not itself be worthy of the consideration of the House. With regard to his hon. Friend's first proposition he had before him the evidence of a most able witness, the friend and partner of the hon. Gentleman, who being asked whether there were any means of extracting the crystallizable saccharine matter, replied that there was a mode of ascertaining the quantity with perfect exactitude. [Mr. CRAWFORD: Yes, chemically.] He knew his hon. Friend would say that it could be done chemically but not commercially. He admitted the distinction; but how was the trade carried on? Sir Thomas Freemantle and other witnesses stated that there was at first much difficulty in working the graduated scale, but by practice it had been overcome. Appeals, at first frequent, were now very rare, showing that commercially as well as chemically, the Customs had a practical test to which they could resort. His hon. Friend's own witness, Mr. Guthrie, was asked whether
1168
the Dutch system in which the standards ranged from six to twenty, interfered with the conduct of business, and replied, "No; it is found a convenient way to conduct the business." And his hon. Friend himself, in proposing Question 6,386, spoke of it as "the universal system recognized in all sugar-producing countries, in general use throughout the Continent of Europe." Every one knew that the trade was conducted by Dutch numbers, and if the trade could be commercially carried on by reference to fifteen standards, there was nothing to prevent the Custom House officers carrying into effect a scale consisting of a much smaller number of standards. The House was aware that there had been a Conference at Paris on this subject, at which the representatives of four countries were present. They went in three to one in favour of a uniform duty; they came out three to one in favour of a graduated duty. The representative of England was alone favourable to a graduated duty, but when they came out of the Conference the representatives of France and Holland were converted to the graduated duty, and the representative of Belgium alone adhered to the uniform scale. There was the most satisfactory reason for believing, both from argument and experience, that the difficulty of assessing a graduated duty on sugar was more imaginary than real. He now came to his hon. Friend's second proposition. His hon. Friend had read a letter from Governor Barkly. What happened in 1854 was the following:—Sir Henry Barkly, when Governor of Guiana, wrote home to the Government that the scale then about to come into operation would discourage the improvement of sugar. The matter was referred to the Board of Trade, in which Department he then had the honour to serve. The Board of Trade did not advise the Government to adopt Governor Barkly's recommendations, but suggested that inquiries should be made through all the colonies to see the bearing of the recommendation on other colonies, and also that inquiries should be made at home to ascertain the effect upon the revenue from the diminution of refining in this country. These questions were considered, and the result was that the Government decided against the views of his hon. Friend. The experience of ten years had since been obtained, and was it the fact that the adoption of the graduated scale had discouraged improvement? The testimony of all the

1169
witnesses showed that never was more capital expended, and that never were more efforts made for the improvement of sugar than during the ten years of the graduated scale. His hon. Friend's third proposition was that the effect of the graduated system was to limit the supply. Now, he had before him the statistics of supply, and he found that during 1853, the last year of the old scale, the total supply of sugar was 7,487,000 cwt., while in 1861 it had risen to 9,180,000 cwts. The proportion of consumption per head on the population had risen in the same interval from 31 lb. per head to 35 lb, per head. His hon. Friend said that the graduated scale had diminished the supply, because it tended to exclude the white sugars. If the scale excluded any particular class of sugars, that was, however, not an objection to the principle of graduation, but only an objection to the figure in the scale that excluded that class. The Committee recommended that the scale should be altered so as to admit at lower relative rates of duty the white sugars which were now excluded, and also the inferior sugars, and those recommendations had been adopted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his present scale. The proposed graduated scale was, indeed, intended to allow those low sugars to come into the market, which would be excluded by an uniform duty. Large quantities of these sugars had been admitted, but still larger quantities had been excluded by the existing scale, which it was, therefore, desirable to alter. The Congress of Paris helped the House to understand how it happened that these white sugars went to France and Holland and did not come to England. If, for example, it appeared that there was a protective duty in other countries which operated to draw particular sugars to those countries, while England remained a free market, the imports of those sugars into England would naturally be small in comparison. He thought that these considerations showed that the Custom House officers could, in a commercial sense, satisfactorily deal with the standards now proposed —that a graduated scale did not discourage improvement — and that such a scale did not limit the supply, but would throw open the market to a large quantity of sugar that would otherwise be excluded. The Committee knew that sugar came into this country in different stages, as a raw material, partly manufactured, and completely manufactured; but it did not occur to
1170
them to impose a tax equally on an article in all those various stages. Sugar came from countries differing in all the circumstances of soil and labour, rendering it for the advantage of one that it should be forwarded raw, and for the other that it should be sent to market in its most finished state. It did not occur to the Committee that they ought to give special encouragement to any of those. On his own part, and that of the majority of his Colleagues, he disavowed the view put forward by his hon. Friend, that they were appointed to give the utmost encouragement to good sugars. A tax on sugar being unfortunately necessary, their duty was to provide such a mode of levying the tax as would leave all producers in as relatively equal a position as they would have been had there been no tax at all. It did not occur to the Committee that the British refiner was a person of whom they ought to be peculiarly jealous, for under a system of perfectly free trade, raw cotton came from India to be manufactured in England, and copper was brought from the regions in which it was found to be smelted in Wales. It was calmly assumed by his hon. Friend, that a graduated scale was obviously at variance with the orthodox principles of free trade. Yet the graduated scale was first introduced by the Government of Sir Robert Peel—the Government that repealed the Corn Laws. It had been extended by the Government of 1854, under the auspices of I the present Chancellor of the Exchequer and of the late Mr. James Wilson. After careful inquiry it had been confirmed by the Committee moved for by his hon. Friend, and of which he had himself the honour to be Chairman. It had since been ratified by the decision of the Conference at Paris. It had since received the approval of the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Cobden), than whom on such a subject no one could speak with more weight or influence. But he had a far higher authority even than the hon. Member for Rochdale, or the Congress at Paris, His hon. Friend the Member for London, at the close of the Committee, moved certain Resolutions, in which he did not propose that the Committee should agree to the principle of a uniform rate, but, on the contrary, proposed two rates of 18 s. 4d. for one class of sugars and 13 s. 2d. for another. [Mr. CRAWFORD said, he had grown wiser since then.] He would endeavour to show that his hon. Friend had not even yet arrived at a sound

1171
conclusion. In the Committee he had proposed, in effect, that there should be a protective duty of 5s. 2d. in favour of one class of sugar, in spite of the declaration both by Mr. Nelson and the Customs authorities that the distinction between refined and unrefined sugar was not practical but obsolete. He now proposed an uniform scale, the manifest effect of which would be to protect the refiner in Madras against the refiner in England, and the importer of refined sugar from Madras against the importer and producer of raw sugar. How stood the question as regarded the lower classes of sugar? In the discussion of the previous evening the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Cobden) declared the principal objection to the malt tax to be that it gave to the producers a monopoly of the better article, to the exclusion of inferior articles from the market, and he proved his case by referring to the duty on hops as it affected those grown in Sussex and Kent. It was well known that various sugars contained widely different quantities of saccharine matter, some as much as 96 per cent, others only 50 per cent. The effect upon the lower classes of sugar of a system such as that proposed, would be not merely protective, but prohibitive. The Committee, satisfied of that, refused to adopt the plan of a double duty. His hon. Friend, having grown wiser by experience, as he affirmed, was now the advocate of a uniform or single duty, and in support of that proposition he quoted with great approval the writings of French authorities. It did not surprise him that French writers should think it for their interest to adopt that strain. For, if the French could import manufactured articles into the English market, at the same uniform rate that Englishmen paid upon the raw material, how long were manufactures of this class likely to continue in England? It would be a fatal error to attempt to exclude any sugar from the English market. The object should be to bring into the market here every kind of sugar—high, medium, and low quality— that was produced in all the world. Accordingly, the Committee recommended that an uniform duty was unjust, that an exact ad valorem duty was impossible, and nothing remained but a graduated scale of duty. In that opinion he ventured to think the House would concur. The consumption in England had risen to between 35 and 40 lb. per head of the population, and he did not believe that in France it
1172
had yet attained 15 lb. per head. Experience, authority, and analogy were all in favour of a graduated duty. He admitted that no principle should be inserted in our statute-book which was at variance with the strictest principles of free trade. But the true free trade doctrine was in favour of duties so proportioned to the value of the article that that article should come here with the same relative facility as if there had been no duty at all. An uniform duty, irrespective of value, was not free trade, but was, on the contrary, protection to some sugars and prohibition against others. There was an interest in the Mauritius, and behind other interests there was that of Cuba, which would benefit from an uniform scale. But the great interest of the producer in the British colonies and of the consumer in this country was on the side of a graduated duty, and he trusted, therefore, that the House would reject the Motion of his hon. Friend.
MR. J. B. SMITHbegged to move the adjournment of the House. He thought that it was too late for them then to properly discuss his proposition that the duty should be imposed only for one year instead of three. The present question was one that ought to be brought on at a much earlier hour than it had been, in order to be properly discussed. There were several hon. Members who had not yet spoken who were desirous of expressing their opinions upon it. He trusted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would promise to introduce the Bill at such a time of the evening as would allow of time fully to discuss a subject of that importance.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he thought that at that hour of the night (ten minutes to one o'clock) it was hardly to be expected that the House could then properly dispose of the question. In substance though not in spirit he considered the proposition of the hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Crawford) perfectly fair. He hoped, however, the hon. Member would not prevent their proceeding with the business, and therefore he suggested that the discussion which the hon. Member desired relative to the period for which the proposed duties should be imposed might be more conveniently taken in Committee on the Bill, and he undertook that it should come on at an hour which would give hon. Members an opportunity of fully and fairly discussing the question.
MR. CRAWFORDbegged to explain

1173
that he had not at present, and never had, any personal interest in the manufacture of sugar, and that when his partner gave his evidence before the Select Committee neither he nor Mr. Nelson had any interest in the refinement of sugar in India.
MR. CARDWELLsaid, that he had never intended to impute any personal motive to either the hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Crawford), or to Mr. Nelson.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
The House divided:—Ayes 133; Noes 17: Majority 116.

AYES.

Adeane, H. J.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Agar-Ellis, hon. L. G. F.

Grogan, Sir E.

Archdall, Captain M.

Hanbury, R.

Ayrton, A. S.

Hankey, T.

Bagwell, J.

Hanmer, Sir J.

Barnes, T.

Hassard, M.

Barttelot, Colonel

Hayter, rt. hn. Sir W. G.

Bathurst, A. A.

Headlam, rt. hon. T. E.

Bazley, T.

Heathcote, Sir W.

Beach, W. W. B.

Henderson, J.

Black, A.

Hennessy, J. P.

Bramston, T. W.

Hodgson, K. D.

Bridges, Sir B. W.

Hornby, W. H.

Bruce, H. A.

Howard, hon. C. W. G.

Bruce, Sir H. H.

Howes, E.

Bruen, H.

Hutt, rt. hon. W.

Buckley, General

Kingscote, Colonel

Bury, Viscount

Kinnaird, hon. A. F.

Butt, I.

Knatchbull-Hugessen, E.

Calthorpe, hon. F. H. W. G.

Layard, A. H.

Cardwell, rt. hon. E.

Leader, N. P.

Castlerosse, Viscount

Lefevre, G. J. S.

Clay, J.

Lewis, H.

Clive, Capt. hon. G. W.

Locke, J.

Cobbett, J. M.

Mainwaring, T.

Colthurst, Sir G. C.

Malcolm, J. W.

Cowper, rt. hon. W. F.

Martin, P. W.

Dalglish, R.

Matheson, Sir J.

Davey, R.

Miller, W.

Dillwyn, L. L.

Mordaunt, Sir C.

Duff, M. E. G.

Morris, D.

Dunlop, A. M.

Morrison, W.

Dunne, Colonel

Mure, D.

Evans, T. W.

Neate, C.

Ewart, J. C.

North, F.

Ewing, H. E. Crum-

Northcote, Sir R. H.

Farquhar, Sir M.

O'Brien, Sir P.

Fenwick, H.

Ogilvy, Sir J.

Floyer, J.

O'Hagan, rt. hon. T.

Forster, W. E.

O'Loghlen, Sir C. M.

Fortescue, C. S.

Paget, C.

Card, R. S.

Paget, Lord A.

George, J

Paget, Lord C.

Gibson, rt. hon. T. M.

Palmer, Sir R.

Gladstone, rt. hon. W.

Palmerston, Viscount

Goddard, A. L.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Goldsmid, Sir F. H.

Peel, rt. hon. F.

Gore, J. R. O.

Pilkington, J.

Goschen, G. J.

Powell, F. S.

Grenfell, H. R.

Robertson, D.

Gray, Captain

Russell, A.

1174

Russell, F. W.

Turner, C.

Scholefield, W.

Vandeleur, Colonel

Selwyn, C. J.

Vane, Lord H.

Sheridan, R. B.

Villiers, rt. hon. C. P.

Smith, M. T.

Watkins, Colonel L.

Smollett, P. B.

Watlington, J. W. P.

Somes, J,

Weguelin, T. M.

Stacpoole, W.

White, L.

Stanhope, J. B.

Winnington, Sir T. E.

Stewart, Sir M. R. S.

Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.

Stuart, Lieut. -Col. W.

Wyld, J.

Stronge, J. M.

Wyndham, hon. P.

Sullivan, M.

Wyvill, M.

Taylor, P. A.

Thompson, H.S.

TELLERS.

Thynne, Lord H.

Brand, hon. H. B. W.

Torrens, R.

Dunbar Sir W.

Tracy, hon. C. R. D. H.

NOES.

Bramley-Moore, J.

Moffatt, G.

Buchanan, W.

Repton, G. W. J.

Denman, hon. G.

Seymour, H D

Fitzwilliam, hn. C. W. W.

Smith, J. B.

Greaves, E.

Whalley, G.

Greene, J.

White, J.

Griffith, C. D.

Kekewich, S. T.

TELLERS.

Lawson, W.

Crawford, R. W.

Leatham, E. A.

Potter, E

Lindsay, W. S.

Main Question put, and agreed to.
Resolutions read 2°, and agreed to.
Bill or Bills ordered to be brought in by Mr. MASSEY, Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, and Mr. PEEL.

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

FIRE INSURANCE.—QUESTION.
MR. THOMSON HANKEYasked, When it was proposed that the alteration in the Fire Insurance on Stock-in-Trade should take effect?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid that, as the 1st of July appeared to be an inconvenient day for the purpose, he should be happy to substitute for it the 24th of June. With the view of obviating another difficulty, he should propose that, in the case of all policies made after the Resolution on the subject should have been recorded, but before the new law took effect, the duty should be chargeable at the existing rate only to the 24th of June, and for the remainder of the period at the new rate. An apprehension, he might add, prevailed, that a new rate of policy on stock-in-trade would require a

1175
separate policy to be made in respect of all stock-in-trade; but the separate policy in the case of farming stock was required simply for statistical purposes, and there would be no need of a separate policy in the instances to which he referred. He also intended to propose a clause in the Bill to the effect, that where a policy did not distinguish the objects falling under the reduced duty, specifications might be made by endorsement upon it, so as to avoid the expense of a new one.
Motion agreed to.
WAYS AND MEANS considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Resolved,
That, towards raising the Supply granted to Her Majesty, there shall be charged and paid for and upon every hundredweight, and so in proportion for any greater or less quantity than an hundredweight, of all Sugar which, on and after the sixteenth day of April, one thousand eight hundred and sixty-four, shall be used by any Brewer of Beer for sale in the brewing or making of Beer, the Excise Duty of three shillings and four pence.
House resumed.
Resolutions to be reported on Monday next; Committee to sit again on Monday next.

COMMON LAW PROCEDURE (IRELAND) ACT (1853) AMENDMENT BILL.
As amended, considered:—Notice taken, that two Clauses had been introduced by the Committee which were not relevant to the subject matter of the Bill:—Bill recommitted, in respect of the said two Clauses, and reported, with the said two Clauses struck out:—Bill to be read 3° on Monday next.
COMMON LAW PROCEDURE (IRELAND) ACT (1853) AMENDMENT BILL.

  BRIDGES (IRELAND) BILL.
  Bill to amend the Law relating to Grand Jury Presentments for County or County of the City Bridges in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. SULLIVAN, Mr. GREENE, and Mr. WALDRON.
  Bill presented, and read 1°. [Bill 70.]
  House adjourned at half after One o'clock, till Monday next.

MINUTES.
—PUBLIC BILL— Third Reading— Settled Estates Act Amendment* (No. 35); Charitable Assurances Enrolments* (No. 43), and passed.
LIMITED ENLISTMENT AND THE RESERVE FORCE.

  MOTION FOR A RETURN.
  EARL LUCAN, in rising to move for a Return of the Strength of the Reserve Force, said, it would be in the recollection of their Lordships that previous to the recess a noble Earl (Earl Desart) called the attention of the Government to the large number of men whose period of service in the army was about to expire, and who, it was to be apprehended, would not re-enlist. Having since then looked more thoroughly into the question, he (the Earl of Lucan) was of opinion that the apprehension of his noble Friend was well founded. He believed that a very large number of men were about to leave the service. In the year 1854, the first year of the war in the Crimea, as many as 33,000 recruits entered the army. Oddly enough, the military authorities, as he was informed, were unable to say what number of those men were still in the service; but it was calculated that about 10,000 men would take their discharge. He hoped it might be found to be an over-statement, but, at all events, the number would be very large; and it should be borne in mind that the same thing would happen next year. In 1855 as many as 29,600 men enlisted, and therefore it was to be presumed that next year 7,000 or 8,000 men would be entitled to their discharge; and it should be observed that many of the long service men, or those who had enlisted under the original law, would also be leaving the service. When it was remembered that we had now an army of above 210,000, a large portion of which was in India, and therefore subject to enormous casualties, the state of things would be admitted to be alarming. It was a question sufficient to create great anxiety, and he believed that such was the feeling of the military authorities, or they never would have resorted to the lowering of the standard, and a relaxation of the medical examination. Lowering the standard was a serious matter, for though a man of 5ft. 5in. was tall enough for a soldier, it was well known that men of that height had not the strength or muscular power of a man taller 5ft. 6in. or 5ft. 7in. And did not the relaxation of the medical examination imply that men were to be taken into this service of less robust and objectionable constitutions? The noble Earl the Minister for War assured the House,

  1065
  on a former occasion, that the question of the discharge of the men to whom he had referred was under his consideration, and that he hoped he should be able to adopt some course which would induce the men to continue in the service. But the noble Earl also added that it was not his intention to take any legislative action. Now, that was to him (the Earl of Lucan) a matter of extreme regret, and if possible of greater surprise; for he could not understand, if such evils were to be attributed to the Limited Enlistment Act, that the noble Earl should have so unhesitatingly and distinctly assured the House and the army that there was no intention to repeal or amend it. At all events, it was time that the House and the country should know thoroughly what the views of the noble Earl and the intentions of the Government were on this important subject. When the Act was passed seventeen years ago, the noble Earl (Earl Grey), who bad charge of the Bill, stated that his main, if not his only, object was to create an army of reserve, which was indispensable for the safety of the country, and that the men of ten or twelve years' service were to form the army of reserve. No doubt the noble Earl indulged in the illusion that we were to have a sort of Prussian landwehr—some force which would add materially to the strength of the country; but he believed it would be found that instead of a landwehr, instead of a formidable army of reserve, we had some 300 or 400 men and no more, scattered over Ireland, Scotland, and England. At all events, whether the number were greater or not, he found, on referring to the Army Estimates, that the modest sum of £7,000 was asked for the pay of reserve forces. The whole thing was a failure, and if the noble Earl would allow him to give him advice, it would be to get rid of the reserve forces at once, and to get these 300 or 400 men to join the militia. It would appear that Lord Herbert, when Secretary for War, was not altogether satisfied with this Limited Enlistment Act; and accordingly in 1859 appointed a Commission, of which a noble Lord, a Member of the other House (Lord Hotham), was Chairman, and several officers of distinction were Members, to inquire into the subject. They devoted twelve months to the inquiry; at all events their Report was dated fifteen months after their appointment; and it was not until the summer of 1861 that
  1066
  the Report was presented to Parliament, since which time, with the exception of some changes not of much moment, it has remained a dead letter. Lord Herbert's health unfortunately failed in the autumn of 1860, and in the spring of 1861 he resigned, and was succeeded by Sir George Lewis. That right hon. Baronet was perfectly new to the War Department and everything relating to the army, and he probably found quite enough to do without grappling with the vexata quœstio of recruitment. There can be no doubt that Lord Herbert's intention in having a Commission was thoroughly to sift the question, and that had he lived he would have taken some step towards disposing of the matter in some way or other. What was the Report of the Commissioners with regard to this Limited Enlistment Act? They said—
  "When we consider the difficulties with which the recruiting service in this country has at all times to contend, and the increased demands upon it which the wants of that portion of Her Majesty's army stationed in India will create, we see no reason why enlistment for one period only should be allowed."
  And they went on to say—
  "And as we are led to believe that the certainty of a pension at the end of sixteen or eighteen years with a third good-conduct badge after thirteen years, would operate as an inducement to enlist for a longer period, we are disposed to recommend the expediency of so arranging the terms as to give the option of enlisting for sixteen years in the Infantry and eighteen in the Cavalry and Artillery, with a right, on termination of such period, to a pension, retaining, also, their good-conduct pay."
  It was said that the Limited Enlistment Act would produce a better class of non-commissioned officers; but, if their Lordships would refer to the evidence, they would find the very contrary to be the result, for those men, anxiously waiting for their discharge, would not give themselves the trouble of qualifying themselves to he noncommissioned officers. It was also said that the effect of the Act would be to facilitate recruiting; this again has been a disappointment, as it was found that many men would not enlist because they could not depend upon being allowed to re-enlist. He had been told that the right of re-enlistment was not recognized by the War Office. If that were true, it was a breach of faith towards the soldier and towards Parliament, for a pledge had been given that men were to have a right within six months to re-enlist. Unless they were allowed to continue their services they could

  1067
  not entitle themselves to a pension; and all men, Irishmen in particular, attached more value to a pension than any other consideration. He believed that the great object of this unhappy Enlistment Act was to drive the men out of the army and save their pensions. Of that he had no doubt whatever. If economy were the object, could the Act be recommended on the score of economy, when these men are now at any price to be brought back to the army to earn the very pension which the Act was passed to save? He had heard that the men were now to be allowed £1 on re-enlistment, together with the full bounty and the recruit's kit; and instead of being allowed to re-enlist within six months, the time was to be extended to twelve months. How would that work? A man in India whose term had expired would come to England at the expense of the country; and, after remaining ten or eleven months, would take £1, the bounty, and the kit, and would re-enlist. At what expense to the country? There would be the cost of bringing the man from India, and sending his substitute to that country, at a frightful expense. And yet the Act had passed to get rid of these miserable pensions. In the discussion which had taken place lately in another place, the representative of the War Department asked that the Act might receive a further trial. Why it has received a trial of seventeen years; and it is to be further tried when all are alarmed at its monstrous effects. He had never heard in the army a favourable opinion of this Act. It may be said to have passed under the protest of the army, He would, however, allow that the late Duke of Wellington had voted for it. But how did he speak. He said that it was the duty of the Government to keep steadily in view the object of retaining old soldiers in the service during the whole time they were capable of rendering service—namely, until they reached the age of forty years, The Government could not do better than carry out the recommendations of the Commissioners; but his own opinion was, that the term of service ought not to he less than fifteen years for infantry, and sixteen for the cavalry and artillery. Power should be given to the men to re-engage, but former services should only be allowed to count towards pensions when they re-enlisted in their own corps. The noble Earl concluded by moving an Address for "Return of the Strength of the Reserve Force."
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONsaid, the subject was one of much importance, and he was not surprised that the noble Earl, from his connection with the army, should have brought the matter forward, or that he should have expressed the views to which he had given utterance, remembering that he had been an active and vigorous opponent of the Act of 1847 when it was before the House. Before discussing the wisdom or propriety of that Act, he would glance at the present military position of the country in relation to the number of men likely to be discharged during the present year; and he was happy to tell the noble Earl that he was greatly mistaken in the estimate which he had formed — of course without the advantage of official data. The noble Earl had spoken of 10,000 men as likely to take their discharge—but in giving that number he had fallen into the not unnatural mistake of setting down the number of men who were entitled to take their discharge as the number who would actually take their discharge. He had ascertained from the Horse Guards that 10,400 men at the outside would be entitled to take their discharge in the present year, but that only a portion of them would actually claim that privilege. The statistics on this head, unfortunately, were not as complete down to a recent date as was desirable; but his attention had been already directed to the matter, and, with the co-operation of the illustrious Duke at the head of the army, he hoped to effect an improvement in that respect. Up to the last quarter of 1860 an experience of three and a quarter years had been gained of the operation of the Act of 1847, and he found that in that time 7,335 men completed their term of service; 3,845 of that number re-engaged at once, and the remainder, 3,490, were discharged; 650 of these re-joined the army within the next six months, reducing the total of those who quitted the army to 2,840. Others, no doubt, enlisted again after the expiration of that six months; but he put these aside for the purposes of the calculation. Applying the same proportion to the 10,400 men who would this year be entitled to their discharge, and judging from the best information in the possession of the military authorities, it was expected that a loss to the service of about 4,000 men must be looked for in the present year. On the other hand, there could be no doubt that the Act had a very considerable effect in facilitating the re-

  1069
  cruiting for the army. The noble Earl passed very lightly over one portion of the subject, and attributed the diminution which had taken place in the death rate of the army to a long series of measures extending over several years. No doubt these were the causes of the salutary change; but among them, whatever the noble Earl might think of it, the Act of 1847 was certainly one. Taking the death rate for the years 1850, 1851, and 1852, it amounted to 29·7 per thousand; in 1860, 1861, and 1862 it had been reduced to 18·4 per thousand—showing a reduction equivalent upon the average numbers of the army to 2,200 men yearly. Had the old system continued in existence, it would have been necessary to replace those losses every year. Improvements in barracks, sanitary precautions, and other measures of a like nature had done much for the soldier, but most of these improvements were of a much more recent date than the Act of 1847, and, therefore, only entered partially into the calculation he had put before the House. He quite agreed with the noble Earl as to the value of maintaining in the army a due proportion of old soldiers; but he did Dot apprehend that it would be desirable to retain for long periods of service the whole of the men who enlisted. On the contrary, he believed that the views of those were sound who, in passing the Act, fully expected that a certain number of men would annually take their discharge. It was highly desirable to maintain the losses at something like an equable amount; but it was hard to do this when the enlistments at one time were much larger than at another. As we were now about to feel the effect of extensive enlistments during the Crimean war, he had felt it right to take some measure to encourage men to re-engage; and the noble Earl, instead of treating those measures as inadequate, as he had rather anticipated that he might do, spoke of them as involving a serious expenditure. One of the changes consisted in giving to a man when re-engaged a bounty of £1, in addition to the advantages held out by the existing regulations. A free kit must be given, if not to the soldier re-enlisting, to the recruit who took his place, and this £1 he looked upon as the value of the manufactured article over the raw material. The arrangement really involved no pecuniary loss to the public, because enlisting and recruiting expenses would involve as great
  1070
  an outlay. It had been mentioned by the noble Earl that a soldier formerly had a right to engage after the lapse of six months, and carry on his former service. That was the rule up to 1854; in the beginning of 1855 that period of six months was extended to two years, and the arrangement was acted upon till 1861. His right hon. Friend the late Sir George Lewis then took a step, in which, with the utmost respect for his high authority, he thought he had gone too far. He reduced the period of two years to six months, he reduced the service from whole service to half, and he added the further condition that the man should have had a good conduct stripe at the period of his discharge. He thought that those changes went too far, and he, therefore, proposed to allow full service to a man who re-engaged within the period of one year, and he did not intend to make the actual possession of a good conduct stripe a matter of necessity. The man must have been a man of good conduct, but he might have forfeited his stripe just before his discharge, and still be a fit man to be re-enlisted. The noble Earl appeared to think that questions of the re-enlistment, as regarded individuals, were settled at the War Office. In this he was mistaken. Such questions were dealt with not at the War Office, but by the Adjutant General's Department. One of the consequences of the Act of 1847, and one that was foreseen when that Act passed, would be a considerable loss of men per year; but he was prepared to accept that consequence, and he thought that it would be unwise to attempt by the expenditure of considerable sums of money upon large bounties to attempt to escape it. Another charge made by the noble Earl was, that the difficulty of obtaining recruits had led to a reduction of the standard, and to a relaxation of the medical examination. It was true that, as recruiting was not going on so rapidly as might be desired, the illustrious Duke, the Commander-in-Chief, had reduced the standard to 5 feet 5 inches—it had been as low as 5 feet 4 inches—but the noble Earl was mistaken in supposing that there had been any relaxation of the medical examination. What had been done was to abolish the regulation which provided, that if a surgeon passed a recruit who was afterwards rejected for medical reasons, he should pay the expense of the subsequent examination. This charge on medical offi-

  1071
  cers had given great dissatisfaction, and the reason of the proposed change was, that it was the opinion of the military authorities that the effect of this regulation was to cause the surgeons to reject many men who were perfectly fit to be admitted into the army. He now came to the Act itself, which had been so severely arraigned by the noble Earl. He could not agree with the noble Earl in thinking that the Act of 1847 had realized none of the anticipations which were formed when it was passed. The formation of a large army of reserve was not the main object of that Act; its object was to make the service more popular with the classes from whom recruits were principally obtained, and he could assure the House that that object had been attained. The Bill originally contained a proposition for the establishment of deferred pensions; but he believed that that was struck out while the measure was passing through Parliament. The present reserve force was not the creature of the Act of 1847. It was established by his noble Friend Lord Herbert in 1859, and although it had not answered the expectations which were formed at that time, the number of men of which it now consisted was not quite so small as the noble Earl supposed. According to the Returns which had been made, the number was not 300, but a little over 1,500. The formation of an adequate reserve was well worthy of attention, and was under his consideration. The real reason for the passing of the Act of 1847 was, that there was a reluctance on the part of a large portion of the population to enter the army for an unlimited period, and it was thought undesirable to take young men at the early age of eighteen, and make them enter into a military engagement for life. The present difficulty of obtaining recruits arose from the competition in the labour market. The position of the people of this country had greatly improved during the last few years, and that of the people of Ireland had materially changed. Formerly we got a large number of recruits from Ireland, but now we got very few, and we should not get more, but fewer recruits if we reverted to the old system of permanent enlistment. The noble Earl on the cross benches (Earl Grey) when he introduced the Bill alluded to the effect that it would have upon the mortality of the army, and the soundness of his anticipations was proved by the last Report of the Army Medical Department. According to that
  1072
  Report, the death rate of men in the army between the ages of twenty and twenty-four was 6˙40 per 1,000, being less by two per 1,000 than the corresponding death rate among the civil population. Between the ages of twenty-five and twenty-nine the death rate in the army was 9˙65 per 1,000; among the civil population, 9˙21. Between thirty and thirty-four the death rate in the army was 11˙97; among the civil population, 10˙23. Between thirty-five and thirty-nine in the army, 12 and a small fraction; among the civil population, 11˙63. At forty and upwards in the army, 23˙61; among the civil population, 13˙55. Thus between eighteen and twenty-eight, the ages to which the Limited Enlistment Act applied, the death rate in the army was at its lowest point, and was, on the average, somewhat less than that among the civil population. After those ages the rate rapidly increased, and more rapidly than the ordinary death rate of the country. With these facts before him, he saw no reason for saying that the Act of 1847, having regard to the principles upon which it was founded, had failed to attain the objects for which it was passed. He was perfectly ready to consider the matter in its various bearings, and to receive any suggestion with respect to it which the noble and gallant Earl, or any one else, might make with the view of amending the details of the existing Act. But, looking at the principle on which that Act was founded, and the results which it had achieved, he was bound to say that, in the opinion of the Government, that principle was sound, while the result had not occasioned disappointment.
  THE EARL OF DALHOUSIEsaid, that as the person who had introduced the Limited Enlistment Act in the House of Commons, he must say, he felt, after the lapse of seventeen years, great satisfaction in listening to the speech of his noble Friend the Secretary for War, and hearing the testimony which he bore, with all the means of information to which he had access, to the fact that the objects of those by whom he had been commissioned to introduce the Bill had been accomplished. The reason why the Bill was brought in was simply that at the time it was not only found difficult to obtain recruits from the classes from which our officers wished to see them drawn, but that the service itself among the lower orders of the people of this country had become unpopular. Beyond that, Motions had been repeatedly

  1073
  made in the House of Commons for the amendment of the Enlistment Act, which at the time did not, as was generally supposed, extend merely to a period of twenty-one years, but to enlistment for life. Such a state of things it begun to be seen could not continue, and the measure which he had introduced to provide a remedy for it had the full concurrence of the late Duke of Wellington; without which, indeed, he would never have ventured to introduce it, The noble Duke, when he gave his assent to the measure, said that he had satisfied himself that its effect would be not to induce old soldiers to leave the army, but to increase the number of men and the popularity of the service. He thought it, he might add, a great advantage that the recruit during the period of the short leave of absence which he might have before he re-enlisted should have the benefit of seeing the difference between a military life and the hardships of manufacturing and agricultural occupations. He would thus have time to represent to the people of his district the good results which he had obtained from his service in the army; and if, after a time, a bounty were given him for all the recruits he might bring back with him to the service, a great stimulus would be given to enlistment. There were, he thought, very good reasons to be found why recruiting should at the present moment be somewhat slack in the dearth of labour. One of the main grounds, he was informed, why men in the Guards whose period of service was drawing to a close showed an unwillingness to re-enlist being, that as men who were trained and educated they were picked up by railways at a vastly increased rate of remuneration. The dearth of recruits in Ireland, also, from which we used to procure such large numbers of men, was, he thought, easily accounted for by the present condition of that country. These causes were, however, he believed, only temporary; but a great error would, he thought, be committed, if the present period of enlistment were extended to fifteen or seventeen years, and he was glad, therefore, that his noble Friend near him had arrived at a different conclusion on the subject from the noble Earl.
  Motion agreed to; Return of the Strength of the Reserve Force, agreed to.
  House adjourned at half past Six o'clock, to Monday next, half past Eleven o'clock.