Sitting of 11 February 1864

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—John Reginald Yorke, esquire, for Tewkesbury.
SELECT COMMITTEE—On Standing Orders nominated*; Committee of Selection nominated.*
SUPPLY—Resolution [Feb. 9] reported—"That a Supply be granted to Her Majesty."
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolution in Committee—Bank Acts (Scotland).
Ordered—County Courts (Ireland).
First Reading— Government Annuities [Bill 11].
Second Reading—Sir John Lawrence's Salary * [Bill 10].

STANDING ORDERS.—COMMITTEE.
Select Committee on Standing Orders nominated:—Colonel WILSON PATTEN, Mr. WALPOLB, Mr. HENLEY, Mr. WRIGHT-SON, Mr. HERBERT, Mr. BRAMSTON, Mr. BONHAM-CARTEE, Mr. LEFROY, Mr. DUNLOP, Mr. PULLER, and Mr. EDWARD EGERTON.
COMMITTEE OF SELECTION.
Committee of Selection nominated:— Mr. DUNLOP, Mr. HERBERT, Mr. BONHAM-CARTER, Lord HOTHAM, Mr. MOWBRAY, and the Chairman of the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

UNION ASSESSMENT ACT.—QUESTION.
MR. HOLLANDsaid, he would beg to ask, Whether there is any intention of amending the Union Assessment Act of 1862, so as to enable Assessment Committees to become Respondents in cases of Appeal at Petty Sessions against their valuations?
MR. VILLIERS,in reply, said, that he was unable to give his hon. Friend at that moment a precise answer to the question he had put. It was a very important question, and one which had an important bearing on the Act, and excited great interest among those persons who had, with so much advantage to the country, devoted their time and labour in discharging the duties imposed upon them by the Act as Assessment Committees. The subject, therefore, deserved every attention. It was only lately that many representations on the subject had reached the Poor Law Board, and it was then receiving its attentive consideration, with a view, if possible, of arriving at a just decision. He was bound, however, to tell his hon. Friend that, in the communications received, it was apparent that great difference of opinion existed on the matter among persons of competent authority, and especially as to the manner of meeting the object of his his hon. Friend, which he conceived to be that, when Appeals were lodged against the decisions of the Assessment Committees, adequate provisions should be made for those Appeals being properly heard and disposed of. It was alleged that the power of Appeal was given, but no provision was made for the appearance of Respondents. Full information, however, would shortly be in the hands of Members as to the general operation of this Act, as the Returns
462
ordered by the House at the close of last Session were then complete and would be presented; and if any Amendment of the Act appeared to be needed, there would be ample time in the course of this Session to introduce a Bill for the purpose.

THE IRISH CHURCH.

  QUESTION.
  MR. DILLWYNsaid, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, When a Return relative to the dioceses of Cashel, Emley, Waterford, and Lismore, ordered on the 5th of May last, will be presented to the House?
  SIR ROBERT PEELreplied, that he very much regretted that so long a delay in the production of the Returns should have taken place. If, however, his hon. Friend would again move for them, he would take care that they should shortly be laid on the table. He had just received a telegram from Ireland stating that they were nearly ready.
  SIR FREDERICK HEYGATEsaid, he also would beg to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, When the Return ordered on the 5th of May last, relating to the number of Benefices of the Established Church in Ireland, to their emolument, to the number of licensed Ministers of the Church of Ireland, and to the total amount of the "Tax to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners of Ireland," will be laid upon the table of the House?
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, the Returns were ready, and, if the hon. Gentleman would be kind enough to move for them, they would be presented at once.

INDIA—THE HILL TRIBES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. SMOLLETTsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, Whether full information has been afforded by the Government of India in reference to the Military Operations recently carried on against the Hill Tribes on the Punjaub Frontier, and explanations given of the objects sought to be gained by the force in that quarter placed under the command of Sir Neville Chamberlain; also whether the war was commenced with the authority and approval of Her Majesty's Government; if so, whether Peace has been restored upon a satisfactory basis, or whether further measures of coercion are contemplated at a more seasonable opportunity?
  SIR CHARLES WOOD,in reply, said, he observed on the paper that day a notice for the production of papers on the subject, and he should have no objection to have those papers laid on the table. He quite concurred with his hon. Friend in thinking the subject of the utmost importance, and he might perhaps be allowed to make a brief statement with respect to it. Those who were acquainted with India were doubtless aware, that several years ago a Mahomedan adventurer named Syud Ahmed, who claimed to be a descendant of the Prophet, raised an insurrection against Runjeet Singh, and that after some severe fighting he was killed and his followers dispersed. Those who remained took refuge in the hill districts among the Eusufzaie tribes, and became a source of perpetual trouble not only to Runjeet Singh but to the English Government. They established themselves in a place called Sittana, across the Indus, whence they made expeditions into our territory, and continued to rob, plunder, and burn villages, and to be a source of the greatest trouble to us for many years. These Sittana fanatics were reinforced at the time of the mutiny by deserters from the Sepoy regiments. In 1858 it was found necessary to destroy their stronghold, and an expedition for the purpose was sent under Major General Sir Sydney Cotton. They were expelled from the place, and the tribes among whom they had located themselves entered into an engagement not to permit them to resettle there. That engagement had been for a certain time respected, but in 1861 their inroads recommenced, and we remonstrated with the tribes against permitting these people to renew their incursions on our territory; but our remonstrances failed, the tribes stating that they had no power to prevent the fanatics passing through their territory. In 1862 the Governor of the Punjaub applied to the Indian Government to send an expedition to prevent them from plundering our possessions. The Government of India declined, in 1862, to sanction any expedition; but as the Lieut.-Governor of the Punjaub represented strongly, in 1863, that the attacks on our territory were continued, an expedition against the fanatics was sanctioned and undertaken last autumn. In order to reach their new stronghold at Mulkah, it was thought advisable to proceed by the Umbeylah Pass, which leads into a district not belonging to, but close to the territory of a powerful tribe, called the Bo-
  464
  nairs, who were not unfriendly to the British, but believed that from our troops coming so near their district, it was intended to attack them. No assurance on our part could convince them that this was not the case, and they consequently attacked our forces. They were joined by the fanatics and by several of their Mahometan neighbours, and a series of well-sustained attacks were made for some weeks on the British position. Major James, Commissioner at Peshawur, who had been absent on leave in this country, arrived there at the time, and entered into communication with the Bonairs, in order to assure them that we had no intention of attacking them. They were however over-persuaded by the other tribes. General Lawrence was therefore obliged to attack their positions, and carried them most successfully, inflicting severe loss on the tribes. On this, the Bonairs came in, and sent a body of men to destroy Mulhah, and, finding it deserted, destroyed it in the presence of our officers. The whole affair, therefore, in reality arose out of an attack made by those tribes under a misapprehension as to the intentions of our proceedings. All hostilities had now ceased; the troops had returned to their quarters; and he trusted no further operations of any kind would be found to be necessary. The gallantry of our troops and the skill of our officers, he might add, had been displayed to great advantage throughout these transactions.

CASE OF MR. BEWICKE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. H. BERKELEYsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it be his intention to continue to refuse compensation to William Bewicke, of Threepwood Hall, in the county of Northumberland, for suffering imprisonment as a felon for twelve months, under an undeserved sentence, and for the confiscation of his goods, chattels, family pictures, and library, to his great pecuniary loss and irreparable injury?
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, in reply, that he had never received any application from Mr. Bewicke for any compensation claimed by him under the circumstances alluded to in the question of the hon. Member. He had neither the power to grant nor to refuse such compensation. A Petition from Mr. Bewicke was presented last year to the House, asking for redress,

  465
  which, of course, meant compensation, and his hon. Friend had founded a Motion upon it. On that occasion he stated, as he felt now, that it would be extremely inexpedient for the House, on a mere statement of a particular case and by a Resolution framed to meet it and perhaps hastily adopted, to do what would involve an important alteration in the law applicable to that class of cases. He was free to admit that the law with reference to the forfeiture of property on a conviction for felony was well worthy of consideration and revision.

  COURT MARTIAL ON COLONEL CRAWLEY.-QUESTION.
  COLONEL GILPINsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, Whether, considering the peculiar circumstances attending the trial of Colonel Crawley and the failure of the evidence against him, it is the intention of the War Department to recommend that hisexpenses should be paid?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, in reply, that at the conclusion of all courts martial, it became necessary to consider whether the expenses of the prisoner should be paid by the public or not. In this instance such consideration took place, and the Government, accepting and adopting the verdict of the court martial, decided that all such expenses incurred by Colonel Crawley as were ever paid should in this instance be defrayed by the country. Col. Crawley's passage from India and back had been paid, he had been in receipt of Indian pay and allowances during the whole time that he was in this country, and quarters had been provided for him at Aldershot. The expenses of all witnesses whom he desired to bring over from India had been paid; and in fact no greater expense had fallen upon him than he would have been subject to if his regiment had been in this country instead of India. Everything which in such cases had ever been paid for anybody had been paid for Colonel Crawley. The only expenses which had not been repaid to him were those connected with legal advice. NO application had been made by Colonel Crawley for the payment of these expenses, nor could the Government accede to such an application if it was made. The position and status of legal gentlemen were not recognized at courts martial, and the Government would have no means of checking their charges,

  GREENWICH HOSPITAL.—QUESTION.
  SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, If he will lay upon the table of the House a Copy of a Report to his Grace the Duke of Somerset, by Sir Richard Bromley, on the organization and working of Greenwich Hospital?
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, in reply, that Sir Richard Bromley had presented to the Duke of Somerset an elaborate Report upon the finance and also upon the constitution of Greenwich Hospital, and his Grace had thought it right to refer that Report to the other Commissioners for their remarks. When those remarks had been received the Admiralty would take the subject into consideration, and he should then be prepared to state to the House what course the Government intended to pursue with regard to Greenwich Hospital.

DENMARK AND GERMANY.—INTEGRITY OF DANISH MONARCHY.

  QUESTION.
  SIR HARRY VERNEYsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Papers on the subject of Denmark and the duchies of Schleswig and Holstein which are to be laid upon the table will contain the Report of Vice Consul Rainalt referred to by Earl Russell in his Despatch to Mr. Paget in June, 1861; also, the Memorandum on the Affairs of Schleswig and Holstein drawn up in 1855 or 1856 by Mr. Ward, Her Majesty's Chargé d' Affaires in Hamburg; and also the terms in which the Guarantee of the British Government was offered to Austria and Prussia, that the Danish Rigsraad would repeal the Constitution of last November, which incorporated Schleswig with the Kingdom of Denmark?
  MR. LAYARD, in reply, said, the Reports of Mr. Vice Consul Rainalt and the Memorandum of Mr. Ward were strictly confidential documents, and it was inadvisable in the present state of things, and it would lead to no good result, to make them public. The hon. Gentleman was under a mistake in supposing that any guarantee had been given by the British Government that the Rigsraad should repeal the constitution. It must rest with the Rigsraad when it was convoked to decide whether it would or would not do so. The hon. Gentleman probably referred to the

  467
  Protocol that had been laid upon the table with the other papers.
  SIR HARRY VERNEYsaid, he wished to ask, Whether Her Majesty's Government have not given a guarantee that the Danish Rigsraad would repeal the constitution incorporating Schleswig with the Kingdom of Denmark.
  MR. LAYARDsaid, ha had stated that Her Majesty's Government could not have guaranteed that the Rigsraad, which was a constitutional assembly, should revoke the constitution. It remained for the Rigsrad to decide what course they would take. What Her Majesty's Government proposed was, that a Protocol should be signed in London between the Powers parties to the Treaty, by which the Danish Government would undertake to call together the Rigsraad, and submit to them proposals for withdrawing the constitution. Her Majesty's Government could not of course pledge themselves that the Rigsraad would repeal the constitution when it met.

  BANK ACTS (SCOTLAND).
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERin moving a Resolution,
  "That it is expedient to make provision for replacing the lapsed issue of bank-notes in Scotland upon payment from time to time of a certain charge in respect thereof,"
  said, it would be obvious to the Committee that the proposal which he was about to make was a very small one, and touched only a very limited portion of an important subject. It involved no general discussion either of the principles of currency, of the provisions of the Act of 1844, which formed the basis of our system, or of those of the Act of 1845, which applied those principles in a modified form to Scotland. Its object was to make an arrangement of a subsidiary and provisional character, which had no claim to the attention or favourable consideration of Parliament, other than that it would be useful and convenient as far as it went. It asserted no principle of a novel character, but was only an assertion of that principle which was clearly established by the Act of 1844, that lapsed issues of bank-notes—that was to say, bank-notes issued by private issuers who in course of time had from circumstances lost their right to issue them— should only be replaced by other issues put forth for the profit of the State; in fact,
  468
  that lapsed issues were the property of the State. Everything else the Bill left precisely as it was. There were some hon. Gentlemen who were at all times ready for a discussion on the currency: the passing of this Bill would neither accelerate nor postpone that discussion. He was informed that a desire was entertained in Scotland for a general inquiry into the Banking system:—he did not know how-far that desire extended, but if Parliament should think proper to sanction such inquiry there was nothing in the present measure in any degree prejudicing such an investigation. The circumstances were these:—when Sir Robert Peel's Bank Act of 1845 was passed, he embodied in that Act certain provisions under which the banks issuing notes in Scotland were to state to the Revenue Department their claim to do so; and the Commissioners of Inland Revenue having ascertained from the bankers' returns what was the average amount of notes they had issued within a certain period, that Act became the standard for fixing their rights as to the issue of bank-notes and also of the amount of the authorised issue for Scotland. The amount of the authorised issue was something above £3,000,000. During a monetary crisis in 1857 one of the Scotch banks entitled to issue about £337,000 of that amount unfortunately failed. The issues thus lapsed could only be replaced by the issue of notes representing a corresponding quantity of coin in the tills of the existing banks. The Bank Act of 1844 contained provisions, so far as England was concerned, for replacing under certain conditions a given proportion of lapsed issues of private banks, and those provisions had been acted upon in two instances—but there were no corresponding powers embodied in the Scotch Act. Sir Robert Peel, in introducing the Act of 1845, explained why no such provisions had been introduced in relation to Scotland; and, in reference to a contingency of the very nature which had since arisen, suggested a remedy substantially the same as that which was now being submitted to the House. Sir Robert Peel said:—
  "I may very fairly be asked the question, Suppose, from any similar circumstance, a void should occur in the circulation of Scotland, how would you supply it? It may be said, Suppose a bank should fail, and, in consequence, £200,000 be withdrawn from the circulation, you will have restricted the circulation for Scotland to that extent; or you will impose on it the necessity of getting an additional supply of gold."—[3 Hansard, lxxix. 1313.]

  469
  Sir Robert Peel referred to another point with which it was not necessary to trouble the House—namely, that private issues in England, unlike those in Scotland, were not allowed to amalgamate, or to become joint-stock banks, and went on to say:—
  "Permitting the issues of the united banks to be equal to the issue of the two banks, if separate, I think you will take ample security against such a possible diminution of the circulation as I have adverted to. If any sensible diminution were to occur—if the total circulation of Scotland were suddenly to fall below the £3,000,000 to such an amount as to require the intervention of Parliament, there would then be no objection on the part of the Government to devise, or of Parliament to adopt, some other remedy. I believe, however, that for such a remedy there will be no necessity, for I think the permission we propose to give to unite and incorporate two banks will meet the difficulty."—[Ibid. 1344.]
  A difficulty such as was foreseen by Sir Robert Peel had actually arisen, and the remedy the Government proposed was supplied in this Bill;—it was the same remedy substantially which was already applied to England. There were lapsed issues to the extent of £337,000, and the Government proposed to authorize the banks which were now the issuers in Scotland to issue notes to that amount on payment to the State of £2 7s. 6d. per cent on the amount of those lapsed issues, relieving the banks, however, from the composition of 8s. 4d. per cent, which they were now liable to pay in respect of stamp duty. The consequence of this arrangement would be, that for those lapsed issues the Scotch banks would come under a new burden of nearly 2 per cent, to be received by the State, in addition to its present receipts, under the head of composition for stamp duty. It was proposed to divide these issues among the existing banks of Scotland, adopting as the standard of distribution the respective proportions in which during the last twelve months the several banks of Scotland had held coin against their bank-note circulation. Now, what was the state of the gold reserve in Scotland? When the Act of 1845 was passed, it was considered a matter of public policy to make some provision for the accumulation of a metallic reserve in Scotland, a certain proportion of which was allowed to be in silver, there having been no provision whatever for such a reserve either in respect of notes or of deposits before that period. For the four weeks ending the 3rd of January, 1846, there was in the possession of the several Scotch banks a metallic reserve of £997,000 in gold; and in silver £183,000,
  470
  making a total of £1,180,000. By the last return it appeared that for the four weeks ending the 9th of January, 1864, the returns of gold were £2,048,000, and of silver £302,000, making together £2,350,000. So that the metallic reserve of Scotland had almost doubled in the interval between those two periods. This large metallic reserve was, of course, a very heavy burden upon the Scotch banks, and it was very desirable that relief should be extended to them if it could be done to the general benefit and advantage of the State. Their metallic reserve was, as he had shown, £2,350,000, and their total circulation being only about £5,000,000; that was a larger metallic reserve in proportion than was required by banking establishments in England. At the same time, the diminution he proposed did not extend beyond the £337,000, and therefore the provision for metallic reserve in Scotland world be ample for all purposes of safety. He had spoken of the effect of this Bill as diminishing the metallic reserve to the extent of the issue authorized under the proposed Bill. Still, that would not be its direct effect. There was in the Bill nothing that required the diminution of the reserve. Still, it would be cheaper for the Scotch banks to issue Bank Notes at a percentage of £2 7s. 6d. to the Government, than upon the condition of keeping an equal amount of gold and silver in their coffers. The effect of the Bill would be to release a sum of £387,000 now locked up, and to make it available for the general purposes of the country and the world. There was a Bill, not yet before the House, but deposited at the Board of Trade, which was brought in by "the London Banking Company of Scotland," and the objects of which were twofold. The Bill sought to obtain a power of issue in Scotland as against coin similar to that which the present issuers of Scotland enjoyed over and above those authorized issues with respect to which they were not obliged to hold coin. The second object of the Bill was to lay hold of, so to speak, of the £337,000 of lapsed issues, and to grant to this particular company, the right of issuing notes to that extent. It was a very serious question whether any of the provisions of the Acts of 1844–5 ought to be touched by a private Bill. He was not prepared to give an opinion one way or another in regard to that Bill, except to say that it was not possible to recognize the principle that a lapsed private issue should be taken up by

  471
  a private body of persons, who could plead no traditions or vested rights. Nor did he think they would be able to show that the profit of this lapsed issue ought to belong to them rather than to the other members of the community. It would be the duty of the Government to object to that claim. He believed that the measure he now proposed would be acceptable to the banks, and to the public of Scotland. The measure simply applied to Scotland the principle already adopted in England—that the issue of paper notes was the property of the State, and that any lapsed issue was to be replaced only on condition that the profit should belong to the State.
  Moved to resolve—
  "That it is expedient to make provision for replacing the lapsed issue of Bank Notes in Scotland, upon payment, from time to time, of a certain charge in respect thereof."
  MR. FINLAYsaid, he could not agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that his proposal was likely to be acceptable to the people of Scotland. It seemed to him that it would only sanction and perpetuate the existing monopoly of the Scotch banks, which was very injurious to the public. This was a matter deeply affecting the people of Scotland, and he trusted that sufficient time would be given to enable them to judge of the scope and effect of the measure, and that the second reading would not be taken until a distant day. The people of Scotland viewed with great jealousy all interference with their banking system. Ever since Sir Robert Peel's legislation in 1845 they had lost the confidence in the banks which formerly existed, so that the Scotch banks no longer kept pace with those of other countries. He objected to piecemeal legislation on this subject, and thought it would be far better to deal with the subject by a general measure. He would suggest that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee.
  MR. KINNAIRDwished to know, whether the Act would apply to all existing banks of issue?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that all the existing issuing banks of Scotland would enjoy the privilege on the payment of £2 7s. 6d. per cent per annum. In reply to the hon. Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Finlay), he did not think the effect would be so large as the hon. Gentleman supposed. It would have no direct effect on the people of Scotland at large. The amount of circulation
  472
  would be the same after the passing of the measure as before; the only difference would be, that the sum of £337,000 would cease to be represented in its present costly manner. He proposed to take the second reading in ten days, and to allow a further interval before the committal.
  MR. CAIRDasked, Whether, in consideration of this payment of £2 7s. 6d. per cent, there would be involved any guarantee by the Government?
  The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the note circulation in Scotland was so adequately secured that it would bear the limited change now proposed. The question of a public guarantee for the note circulation in Scotland was of a very extended nature, on which it would be impossible to enter except at a period when the House was engaged on the general subject of issue in Scotland.
  SIR FRANCIS CROSSLEYsaid, that he quite approved of the proposition before the Committee. It was sound in principle that the State, and not private firms or companies, should have the advantage of the interest of the circulating medium, which would go in reduction of the taxation of the country. When the Bank rate of discount became high, he suggested to the right hon. Gentleman the desirableness of allowing one pound notes to circulate in England. One pound notes had been of great service to Scotland, and he believed that if such notes were introduced into England the commercial classes would be greatly relieved thereby.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERwas afraid that he could not engraft into this measure such a proposition as that made by the hon. Baronet. That was a very large question, and he was afraid it would occupy more time than the House would be disposed to give to it at the present moment.
  MR. HUBBARDunderstood the right hon. Gentleman to say that the circulation of the Scotch banks was adequately secured: he (Mr. Hubbard) never heard that the circulation in Scotland was secured at all, except so far as it was provided for by the large property engaged in the banking business of that country. He would take a currency to he adequately secured when based on a similar foundation to that of the Bank of England. There was no such security in Scotland. Of course, the banks in Scotland were popular; but so were all banks till they failed; and we had known Scotch banks fail ere now—in fact, the

  473
  very cause of the present Motion was the failure of a Scotch bank with a note circulation of £337,000. He would like to know in what way the right hon. Gentleman conceived the circulation in Scotland adequately secured.
  MR. DALGLISHsaid, two of the Scotch banks had failed; but the best proof that the Scotch banks were secure was the fact, that every farthing owed by those banks had been paid.
  MR. CRUM-EWINGsaid, there never was a bank in Scotland which did not pay in full.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he had no intention of stating that the circulation in Scotland rested upon the precise basis which he should desire, if the matter had been res integra, and they had had an open field to adjust everything. He had spoken merely with reference to the practical working of the system since the Act of 1845, and he believed the people of Scotland were satisfied with it.
  Motion agreed to.
  Resolved,
  "That it is expedient to make provision for replacing the lapsed issue of Bank Notes in Scotland upon payment from time to time of a certain charge in respect thereof."
  House resumed.
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

  Resolution, "That a Supply be granted to Her Majesty," reported.

  TAXATION AND EXPENDITURE.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYrose to call the attention of the House to the amount of taxation levied for and expended in Supply during the years 1860, 1861, 1862, 1863, and 1864. He said, this was a question well worth the careful consideration of the House, and he took that opportunity of making a few observations upon it, because what he had to say referred to Supply in general, and not to any particular Supply. He believed the amount of taxation and expenditure during the last five years, including the present financial year, up to the 31st of March next, would be found to be wholly unprecedented in the history of this country. Within the last five years the amount of taxes levied upon the taxpayers of this country was nearly £350,000,000. Bearing in mind that that House was the guardian of the public
  474
  purse, it might be worth while to ask why it was thought necessary to impose on the taxpayers of this kingdom such an enormous amount of taxation. The amount was almost unprecedented. Except hon. Gentlemen recurred to the period when this country was engaged in the French war, the most expensive war she ever had in hand, during the years 1813, 1814, 1815, and the two succeeding years, 1816 and 1817, they would not find that so large a sum as £350,000,000 had been ever raised, in five years, independent of loans, out of the pockets of the taxpayers of this country. There must be some reason for a taxation and expenditure so large. Some £70,000,000 a year were levied in a time of profound peace. There had been alarms of war, but there had been no actual warfare worth speaking of. And if that was done in time of peace, where was there any margin left for a state of war? This taxation was entirely independent of local taxation—a taxation too large to be forgotten, for it amounted to some £20,000,000 a year. No doubt our neighbours the French were apparently nearly as heavily taxed as we; but it must be remembered that the French mixed up the local with the public taxation, and if their Secretary for the Home Department were to bring in a separate budget for local taxation, it would show a sum of about £14,000,000, while in this country the local taxation was upwards of £20,000,000. It would appear, indeed, that the chief object of an Englishman was to pay taxes. It must be borne in mind that in the question which he was calling attention to he was dealing solely with public taxation and expenditure. He should prove in a few words that our expenditure during the last five years was unprecedented, or nearly so. The expenditure from 1830 to 1854 did not exceed an average of £54,000,000—it was rather under it. It was true that at that time it did not include the expense of the collection of the revenue; but making allowance for that, it would be found that during those twenty-five years our expenditure was some £13,000,000 a year less than during the last five years, and how were we to account for that enormous difference? But the question of increase became more striking by taking the last twenty years. Dividing the twenty years from 1842 to 1862 into four periods of five years each, the gradual rise and progress of the taxation and expenditure of the country would be at once seen. In the first epoch, from 1842 to

  475
  1846, the annual average expenditure was £50,250,000, so that the total expenditure in that period amounted to about £251,000,000. In the next epoch, from 1847 to 1851, there was a slight increase, the annual taxation expenditure being £51,750,000, and the total during the epoch about£258,000,000. Then came the Crimean war in the next period of five years, when, no doubt, there was a great rise in the expenditure, and during that epoch the expenditure and taxation of the country rose to an average of £66,750,000, or about £330,000,000 and odd for the whole epoch. During the last epoch to which he referred there was no war, though perhaps one year might have been influenced by the expenditure for the Crimean war, and in that epoch the expenditure and taxation rose to the enormous average of£69,750,000. The House, then, ought to consider the important question, whether there was any necessity for this extraordinary increase within the last twenty years; and whether it could be maintained with justice to those whom the House represented? He would not attempt, on the present occasion, to enter into the causes of this extraordinary expenditure; but if it were said that, as in the case of the French war, it took the country fifteen years after its termination to come down to a reasonable expenditure, so it might be impossible for the House or the Government to come suddenly down from the expenditure of the Crimean war, he would observe that not only had the Government not reduced the expenditure of the period of war, but there had been an actual increase since. He believed that it would require all the vigilance of that House to check this tendency to increased expenditure, and that the Government, with all its good wishes, was unequal to the task. The Government had advanced into the enormous expenditure of maintaining manufacturing establishments, all of which must necessarily be carried on at a great Cost, and, he did not hesitate to say, at a great loss. He believed that a system of contracts with checks to prevent trickery would be one cause of economy, and might of itself effect a great deal. He felt so strongly with respect to the enormous amount of taxation and expenditure which he had adverted to, that he determined to take the first fair opportunity to bring it under the notice of the House. Knowing the extreme value of the privileges belonging to that House as the guardian of the public purse, and seeing how lamely the
  476
  representatives of the people in such an assembly as that of Prussia got on from want of their powers being distinctly marked out, he thought that the Members of the House of Commons should show to the country that they did not neglect their duty of watching the expenditure.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he did not know that it was incumbent on him to enter on the present occasion at any great length into the very important subject which the right hon. Baronet had so ably brought under the notice of the House. He had listened to the hon. Baronet with great satisfaction, for he thought that nothing was so desirable as that the representatives of the people should call the attention of the Ministers and of Parliament to the expenditure of the State, with a view to restraining it; and if, by the influence and authority and example of the hon. Baronet, the expenditure could be brought back to that of past years, he should rejoice indeed; but in his (the Chancellor of the Exchequer's) office, it would be vain for him to attempt to deal with general assurances. It should he borne in mind that with respect to some branches of the public service, the increased wealth of the country made it necessary that increased expenditure should be incurred. With regard to the wages of labour, whether physical or intellectual, it could not be expected or desired that that portion of the public expenditure should be limited to the point at which it formerly stood. No doubt, there was a general tendency to bettering the condition of all the persons engaged in the service of the State. In some instances it was allowed to go too far, for so great was the pressure for increased emolument and remuneration for public service, that it was found difficult to keep within bounds. He was sure that the hon. Baronet would vigilantly direct his attention to this subject, and he hoped that the hon. Baronet's example would induce other Members to walk in the same line. But it must not be expected that the expenditure could be kept at the point at which it stood twenty or thirty years ago—or, he should rather say, to bring it back to that point—and that was on account of the estimate which the community was inclined to form of its own wants. The hon. Baronet spoke of the control of the Treasury as being less efficient than formerly. That was true to a certain extent, and was owing to the enormous increase in the volume and mass

  477
  of the civil expenditure, and not to the want of effort on the part of the political and permanent officers of the Treasury, to keep down the public expenditure. The task of exercising control had become one of increasing weight and difficulty. He did not complain of any one on this account, but he pointed it out as the result of the state of things. The development of the civil service was sometimes extravagant; but in many cases it took place for most valuable and important purposes, and he knew not any way in which an undue increase could be prevented, except by the Government obtaining a more firm and uniform support from the representatives of the people on occasions when the Government thought it their duty to resist addition to the public expenditure. When it was considered that the Civil Estimates voted by that House, without including the Estimates for the collection of the Revenue, had grown in thirty years from less than£2,000,000 to about£8,000,000, notwithstanding the great economy effected in many branches of the public service, it was obvious that that circumstance indicated a different state of things as to the increased duties which the Treasury had to perform, and as to the necessity of the Government receiving support from the House when they thought it right to resist additional expenditure. He did not now wish to enter further into the matter, for when it should be his duty to submit to the House the annual statement of Revenue and Expenditure, then would be the time for any more general discussion on the point, and on the manner in which the Government had endeavoured to maintain the application of principles of economy in restricting expenditure.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he thought the House was deeply indebted to his hon. Friend for having brought the subject to their consideration. He had listened attentively to the remarks of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, he believed, fully coincided with his hon. Friend in a desire to limit the expenditure within reasonable bounds. He could not forget, when the right hon. Gentleman told the representatives of the people that it rested with them to limit the expenditure, that an officer in a high position, and with many years' experience, who remembered the more economical times of our expenditure, had constantly represented that the functions of his office had, by lapse of time and change of circumstances, and the alterations made
  478
  by legislation, ceased to have that control over the expenditure which it formerly possessed. Lord Monteagle, the Comptroller of the Exchequer, had over and over again represented to Parliament, that if the functions of his office were so improved and adapted to the present time as to enable him effectually to check the expenditure, and comment upon that which might appear in excess, the House of Commons, as the guardian of the public purse, would have in such an officer an adviser free from the trammels of party, not subject to the effects of public excitement, not liable to the pressure of private applications, because not connected with the appointments which caused the expenditure, which it would be his duty to supervise. He hoped the House would forgive him for having recalled their attention to the repeated warnings which had been given by an officer of high character, of high standing, and of long experience, that the present organisation, which, was intended to control the expenditure of the country, had become defective in as much as that an office, which once afforded an independent check, by affording independent information, had ceased to be effectual for the public service.
  Resolution agreed to, Nemine Contradicente.

GOVERNMENT ANNUITIES BILL.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER,in moving for leave to bring in a Bill relating to the purchase of Government Annuities through the medium of savings banks, said it was a measure for the purpose of improving machinery already established by law. It had been thought of late very useful that the Government, without any interference with private establishments, or any attempt to take their proper business, should nevertheless do all it could to offer facilities for the increase and extension of frugal habits among the industrious classes. Upon that principle the Post Office saving3 banks were founded, being no more than a new attempt, under the altered circumstances of the community and the improved machinery at command, to apply the same principle which had already been applied with great benefit under the old Savings Bank system. But besides providing for the receipt and custody of savings, they had long possessed a machinery for the' grant by the Government

  479
  of small life assurances and small deferred life annuities. The purpose of this Bill was to afford improvements to that machinery. With regard to deferred annuities, it was very material that the class of persons likely to purchase them should have the opportunity of making a deposit of the premiums on them in as small sums as the Government could afford to receive. If only large payments at one time were received there was a considerable impediment to the purchase. On the other hand, the arrangements now were such, by the medium of the Post Office savings banks, that the Government could economically receive smaller amounts than they had hitherto received. He proposed by this Bill to give power to the Treasury to fix the amounts. He proposed also to remove from the existing law a restriction which was found inconvenient, and which was obviously unreasonable in itself. The Government were at present empowered to grant small life assurances up to the limit of £100, that being about the point at which, speaking generally, the ordinary private system of life assurance commenced. There were some life assurance offices which did an amount of business below £100; but, speaking generally and roughly, from £100 upwards life assurance by the public offices began to operate. The Government had power to grant life assurances up to £100; but that power was limited by the requirement that the same person who made the life assurance should likewise purchase a deferred annuity. The man who wanted a life assurance was generally a man who did not want a deferred annuity, and vice vers£. They were generally people of a different class. The object of the purchaser of a deferred annuity was to provide for old age, whereas that of the life assurer was to provide for those who came after him. The combination of the two was very inconvenient, and he proposed by this Bill to remove that restriction from the statute book.
  Moved,—" That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to the purchase of Government Annuities through the medium of saving banks."
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he did not anticipate that any objection would be made to the measure; but he thought it desirable that ample time should be given to the Savings Batiks to study the Bill, and to make any suggestion they thought necessary.
  MR. HUBBARDinquired whether the rate of interest at which the deferred an-
  480
  nuities would be granted would be identical with that of the Post Office savings banks; or whether it would, as at present, depend upon the state of the funds?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the interest would remain exactly as it was at present; it would have no connection whatever between it and the rate allowed on deposits in the Post Office savings banks.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill to amend the Law relating to the purchase of Government Annuities through the medium of Savings Banks, ordered to be brought in by Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER and Mr. PEEL.
  Bill presented, and read 1°. [Bill 11.]

COUNTY COURTS (IRELAND) BILL.

  LEAVE.
  MR. O'HAGAN (THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND)in moving for leave to bring in a Bill "to amend the procednre of the County Courts in Ireland" said, he desired to remind the House that these courts had existed in Ireland antecedent to similar courts being established in this country, and might be taken to have afforded a precedent for the English system. At first their jurisdiction was limited to £10, but had since been extended to £40 there was also a testamentary jurisdiction, and their power extended to actions of ejectment in cases where the value of the property did not exceed £100 a year. He believed he might fairly say that the manner in which the business was conducted was, on the whole, satisfactory: they were, he believed, as a general rule, very efficient and very popular tribunals. But there was one portion of their procedure which was the subject of almost universal condemnation in Ireland, and for the reform of which this measure was intended—that was the mode of execution of the process of the Courts, which operated mainly among the humbler classes, and in whose case it was extremely important, not only that the process should be efficient, but that it should be conducted by means of a machinery to which due responsibility should attach. At present the execution of process in the County Courts in Ireland was as badly carried out as it could possibly be. By the 14 & 15 Vict, it was directed, that a decree of these Courts should be executed by the sheriff, or by a special bailiff nominated by the plaintiff in. a suit; but the practical result was that

  481
  the sheriff never executed a decree—indeed, it was impossible that they should do so; because, whereas in England the jurisdiction of each county court was specifically confined to the county in which it was situated, in Ireland the jurisdiction often extended over large districts embracing parts of several counties, and often in the course of a single year as many as 100,000 might be issued;—the result consequently was that the execution of process was committed to the hands of a bailiff appointed by the plaintiff in the cause at his own peril only. Thus it came to pass that while in the superior Courts the sheriff was responsible in those instances both to the plaintiff and the defendant for any mischance that might arise, the person generally appointed to execute process by the plaintiff in the County Court was some one of rather low character, to whose performance of the duty cast upon him great extortion, great oppression, and great public mischief were incident. Indeed, he had heard of cases in which the execution of a decree for a sum of £20 had, in such hands, cost the plaintiff £3, £4, or even £5;while, in addition, frequent assaults and rescues were the consequence of committing execution to ignorant and worthless persons, who were apt to display great recklessness and violence of conduct. To remedy that state of things was the object with which he proposed to ask the House for leave to introduce a Bill that evening. It was only, he might add, within the last month that a memorial had been received from the merchants of Londonderry pressing for some amendment in the law in that respect, while equally strong opinions in the same direction had, he was aware, been expressed by the Chamber of Commerce of Belfast. Acting, then, on what he thought was the almost universal feeling on the subject in Ireland, the Government proposed that, on the analogy that the duties of the sheriff were generally delegated to an officer who was called the high bailiff of the Court, the persons who should in future execute the decrees in question should be the sub-sheriffs of counties, who would be responsible officers fairly remunerated for the work. There were at the present moment such officers in Ireland brought very much into connection with the chairman of County Courts, and on them he thought the like duty of the executing their process might very ad vantageously be devolved, while the high sheriffs should be relieved from the nominal
  482
  responsibility in those matters which now rested upon them, and which it would, in his opinion, be somewhat harsh to continue to impose. According to the provisions of this Bill the sub-sheriff alone would be charged with the duty of executing the process of the Court. He would be made the responsible person, and so give security, not only for the efficient performance of the duties devolving upon him, but for the due transmission of the proceeds of the distraint with the least possible cost and delay to the person in whose favour the decree was made. Then, the sub-sheriff must be fairly paid. It was calculated, that by giving the sub-sheriff fees on the warrants and poundage on the decrees, he would be sufficiently paid, while suitors would be considerably relieved. It was intended to make him directly responsible to the Crown, to whom he would give security, instead of, as at present, to the high sheriff; and to place him under the control of the County Court Judge, who would have the power of fining him for any impropriety of conduct or neglect of duty. There were other provisions in the Bill, which he thought would be a great improvement upon the existing law. One of these made it competent for a Judge of assize, upon appeal, to reserve a question of law for the opinion of a superior court. He trusted that the system to be established by the Bill would work cheaply and efficiently, without injury to individual interests, and with protection and benefit to the public.
  Moved, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the proceedings of the County Courts in Ireland."
  MR, GEORGEexpressed his general concurrence with the scope and object of the Bill; but said that he thought it was a mistake that it was not provided that the warrants should be sent to the high sheriff in the first instance, in accordance with the practice of the superior courts, to be afterwards transmitted by him to the sub-sheriff for execution. If that plan had been adopted he believed it would obviate the difficulties which he foresaw would arise if the system proposed was adhered to.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill to amend the procedure of the County Courts in Ireland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND, Sir ROBERT PEEL, and Sir GEORGE GREY.

  CHARITABLE ESTATES AND TRUSTS ACTS.—RETURNS MOVED FOR.
  MR. FERRANDmoved for
  "Returns of the names of the Chief Commissioners, Commissioners, Secretaries, Inspectors, Accountants, First Clerks, Second Clerks, and all other officials, who have been appointed under the Charitable Estates and Trusts Acts of 1853 and 1855; also, the dates of their appointments, and the amount of salary and travelling expenses each has received annually, and the profession, trade, or calling in which each was engaged when appointed: And of the total expense of the Board to the Public Exchequer and Charitable Trusts."
  The hon. Member said, that his present Motion would enable him to test the sincerity of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to prove whether he was sincere in the statement that he had just made, that the Government were extremely anxious to put a stop to all unnecessary expenditure in the civil service departments of the country. He believed he would be able to show that, so far as the Board of Charity Commissioners were concerned, there was within that body a large amount of reckless and useless expenditure of public money. That Board had been now in existence for ten years. It was a secret tribunal, from which the public were kept apart; they were ignorant of all its proceedings; and he believed, that at this moment there were few persons either in this House or out of it who were aware of the names of the gentlemen and officers employed under that Commission. There had been for a length of time the gravest complaints against the Board in all parts of the country. It was charged with negligence, with idleness, with ignorance, and with a total want of attention to the duties which were required at its hands in connection with the various charities throughout the country. He himself could bring many circumstances to light, connected with his own part of the kingdom, which would support the statement he had made; but it was not his intention at this time to allude to the manner of the working of the Commission. He would do that on another occasion. What he asked for now was a Return for the purpose of enabling him, as soon as he conveniently could, to appeal to that House to grant him a Select Committee to inquire into the construction, expense, and working of the Charity Board. He put his Motion on the notice paper under the conviction, that Her Majesty's Government would not for one instant oppose it; there was nothing unfair
  484
  in it. But he had been told by the Government that they must refuse it, and that it was invidious and inquisitorial to ask for the profession, trade, or calling of each of the members of the Board, and the time of their appointment. If it were, indeed, inquisitorial, then he said that this was an inquisitorial Board. It had the power of inquiring into the different charities throughout the country in a manner most unconstitutional, and which had been protested against, not only in that House, but in the other House by some of the highest of the legal profession in this country. But why should the Government object to this Return? It was their duty, before they allowed one of those appointments to be made, to inquire into the antecedents of every person who held an appointment; and if there were Members sitting on this Charity Board who were afraid of their antecedents being investigated, then in his opinion it was the duty of that House to take care that this Return should be made, so that the House and the country might know why the Government were so anxious not to grant it. He would give the House a brief sketch of the history of the Board. It was founded in 1853. There were four Commissioners, one Secretary, and two Inspectors appointed under the Act of Parliament. The Commissioners were to be barristers of not less than twelve years' standing. The two Inspectors (Parliament was so informed when the Lord Chancellor introduced the Bill) were to be legal gentlemen of high attainments. There was to be one Secretary, to be a legal gentleman of high standing. The Act of Parliament fixed the salaries to be paid to these seven officers. There was to be paid to the First Commissioner £1,500 a year, to the remaining three £1,200 a year each, and to the Secretary £600 a year (he wished particular attention to this point), to the two Inspectors £800 a year each, making, in the whole, £7,300. Now, after this Board was formed of officers whose salaries he had quoted, the Act of Parliament went on to give to the Commissioners the power, with the sanction of Her Majesty's Commissioners of the Treasury, to appoint as many other officials as they thought proper. Ho desired to call particular attention to these powers, given by the Act of Parliament to these four Commissioners. At the time the Board was formed, the Commissioners communicated with the right hon. Baronet the Member for Wells (Sir William Hayter), who was then

  485
  Parliamentary Secretary of the Treasury; and he wished to find out, by the Return, what was the number of officers appointed by those Commissioners, and by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Wells at the time the Board was constituted. But he had another reason for moving for this Return. It happened, in the year 1854, that the hon. Gentleman who then represented Liskeard in this House (Mr. Crowder) became one of the Judges, and resigned his seat. An hon. Gentleman who sits on the benches opposite immediately went down to contest that borough; at that time he was Mr. Trelawny. He was a Cornish man of ancient lineage, highly respected in that county, and (what was rarely to be found on the opposite side of the House) true to his political principles. He was received with the greatest delight by the Whigs and Radicals of Liskeard. In fact, his reception was so hearty, his support so large, and the promises made to him were so numerous, that he felt thoroughly convinced that he was perfectly secure of his election. While he was under this delightful impression there suddenly appeared in the borough a gentleman, who at that time was Private Secretary to the noble Lord (Lord Palmerston) at the head of the Government. This gentleman appeared in the borough to oppose Mr. Trelawny. He certainly thought it an extraordinary thing, that a gentleman professing his own political opinions should come in such a disingenuous manner; but Mr. Trelawny was not at all alarmed; he knew the number of his supporters, and felt perfectly secure whenever the polling took place. But to his astonishment a member of his committee, who had considerable influence with a certain party of Radical voters in the borough, left him immediately before the polling, and carried over the voters to the side of Mr. Ralph Grey, the noble Lord's Private Secretary, who was returned, while Mr. Trelawny lost his election. He mentioned this circumstance for the purpose of bringing under the notice of the House something exceedingly suspicious, connected with an Act of Parliament obtained by the Government in the following Session. Early in the Session of 1855 the Lord Chancellor brought in a Bill to extend the powers of the Charitable Trusts Act of 1853. In asking for an extension of those powers he alluded to the circumstance of the fourth Commissioner, who should have held the appointment until the year 1857, having died, leaving a vacancy at the Board. He said that the
  486
  Government had tried to find some gentleman of high legal attainments to take the place; but all who were applied to refused to do so on account of the shortness of the period before the appointment would cease—namely, in 1857. Therefore, the Government had thought it their duty to bring in a Bill to make the appointment of the fourth Commissioner permanent, and to extend the powers of the Commissioners. But in bringing in the Bill the Lord Chancellor never mentioned a circumstance which he (Mr. Ferrand) would bring to the notice of the House. The measure was not brought in before the House of Commons until a very few days before Parliament was prorogued. It was read a first time, and when the Attorney General moved the second reading he protested against any discussion upon it as it was of the greatest importance that the House should go immediately into Committee of Supply. When the discussion on the Bill took place, the hon. and learned Member for Wallingford (Mr. Malins) protested against the unconstitutional character of the provisions. The Attorney General, however, declared the measure to be most pressing, as the term of appointment of the fourth Commissioner would expire at the end of the Session. There was not one word of truth in that statement, as the appointment would not have expired till 1857, and the Attorney General must have known the fact. But there was a clause in the Bill giving the Commissioners, with the consent of the Lords of the Treasury, power to appoint three more Inspectors; but the House did not hear a word about such a power until within a few days of the prorogation. The House, however, upon the statement made by the Attorney General, passed the Bill. The Commissioners immediately appointed as one of the Inspectors the agent who had deserted Mr. Trelawny just before the polling. That appointment had caused an immense sensation in the west of England, where it was felt that this individual had acted a dishonourable part towards Mr. Trelawny. He was, however, paid for his services to the Private Secretary of the noble Lord at the cost of the taxpayers of this country. The election of Mr. Ralph Grey had cost the country not less than £22,400. He would prove this if the House would grant him the Committee. The third Inspectorship was not filled up, he believed, until the present year, Mr. Ralph Grey being made a Commissioner of Customs, at a salary

  487
  of £1,200 a year by the noble Lord at the head of the Government. The Commission was known as the snug nest of Whigs; and a pretty numerous neat it was, providing for not less than forty-four persons, including a housekeeper, and wife, and two maid servants—thirty-nine of whom were in receipt of salaries. In 1853, when the first Bill was introduced, the Government said they did not think the expense would be more than £5,000 or £6,000; but in 1855, after the Commissioners and the right hon. Member for Wells had been at work filling up the appointments, it amounted to £12,390, and in 1864 to £18,243. And this amount was rapidly increasing. This was the sum voted out of the public Exchequer. Not one word, however, was said of the monies the Commissioners received from the private charities, which, he believed, were enormous. As to the minor charities the Board of Charity Commissioners was literally swallowing them up with expenses. The late Mr. Apsley Pellatt stated in that House that in the first two years the expenditure of the Charity Commissioners was not less than £78,000. There was, however, no means of knowing what the expenditure actually was apart from that voted out of the Exchequer. No Return could be obtained on this subject. He believed the Chief Commissioner, whom he saw sitting opposite (Mr. Lowe), to be quite innocent of all these charges brought against the Board; and, in fact, he believed that right hon. Gentleman had mentioned to a Friend of his (Mr. Ferrand's) that his agitation on the question was right, and that a stop must be put to what was going on. The salary of the secretary was fixed by Act of Parliament at £600. He should like to know by whose authority the secretary's salary had since been raised from £600 to £800. Was it under an Act of Parliament? [Mr. LOWE: Yes.] Unless that were done under the authority of an Act repealing the former Act, it was a robbery of the public. There were forty-one persons connected with this Board who were entirely unknown to the public. He could find no account whatever of travelling expenses, except a paltry sum of £500 included in the £18,234, and he had been informed that the expenses of the Inspectors in travelling over the country were extremely large. He was also informed that private charities were taxed without any control, except that of the Board. He might be told that this Return was an
  488
  inquisitorial one; but the Board itself was inquisitorial; it had the power of summoning witnesses and examining them on oath, and if anybody refused to give evidence he was guilty of contempt of the Court of Chancery, and if he gave false evidence he was guilty of a misdemeanour. When the Inspectors had such tremendous powers in their hands the least that ought to be required is, that they should be what the Lord Chancellor promised—" legal gentlemen of high attainments." He had inserted in his notice the words "profession, trade, or calling" for the purpose of proving to the House and the country that at least one Inspector of the Board ought not to have received that appointment from the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury, and that he would never have done so had he not betrayed Mr. Trelawny and gone over and secured the return of the Private Secretary of the Prime Minister. The hon. Member concluded by moving for the Returns.
  COLONEL DICKSONseconded the Motion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That there be laid before this House Returns—
  "Of the names of the Chief Commissioners, Commissioners, Secretaries, Inspectors, Accountants, First Clerks, Second Clerks, and all other officials, who have been appointed under the Charitable Estates and Trusts Acts of 1853 and 1855; also the dates of their appointments, and the amount of salary and travelling expenses each has received annually, and the profession, trade, or calling in which he was engaged when appointed;
  "And of the total annual expense of the Board to the Public Exchequer and Charitable Trusts."
  MR. LOWE: The right hon. Gentleman has based his Motion on the assumption that it is the intention of the Government to oppose the production of the papers. He has stated that again and again, and I can only meet the hon. Gentleman's statement by a contradiction. The Government are quite willing to give the papers, subject to two objections, both of them remediable, and both of which he has been asked to remedy. The first objection is not an unnatural one, I think. The hon. Gentleman asks not merely for a Return of the present establishment of the Charity Commissioners, but of all the appointments of all the persons in the office since its foundation. It seemed a reasonable objection at first to say, that the hon. Gentleman called for persons who are not on the establishment, but who were on it eleven years ago. But the hon. Gentleman has

  489
  entirely removed that objection, for, having gone into the history of the Charity Commission from its beginning, and having made so many charges against those who belonged to the Commission, he has done away with our objection, and we shall be very happy, as far as we can, to furnish the names of all the persons who have held office, from the First Commissioner down to the housekeeper, from the year 1853 to the present time. But if we are not able to give very accurately some of the travelling expenses and small incidental charges incurred ten year's ago, I hope he will not blame us. The Charity Commissioners are appointed to exercise quasi judicial functions under circumstances of the utmost delicacy, and to discharge the duties of courts of justice without means which courts of justice possess. It has to decide all sorts of questions without a bar, and without the power of calling witnesses in the same way as other courts. Therefore it is a difficult matter to deal with a court the proceedings of which being from their nature not public, it is impossible that the charges against them can be met in the same manner as if the proceedings were public. It is no concern of mine to defend the Parliament of 1853 which created this Commission, nor, at a distance of nine years' time, the Parliament of 1855, which passed a Bill for the appointment of three new Inspectors. If the hon. Member had given notice that it was his intention to bring charges against any Member who had been in this House, no doubt that Member would have found some one to defend him; but it is quite out of the question that we should be called upon to go into the Liskeard election of 1854, or to defend the conduct of the Attorney General of 1855. These things are not germane to the point at issue. Then, the hon. Gentleman says that in 1860 the salary of the secretary was raised from £600, at which it had been fixed by the Act of Parliament, to £800; and he wants some explanation of that. It was done with the consent of the Treasury and of this House. I was the person to carry through the Bill—a Bill which extends, to the great benefit of the public, the jurisdiction of the Charity Commissioners. The increased salary was voted by this House, and, being sanctioned by Act of Parliament, has since been paid; and if the House votes that the Secretary should have £200 a year more than before, there was no reason to repeal the clause by which he was entitled only to £600. As
  490
  to the expense of the Commission, it is not my business to defend it. The House of Commons votes the money every year in the second number of the Civil Service Estimates, and in it all the information which the hon. Gentleman wants will be found. He has said, and has repeated over and over again, that this Commission extracted in two years £78,000 from the charities of the country. The House will not be surprised to hear, because it must be in the general knowledge of Members, that the Commission has no funds except what are voted by this House; that it has no power to extract any funds from the charities, and has never done so. The thing is a mere chimera, and there is not the slightest foundation for it, though the hon. Gentleman has pledged himself to prove his statements before a Select Committee. I am quite willing to give in this Return all the information he requires which is germane to the charges in his speech. He has made charges against the Commissioners and Inspectors, but there is no objection to give him every information about them. The Commissioners are Mr. Erie (brother of the Lord Chief Justice), Mr. Hill, and Mr. Campbell, all counsel of great eminence; and the Inspectors are five gentlemen, three of whom are barristers, one a solicitor, and the other a gentleman who has not been brought up, as far as I am aware, to any profession. There is not the slightest objection to give every information about these gentlemen which may throw light upon the charges which he brings against them; but when the hon. Member asks me to call upon the clerks, doorkeepers, and other persons of this description for a return of their professions, trades, and callings before they became connected with the Commission, I think he asks for that which it is not worthy of the dignity of this House to enforce. Many of these men may have come from humble extraction and filled humble callings, and why should these things be paraded before the country about them? As for my antecedents, they are perfectly well known, and I may say the same of my brother Commissioners. All fair official information we do not object to give to the hon. Member, but it is not part of my duty to know whether a man before being appointed was a costermonger, or whether his wife kept a greengrocer's shop. This is the only objection I have to the hon. Gentleman's Return; but I say nothing of the objection which I may

  491
  entertain to the tone of the hon. Gentleman's speech, in the course of which he has thought fit to make violent charges without notice to any of the parties to whom he has adverted. I object to the words in the Motion relating to the profession, trade, or calling of the persons appointed; and I hope the House will see that I am not endeavouring to deprive the hon. Gentleman of any of the real information which he so lusts for.
  MR. MALINSsaid, he was glad the Government did not intend to refuse the substance of the Return. As his name had been mentioned, he would say that though he could see no ground why the Government should refuse these returns, he desired to be understood as not concurring in the reasons urged by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ferrand); he could not concur in what the hon. Gentleman had said as to the constitution of the Board. The First Commissioner was Mr. Peter Erie, Q.C., a brother of the Chief Justice, a lawyer of great eminence, and than whom a more respectable man could not be found. The second was Mr. James Campbell, also a Q.C., against whom not a word could be said. The third, Mr. Hill, was never, he believed, called within the bar, but he was a junior counsel of well-known learning and ability, the author of an excellent treatise of frequent reference in the law courts, Hill on Trustees. The names of the Inspectors he did not all remember. One, however, he believed was Mr. Hare, a barrister of great eminence, whose reports were daily cited in the courts, and with regard to whom it was a matter of surprise that he undertook this office. Mr. Skirrow, again, was a member of a family of well-known legal eminence, and a man of excellent character—against whom not a word could be said. He (Mr. Malins) had nevertheless made objections in 1855 to the constitution of the Commission, which he still felt to a certain extent were not removed. He meant particularly the jurisdiction of the Board, which was to all intents and purposes a court of justice and of secret tribunal, from which there was no appeal, whilst it was unprovided with a bar, the accessories which were necessary for the due administration of justice. He recommended the hon. Gentleman to accede to the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lowe), and to omit the words objected to with regard to the subordinate officials.
  MR. F. S. POWELLsaid, he was glad that the Government had permitted this Return to be made. He wished to observe
  492
  that the £18,243 taken in the Estimates last year was exclusive of the House, which must be subject to a yearly rent and to repairs. He entirely concurred with what had fallen from the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Malins); and it was not from any doubt us to the character and attainments of the Commissioners and Inspectors that he acquiesced in the Motion, but because he thought too much light could not be thrown upon the transactions of public Boards. These Boards had large and extensive powers; practically there was no appeal from them; and there was need of men to act upon them, combining powers of mind, tact, and conciliation in a degree which was rarely found.
  MR. FERRANDsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman had so far given him the information he required, that he would withdraw that portion of the Motion which the right hon. Gentleman objected to, relating to the costermongers, their wives, and children, and leave them in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman.
  Motion amended, and agreed to.
  Returns ordered,
  "Of the names of the Chief Commissioners, Commissioners, Secretaries, Inspectors, Accountants, First Clerks, Second Clerks, and all other officials, who have been appointed under the Charitable Estates and Trusts Acts of 1853 and 1855; also the dates of their appointments, and the amount of salary and travelling expenses each has received annually."
  House adjourned at a quarter before Eight o'clock.

UNITED STATES.
  THE AMERICAN CORRESPONDENCE.

    QUESTION.
    THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, seeing the noble Earl the Foreign Secretary in his place, I Wish to repeat a Question which I put to him on Tuesday last, and respecting which I would now ask the noble Earl to furnish me with more satisfactory information. In doing so I must ask your Lordships' indulgence while I make a few remarks in explanation of my reasons for putting it, which may, perhaps, induce him to reconsider the answer he then gave. The Question I then put to the noble Earl was, Whether he would lay on the table any Correspondence, not only with regard to the Alabama, but also as regards the complaints made by the United States of the injuries they had sustained, or apprehended, from other vessels which had left, or may leave, the ports of this kingdom? The noble Earl told me that as that Correspondence included the case of the steam rams seized in the Mersey, it would not be consistent with his duty to furnish it, inasmuch as that question was under judicial consideration. With all respect to the noble Earl, the question before the Courts is one in no degree to be affected by the production of this Correspondence. My Lords, I understand these rams were detained by order of the Government in the month of September last, that they were finally seized on the 27th of October; and that from that time to the present—or at any rate before the meeting of Parliament—no step was taken to bring the case before the Courts. But I am informed that on Saturday informations were filed—a step which I humbly conceive might have been taken in November or December at least; and even since those informations were filed, I am informed that Messrs. Laird have heard from the Treasury that it will be necessary now—four months after the seizure—to send a commission abroad for the purpose of taking evidence to be used in the proceedings. It is quite obvious, therefore, that if we are to have no information on this subject until the case has been brought to a conclusion, it is perfectly in the power of the Government to protract the proceedings, and we shall get no information at all. What I would urge upon the noble Earl
    428
    is, that the production of the Correspondence between the British Government and the Government of the United States, can have no effect on the case before the Courts; which is simply this,—Have the Messrs. Laird in building these vessels infringed the municipal law of England? I do not ask the noble Earl to produce any information bearing on the legal question which may prejudice his case when it appears before the Courts; but the question between him and the United States' Government is a totally different question. All that the United States have to do with it is this—have we fulfilled towards them as belligerents the duties of international law? Nothing can be more clear than this—that the utmost which any belligerent can claim under the international law is, that from a country with which it is at peace there shall not be sent armed vessels to commit hostilities against him. As far as I can learn, it is not asserted that armed vessels have been sent out from this country—armed for the purpose of committing hostilities against the United States. I quite admit to the noble Earl that the violation of the Foreign Enlistment Act, and the non-execution of our municipal law in time of war, must be a very unfriendly act towards one of the belligerents. If the law is either repealed or not executed, for the purpose of giving advantage to one of the belligerents, it would be just as much an unfriendly act, just as much against the spirit of neutrality, as it would be to strengthen the existing law (which, by the way, has been proposed) for the purpose of making it more favourable to the other belligerents. Either of the two courses is in violation of the spirit of perfect neutrality, and liable to be considered as an unfriendly act. But how is it possible that the question whether we have or have not maintained the obligations of international law towards the United States can be affected by the question now pending in the Courts, whether Messrs. Laird have violated the enactments of our Foreign Enlistment Act—a municipal Act with which the United States have nothing to do? How can any complaint of the violation of international law be affected by this trial? I cannot admit, therefore, that the fact of the rams being before the Courts is a sufficient reason for the non-production of these papers. But, on the other hand, there are some strong grounds why we should have the papers before us at an early period, The noble Earl will

    429
    perhaps tell me that I cannot want this information, because I have the means of obtaining it at present:—that is to say, the whole of the papers which the noble Earl refuses to produce have been laid before the public—have been laid before Congress and sent over to this country. I have seen a very thick volume containing those papers, which is open to the world. However, I want to see not the American version of this Correspondence, but the English version. I want to see how far the charges made against Her Majesty's Government in connexion with this matter are substantiated, or whether they may not have been replied to by despatches of the noble Earl, showing that he has not sacrificed the honour of the country or violated international law. It was only by the merest accident the other evening, when commenting on Mr. Seward's despatch of the 11th of July, I obtained from the noble Earl the very gratifying information—information which I was very glad to receive—that the despatch in question had never formed any part of the Correspondence, and that it never was presented to the noble Earl. I think Mr. Adams took upon himself a grave responsibility—a very grave one it was—in not presenting it; and I think that in doing so he acted as a friend of peace and a friend of the good relations between the two countries. I think it required no small degree of moral courage to take the course he did, and that he did good service to both countries by withholding the despatch. But in the papers laid before Congress this despatch is included, as if it had been presented to the noble Earl, with no intimation, as I understand, that it had not been so presented. From the way in which it has been laid before Congress it would seem as if there was an intention to show the way in which the United States had menaced England, and the way in which England had received the threat. I do not know why Mr. Seward laid it before Congress unless to gain a favourable opinion from the party who are supposed to be in favour of strong measures against this country. I am, therefore, anxious that we should have the English version of this Correspondence in order that the noble Earl may be able to satisfy the country that, while showing his anxiety to preserve friendly relations between the two nations, he has at the same time failed to uphold the honour of England. And here I must observe that, in all the communications which
    430
    it was his duty to make to the noble Earl, Mr. Adams has acquitted himself with the strictest courtesy, and acted as well, under the circumstances, as it was possible to do. Now, my Lords, with respect to those steam rams, I venture to call attention to some communications which I have not seen in the Correspondence as officially published by the American Government, but which I have seen in papers as copied from that Correspondence. Before doing so I beg to correct a mistake into which I fell the other evening when I said that, in the subsequent correspondence, Mr. Adams referred to the despatch of the 11th of July, which the noble Earl says never was presented to him. The despatch which I alluded to was not Mr. Seward's despatch of the 11th of July, but one addressed by Mr. Adams himself on that date to the noble Earl. The similarity of the dates misled me. On the 1st of September the noble Earl, writing to Mr. Adams, says—
    "In the first place, Her Majesty's Government are advised that the information contained in the depositions is, in a great measure, mere hearsay evidence, and generally that it is not such as to show the intent or purpose necessary to make the building or fitting out of these vessels illegal under the Foreign Enlistment Act."
    He then goes on to say—
    "Whatever suspicion may be entertained by the United States' Consul at Liverpool as to the ultimate destination of these vessels, the fact remains that Mr. Bravay, a French merchant residing at Paris, who is represented to be the person upon whose orders these ships have been built, has personally appeared, and has acted in that character at Liverpool. There is no legal evidence against Mr. Bravay's claim, nor anything to affect him with any illegal act or purpose; and the responsible agent of the Customs at Liverpool affirms his belief that these vessels have not been built for Confederates."—Correspondence, No. 4, p. 12.
    That was written on the 1st September. It so happens—I do not know how—that it did not reach Mr. Adams till the 5th; and on the 3rd of September, before he received this answer from the noble Earl, he wrote a letter to the noble Earl in which he states that he had received from the United States' Government a full approbation of the contents of one of his former communications; and then adds—
    "At the same time I feel it my painful duty to make known to your Lordship that, in some respects, it has fallen short in expressing the earnestness with which I have been in the interval directed to describe the grave nature of the situation in which both countries must be placed in the event of an act of aggression committed against the Government and people of the United States by either of these formidable vessels."—p. 13.

    431
    Your Lordships will remember that on the 1st of September the noble Earl stated the opinion of the Government that there was no cause of complaint; but I find that on the 4th he writes to Mr. Adams stating—
    "I have to inform you that the matter is under the serious and anxious consideration of Her Majesty's Government."—Correspondence, No. 4, p.17.
    On the same day, the 4th, Mr. Adams writes—
    "I have the honour to transmit copies of several papers transmitted to me by Mr. Dudley, the Consul of the United States at Liverpool, relating to the preparation for immediate departure of the steam-vessel fitting out at that place for the purpose of carrying on war against the Government and people of the United States. Begging your Lordship's permission here to record, in the name of my Government, this last solemn protest against the commission of such an act of hostility against a friendly nation, I pray your Lordship to accept the assurances of the highest consideration with which I have the honour to be, my Lord, your most obedient servant."—p. 16.
    Your Lordships will observe that in that communication Mr. Adams begs the whole question as to the character of those vessels, and speaks of "the immediate departure" of a vessel which, for six weeks, it would be impossible to have ready. On the 5th, Mr. Adams again writes, and in his communication uses this language—
    "I trust I need not express how profound is my regret at the conclusion to which Her Majesty's Government have arrived. I can regard it no otherwise than as practically opening to the insurgents free liberty in this kingdom to execute a policy described in one of their late publications in the following language."
    He then quotes from a Confederate paper, and in the latter part of his letter states—
    "Under these circumstances I prefer to desist from communicating to your Lordship even such further portions of my existing instructions as are suited to the ease, lest I should contribute to aggravate difficulties already far too serious. I therefore content myself with informing your Lordship that I transmit, by the present steamer, a copy of your note for the consideration of my Government, and shall await the more specific directions that will be contained in the reply."—p. 17.
    Now, my Lords, that is a very plain indication of the view which would be taken by the United States' Government of the decision formally announced by Her Majesty's Government five days before. The noble Earl, in his letter of the 4th of September, announced that the matter was "under the serious and anxious consideration of the Government;" but in the meantime, having to go to Scotland, he loses no time in again communicating with
    432
    Mr. Adams. On the 8th of September he says—
    "Lord Russell presents his compliments to Mr. Adams, and has the honour to inform him that instructions have been issued which will prevent the departure of the two iron-clad vessels from Liverpool."—p. 18.
    Now, I do not say that the decision at which Her Majesty's Government arrived was a decision come to in consequence of the letters of Mr. Adams; but I must express my opinion that the Correspondence, as laid before Congress and laid before the public, gives the significant step announced in the noble Earl's letter, the appearance of being the consequence of increased pressure. How is the announcement received? Listen for a moment to the jubilant letter of Mr. Adams in reference to the altered tone of Her Majesty's Government. Writing on the 9th of September, he says—
    "I have the honour to acknowledge the reception of your Lordship's note of. yesterday, announcing the determination of Her Majesty's Government to prevent the departure of the war vessels now fitting out at Liverpool. I shall take great pleasure in transmitting a copy for the information of my Government."—p. 18.
    After referring to this letter of the noble Earl, in a despatch which he writes to Mr. Seward, on the 10th of September, Mr. Adams adds—
    "But a still more significant manifestation of the altered tone of the Government is to be found in the speech made by Lord Russell at the opening of the new park at Dundee yesterday, a report of which is published in the newspapers of this morning. He seems to have rather gone out of his way to take up the subject, in order to announce the policy of the Government. You will not fail to observe the greatly increased firmness of his language, and more especially his intimation that new powers may be solicited from Parliament, if those now held should prove insufficient. This is, at last, the true tone. I confess that I have more hopes of our prospect of being able to preserve friendly relations than at any moment since my arrival in England. Unless some new and untoward event should occur to make other complications, I see no barrier of a serious character to our continuance in peace."
    This is laid before Congress, and I defy any one, even the least prejudiced, not to infer from it a great triumph to the diplomacy of the United States, and that the British Government had given to intimidation and menace that which they would not yield to a sense of justice. I should hope this is not the case; but I am anxious that there should be the most emphatic contradiction that can be given to it by the production of the whole Correspondence; and I should anticipate that the counterpart of that which has been kid before the United

    433
    States' Congress will be laid before the British Parliament. What mischief can be done by the publication of this Correspondence on the part of Her Majesty's Government, when it has already been published and printed in a book which I have not myself read, but which is open to any one? There is an American version, and we have no English answer to it to show the English people, and the American people also, the mode in which the Correspondence between the two countries has really been carried on, and the way in which our Ministers have vindicated the honour of England. I say that for the Government themselves, it is important that no time should be lost in laying before the world our version of the Correspondence. I ask it on two grounds; first, that its production can in no way affect the question before the courts of law; and, secondly, that we are entitled to an English version of the Correspondence, to neutralize, modify, or reply to that given to the American Congress. I prefer to appeal to the noble Earl rather than make a Motion on the subject; and again, I ask him what practical mischief can be done by the publication of those papers? The second Question I asked the noble Earl to answer was, Whether he would also lay before the House a correspondence relating to complaints and remonstrances made by Her Majesty's Government in various cases where acts of violence, or acts beyond international law and the rights of nations, have been committed by American cruisers upon our vessels; and also any judgments which have been given by Prize Courts of the United States which appear to be founded on principles inconsistent with the recognized principles of international law? The noble Earl said there would be a difficulty in giving a general summary of these transactions; but that if I would move for the papers relating to any particular case, he would consider whether he would or would not produce them. But it is not into any particular case that I want now to enter. I want to ascertain the general principles of international law which have been maintained by Her Majesty's Government; and those, on the other hand, which are contended for by the United States. These cannot be collected from the history of any single transaction. It is for the Government to volunteer a statement to Parliament as to the course they have followed upon these questions. At the same time, in the suppressed document —the despatch which was very judiciously
    434
    withheld by Mr. Adams—I find the principle laid down, that if the present law of this country should not be altered, and if it remained in conformity with the ruling of the Lord Chief Baron, there would be left for the United States "no alternative but to protect themselves and their commerce against armed cruisers proceeding from British ports, as against the naval officers of a public enemy." Now, I have not the slightest objection to that course; and, upon the assumption that the Georgia, the Florida, and the Alabama are meant here, I only wonder that long ago the Americans, with their large navy, have not taken the step here spoken of, and have not proceeded hostilely against vessels which have been defying all the force of the American navy, and inflicting upon American commerce great injury, for which we are held responsible. I shall join the noble Earl in entering a protest against the possibility of admitting any such claim whatever. But we must not confound with the cases of armed vessels the case of the ordinary blockade-runners, with regard to which strong measures have been taken by the vessels of the United States' navy. Your Lordships are not ignorant that in consequence of the extreme inefficiency of the American blockade there has arisen a very profitable trade in vessels which are employed in running the blockade. But these are unarmed vessels; they have not offered the slightest resistance. They are smugglers if you please, and are liable to be dealt with accordingly; but they are not to be subjected to any harsher measures than what may be legitimately taken against vessels engaged in unlawful traffic. Now, it has happened that one of these vessels, being pursued by an American cruiser, takes refuge close by one of the British islands, lies at anchor within a short distance of the land, and in that position is fired into by the cruiser, so near to the land that shots fired on this unarmed vessel actually pass over her and lodge on the adjoining territory. This, if true, is a gross infraction of international rights, and I want to know in what temper and tone Her Majesty's Government have dealt with a question of that kind, and in what manner their remonstrances have been met by the American Government. There is a very suspicious paragraph in the despatch of the American Government from which I have quoted, because it is distinctly stated that to this end—namely, the taking of effectual proceedings against these armed vessels,

    435
    and also to obtain indemnity for injuries that may have been inflicted by them—
    "This Government is now preparing a naval force with the utmost vigour; and if the national navy which it is rapidly creating shall not be sufficient for the emergency, then the United States must bring into employment such private armed naval forces as the mercantile marine shall afford. British ports, domestic as well as colonial, are now open, under certain restrictions, to the visits of piratical vessels, and not only furnish them with coals, provisions, and repairs, but even receive their prisoners when the enemies of the United States come in to obtain such relief from voyages in which they have either burnt ships which they have captured, or have even manned and armed them as pirates, and sent them abroad as auxiliaries in the work of destruction. Can it be an occasion for either surprise or complaint that if this condition of things is to remain and receive the deliberate sanction of the British Government, the navy of the United States will receive instructions to pursue these enemies into the ports which thus, in violation of the law of nations and the obligations of neutrality, become harbours for the pirates?"
    Fortunately, this despatch was not presented to the noble Earl, but it has been presented to Congress, and we find it there announced as the policy of the American Government to pursue vessels into British ports and there carry on actual hostilities, notwithstanding they are lying under the protection of the British flag, and in British waters. Now, I think it is quite expedient that there should be a thorough understanding upon this question. It is not one to be dealt with at the conclusion of a war, at a period when it may be convenient for the United States to take it up. The question ought not to be left in abeyance, and Parliament ought to be informed what course the Government have taken for the purpose of vindicating our rights and protesting against such doctrines. As an instance of the decisions of the American Prize Courts, I will refer for a moment to the case of the Springbok. That case was brought before these Courts, and Mr. Justice Betts laid down his reasons for confirming the seizure of the vessel—a vessel which had nothing contraband on board, and which was in a direct line for the port to which it was ostensibly bound, that port being 100 miles from the blockaded port to which she was supposed to have been proceeding. The doctrines which Judge Betts enunciated were so extravagant in many particulars that they attracted the attention of the French newspapers, which said, in effect—"This is not merely a dispute between the English and the American Governments; it is a decision which affects all maritime nations, and is contrary
    436
    to all international law." I do not know whether the case has gone before the Supreme Court of the United States. I presume, however, that an appeal has been entered, and, pending that appeal, it is, perhaps, quite right that no further steps should be taken. Sometime ago, however, I read the whole of the proceedings in this case, and if they be correctly recorded, it is quite obvious that neither upon the evidence nor upon the principles laid down by the Judge, was there the slightest ground for the seizure and condemnation of the vessel. That is an instance in which the American Courts have apparently, at all events, violated international law; and I want to know how the Government have dealt with this and other instances in which the American cruisers seem to have gone beyond their rights. We ought to have before us the Correspondence in all these cases in order to show, not by the examination of one particular case, but by the examination of the general course which has been taken by the Government, how far the honour and the interests of this country have been guarded and vindicated, as I hope they have. My Lords, I am aware that in bringing forward this subject I have trespassed on your indulgence, but I was anxious to give the noble Earl the opportunity of re-considering his negative answer as to the production of the Correspondence respecting the steam rams, and also that the noble Earl might state whether he would or would not lay on the table documents illustrative of the course pursued in the cases which I have brought under your notice.
    EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, I think the best course I can pursue will be to refer as shortly as I can to the case of the ironclad vessels, and state why I do not produce these papers, taking also some notice of the Correspondence with Mr. Adams, to which the noble Earl has referred. Early in the summer it was a question productive of great anxiety at the Foreign Office to the Under Secretary of State and myself, that two ironclads should be building at Birkenhead, which, as was generally believed by persons who, though they may have been prejudiced, were well informed, would be used in the service of the so-called Confederate States against the ships of the United States employed in blockading the Southern ports. This subject, I say, naturally caused us great anxiety, and we endeavoured, as far as possible, to ascertain by inquiry the truth with respect to these vessels. Now, it is well known to

    437
    your Lordships, and so appears from the intercepted correspondence of the Confederate States which has been published, that it was part of the policy of those States to employ in this country agents who were to fit out and equip vessels of war for service against the United States. We naturally endeavoured to ascertain how far these instructions had been acted upon, and what had been done. But we were met at first, as we might have expected, by every kind of evasion. It was declared very positively that the French Consul at Liverpool had said that these vessels were building on French account, and that they were intended for no other purpose. When, however, I came to inquire about this, the Secretary of the French Embassy in this country and the Minister for Foreign Affairs at Paris entirely denied the truth of the assertion. Still, we had not evidence sufficient to show that it was intended that those vessels were to be engaged in the Confederate service; and therefore I wrote not only to Mr. Adams, but to others who applied to me, and stated that for the purpose of enforcing the Foreign Enlistment Act, under which it was proposed that these vessels should be detained, it was necessary to show that they were intended for war purposes, and intended to be used by a belligerent against a State in amity with Her Majesty. Mr. Adams, not acting, I think, entirely with the same discretion which induced him to decline to present to me the note of July 11, wrote rather complainingly and hastily the notes to which the noble Earl has referred. I replied to him on the 1st of September that we had not at that time evidence sufficient for the purpose of convicting the persons engaged in fitting out these vessels; but I added that we were still making inquiries, and that the utmost vigilance would be used in order to obtain evidence as to the real object for which these vessels were designed. Mr. Adams unfortunately did not notice that part of my letter. He complained that we had come to a final decision upon the case of these vessels. But in this he was completely mistaken. Inquiries went on, and then another story was put forward —that the vessels were intended for the Viceroy of Egypt, and were being fitted out in pursuance of a contract made by the French subject to whom I have before alluded with the Pasha of Egypt. It was then necessary to ascertain whether that story was true; and we found that it was as unsubstantial as the other statement.
    438
    Having done this, and no further evidence having been put forward, which convinced Her Majesty's Government of the real destination of those vessels, these vessels were ordered to be detained, and a few days later were ordered to be seized. Mr. Adams, naturally enough wishing to gain credit for himself with his own Government, attributed the seizure to the effect of his own notes; but, in point of fact, before the most vigorous of those notes to which the noble Earl has referred had been written, the decision of Her Majesty's Government had been come to. At the same time I took care, in a private note, to acquaint with the facts Mr. Stuart, then in charge of affairs at Washington.
    THE EARL OF DERBY: I am afraid the noble Earl must be under some misapprehension on that point. I do not refer to all the vigorous notes, but to the last note dated the 5th of September, and the noble Earl says the decision of the Government was taken before that; but upon the previous day, the 4th, the noble Earl wrote to Mr. Adams to say that the matter was still under the serious consideration of the Government; and it was not until the 8th that the decision was announced.
    EARL RUSSELL: If not before the most vigorous notes were written, at least before we received them, the decision had been come to. I cannot say exactly the date of Mr. Layard's note, but it was written before Mr. Adams was informed of the decision. As to the general question, I must say I think Mr. Adams is not wrong in saying, that if a considerable number of vessels are sent from this country armed and equipped and furnished with crews, and that those vessels go as armed vessels to attack the blockading vessels of a country with which this country is at peace—if such expeditions are fitted out in the ports of Her Majesty's dominions, it is, in the first place, a great affront and insult to the authority of Her Majesty, and in defiance of Her Majesty's Proclamation of neutrality; and next, it is taking part in the war in favour of the Confederate States, and against the United States. We, therefore, were most anxious to ascertain what were the real facts concerning these vessels — whether they were intended for any other person than the so-called Confederate States. The noble Earl complains of delay —which, however, is proverbial in law— and that no decision has yet been come to. The noble Earl complained of Commissions having been sent abroad to obtain evidence;

    439
    but that was not an unusual course in proceedings at law, and in this case it was peculiarly necessary. When we consulted the Law Officers of the Crown about giving to Parliament the papers in this case, their observation was, "These papers can only be given in a partial form; the partial production of the papers would lead to public inquiry and discussion, and the Government must either suffer from having their case only partially stated, or they must suffer by having their case in a court of law forestalled by a discussion in Parliament;" and therefore it was their earnest request that Her Majesty's Government would not produce the papers. I feel myself bound by that opinion. I feel that I should be doing an injustice to the Law Officers of the Crown and to the case of the Government, if I were to prevent the due consideration by a court of justice by having their whole case previously debated in Parliament, with the assistance of papers which the Government had produced. Therefore, upon every consideration—upon the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown, and upon the best judgment I can form—I say it would be prejudicial to the course of justice if I were to produce these papers. With respect to the other cases, as to which the noble Earl has inquired—and I have informed him, as he has said, that if he would give me the name of any case about which he wished for information, I would be ready to give it—I must now say, not having very recently turned my attention to the case of the Springbok, although I did consider it some time ago, yet, without notice, I am not able to state at once the precise position of that case at present. But there are a great number of cases, and if the noble Earl will leave it to me I will look over the papers. There have been more than a hundred cases, I suppose, in which we have had complaints to make, and have received from the Government of the United States more or less satisfactory answers. I will endeavour to determine what information can be published. But there is a statement which I made last year, and which I beg to repeat now, which is this:—When it is declared that a case has been sent to a Prize Court, and when we know that there is an appeal from that Court to the Supreme Court, which is a tribunal of very high authority, and belonging to a friendly nation, I will not make it a matter of discussion; and I would appeal to your Lordships and to the other House of Parliament not to allow
    440
    yourselves to be placed in the position of a court of appeal against the Supreme Court of America, but that you will allow that Court to pronounce such decision as it may think proper. If that decision should be of an extraordinary character, or that we should have any cause of complaint against that Court, of course there would be further discussion; but at present it is not so. I will also say again in reference to all these often intricate and difficult cases in which the rights of neutrals are concerned, but in which are likewise concerned the rights of belligerents, we have had controversies and correspondence with the American Government; but with respect to all these questions I must request that your Lordships will allow me to consult the Law Officers of the Crown and to act according to their advice. When the Law Officers tell mo that an effective blockade has, in their opinion, been established at certain ports in the Southern States of America, I take that as a good legal opinion and abide by their authority. So, again, when they tell me that a judgment of a prize court of America is just and in conformity with the law of nations as it has been laid down in the courts of this country, or that there are reasonable doubts which would justify a Judge in deciding one way or the other, I do not think it would be right to go to the United States' Government with complaints about that case and ask for redress. But that the United States' Government have in every case done justice to our people and to the owners of our vessels, I am far from maintaining; but all those cases have been matters of discussion. The noble Earl spoke of blockade runners. Now, undoubtedly, the penalty of blockade running is no more than that which is imposed by the law of nations—that is, that vessels attempting to break a blockade, or carrying contraband of war, are liable to capture. But I am sorry to say we have had cases lately in which we had to complain of the unnecessary detention of persons belonging to the crews of such vessels. The American Government on their side say—and they are borne out to some extent by the correspondence which has been found—some of these vessels, bearing British colours, and apparently doing no more than breaking the blockade with goods, are, in effect, vessels belonging to the so-called Confederate Government, and are the property of that Government, although sent out from the blockaded ports

    441
    under British colours. If that case can be made out in respect of a particular vessel, of course that vessel becomes a belligerent vessel. But that, like many other matters, remains still under discussion, and full information has not yet been obtained. I can only repeat that I will endeavour to look over the papers, and shall be prepared to produce the correspondence with respect to any cases in which I think the noble Earl and the House likely to take an interest; and that if the noble Earl will name any particular case upon which he wishes information, I will either produce the papers, or state what I believe to be valid reasons for withholding them.

  CHINA.—DEATH OF LIEUTENANT TINLING.—QUESTION.
  LORD CHELMSFORDrose to call the attention of the First Lord of the Admiralty to the particulars of the death of Lieutenant Tinling, of H. M.'s Ship Encounter, at Shoushing, on the 5th of March, 1863; and to ask for an explanation of statements made by the Secretary of the Admiralty respecting the same. He begged to assure the noble Duke that his object in doing so was simply to rescue the name of a gallant young officer from an unfounded imputation of having lost his life by his own temerity, while, in fact, he had honourably fallen in the discharge of his duty. Lieutenant Tinling was an officer of the Encounter, then lying at Ningpo, under the command of Captain Dew, and had been promoted to the rank of lieutenant for his gallant behaviour at the capture of that place. He was a young man of great promise, and the estimate formed of him by his brother officers would be best shown by two papers which he (Lord Chelmsford) would read to their Lordships. The noble and learned Lord then read extracts from certificates by brother officers, testifying to the generous disposition and gallantry of the deceased. On the 28th of May last, the father of this gallant young man received a communication from the Admiralty to the effect, that they had received a letter from Captain Dew reporting the death of his son from the effects of a wound received under the walls of Shoushing. In the affliction into which the family was thrown by this intelligence, it would have been some consolation to reflect that the son had died fighting gallantly for his country; but even this poor consolation was de-
  442
  nied them. The intelligence having been received by an hon. and gallant Member of the House of Commons (Colonel Sykes), with reference to the proceedings at Shoushing on the 29th of May, he put a question to the noble Lord the Secretary of the Admiralty, in answer to which the noble Lord stated that no official intelligence had been received at the Admiralty respecting the death of Lieutenant Tinling, but that he had seen a letter from Captain Dew, stating that he had accompanied the French officers to Shoushing as an amateur. It was a mistake to say that no intelligence had been received by the Admiralty; for the father of the young man had received a letter from the Admiralty the day before announcing his son's death. It was unfortunate that this had been forgotten, otherwise the noble Lord would have hesitated before he wrote a private letter which was so calculated to wound the feelings of this young man's family, He was quite sure the noble Lord did so unintentionally, and that he was quite incapable of doing anything to wound the feelings of any one, much more of those who were suffering under such a bereavement. The painful impression which the statement of the noble Lord produced on this family was indeseribable. They were bending under the weight of the blow they had received from the intelligence of the death of this gallant young man, when they learned that the life whose loss they deplored had been sacrificed to the gratification of an idle curiosity. In the House of Commons the same hon. and gallant Member who had before put a Question on the subject again asked explanations from the noble Secretary of the Admiralty (on July 21: see 3 Hansard, clxxii. 1172). The noble Lord, in reply, said that he regretted very much the statement he had formerly made, and bore testimony to the gallantry and meritorious conduct of the youth! As to the statement that Lieutenant Tinling had received his death-wound when acting as an amateur, he said he would wait for further information, and that a further and more detailed report had been ordered, and if he were satisfied, he should have the greatest pleasure in apologizing to his family. He did not know whether the Admiralty had received further information, but as far as he understood, the objection of the noble Lord the Secretary of the Admiralty was founded in the fact that Captain Dew had been acting beyond the prescribed range of his instructions, and therefore could not be considered

  443
  as acting in the discharge of his duty, when he was, in fact, disobeying those instructions. At all events the term "amateur" most inaccurately described the character of the service at Shoushing. This was clear from the letter in which Captain Dew reported the death of Lieutenant Tinling to Admiral Kuper. Shoushing was, he believed, between eighty and ninety miles from Ningpo, where the Encounter was lying, and the instructions were that the ships should not engage in hostile operations beyond a radius of thirty miles from one of the treaty ports; but Captain Dew was actually, it appeared, watching the proceedings, and preventing, if possible, any false step of the Chinese, which would have at once imperilled Ningpo, and he stated that he felt himself responsible for the sad fate of this promising young officer. The fact was that Lieutenant Tinling was at Shoushing under the orders of Captain Dew, for the purpose of carrying on the operations of the siege. It appeared that the French officers required a siege gun, and one was borrowed from the Encounter. Captain Dew sent Lieutenant Tinling and twelve men with the gun, and they were followed by Captain Dew himself. The gun was taken to Shoushing, and placed upon the carriage by the men of the Encounter, about 500 yards from the battery, in the presence of Captain Dew. The French officers placed it in position, and it was while watching the effect of that gun in the siege that Lieutenant Tinling received his death-wound. He was not, therefore, an amateur, but was acting at the time under the orders of his superior officer, Captain Dew. But, even admitting that Captain Dew had been engaged in hostile operations contrary to his instructions, that could not be fairly imputed as blame to Lieutenant Tinling. Lieutenant Tinling was at Shoushing, under actual orders, for the purpose of conveying assistance to carry on the operations of the siege, and he received his death-wound when sent by his captain with a message to the front. Captain Dew might have exceeded his instructions by being engaged in those operations, but that did not prevent a subordinate officer, who was obeying the orders of his superior, being in the discharge of his duty. All he desired in this case was that justice should be done, and that an acknowledgment should be made that Lieutenant Tinling's short and honourable life was nobly ended by a death in the service of his country.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSETsaid, he would readily admit that the noble and learned Lord had brought the case forward with the best feeling; and he could himself assure their Lordships that he also felt sincere sorrow for the fate of this gallant young officer, as well as sympathy with his bereaved family. It was, he understood, merely an honourable acknowledgment that he had fallen in the service of his country that Lieutenant Tinling's family sought to obtain; and all that the Government aimed at was to ascertain the facts of the case and to do what was strictly right. It was true that his noble Friend the Secretary of the Admiralty, when first questioned on the subject in the other House, said that he had no information about it; but his noble Friend had been engaged on Committees for several days, and was not then aware that a letter had on the previous day arrived at the Admiralty in reference to the matter. Next day, however, he learned that he had made an error, and the information which the Government possessed was immediately forwarded to the unhappy father, while his noble Friend also took the first opportunity of setting himself right in the House of Commons (on June 1). His noble Friend had been asked to say that Lieutenant Tinling had fallen in the strict discharge of his duty. On that point they had then no complete intelligence; but they immediately wrote to Admiral Kuper, requesting him to call upon Captain Dew to state whether he had ordered Lieutenant Tinling to proceed to the siege of Shoushing, and whether when he fell he was acting under his orders, or as a volunteer. Captain Dew's answer was as follows:—
  "H.M.S. Encounter, Yokohama, Sept. 25, 1863.
  "Sir,—In reply to your memorandum of this date, referring to my letter of the 13th of April last, wherein I acquainted you under what circumstances Acting-Lieutenant Tinling met his death from a wound received at Shoushing, and wherein you call on me to report, for the information of the Lords' Commissioners of the Admiralty, whether that officer was ordered by me to proceed to the siege of Shoushing, and whether at the time he was acting under my orders or merely as a volunteer, I have to inform you that that much-lamented officer did not proceed to Shoushing by my orders or on duty, but accompanied me at his own urgent request on that as on a previous occasion, when I deemed it necessary for the safety of Ningpo to pass beyond the thirty miles radius, not for the purpose of engaging in hostilities with the Taepings, but rather by my presence and advice to ward off disaster from the Imperial forces. All

  445
  the officers who accompanied me on these occasions perfectly understood their own and my position, and considered themselves on leave. I repeatedly warned them against exposure to fire, especially on the eve of the assault on Shoushing, when I particularly cautioned Lieutenant Tinling, knowing his fearless nature, and told him and them to bear in mind that I held myself personally responsible for their safety. I feel confident, moreover, that Lieutenant Tinling's last days would have been much embittered could he have foreseen the steps his family have thought right to take regarding his death. I now most respectfully lay before you, Sir, and, if you think right, for the information of their Lordships, a short statement as to my peculiar position at Ningpo, and the grave responsibilities I was continually called on to undertake for the safety of that city and others within the thirty miles' radius. I had instructions from Sir James Hope to carry out the policy of Her Majesty's Government and clear the thirty miles, and this was most happily effected, with a trifling loss, against overwhelming odds, by a small squadron under my orders, assisted by Chinese troops, drilled by ourselves and the French. So highly did Sir James Hope appreciate this service, effected, as he was pleased to state, not as at Shanghai, with a large field force and guns, but simply with our own resources, that he forwarded me no less than five public letters of thanks, to be read on the quarter deck to the ship's companies. I may now mention my reasons for proceeding to Shoushing, so that you and their Lordships may understand why I passed the thirty miles' boundary, and incurred your own and their censure, and I trust that when that explanation has been given some latitude may be allowed me for transgressing my orders, and if I erred in judgment it will be seen my motives for so doing had at least the public service entirely at heart. Shoushing is the key of Ningpo and the province of Che-kiang, and so long as it was held by the Taepings, who continually threatened Ningpo from it, it would be necessary to keep a large naval force for the protection of the latter city. I had received a communication from you, Sir, to the effect that you were anxious, if the safety of Ningpo would admit of it, that I should join your flag in Japan with a gunboat. The fall of Shoushing alone would enable me to leave Ningpo, so I went to the front, not at first intending to be present at the attack, but merely to urge on the French commander the necessity of making one. General Taidif requested me to remain, as, in the event of an accident to himself, he feared his force would disperse. His worst fears were realized; he fell early on the day of the assault, his officers and men became dispirited, and my presence alone saved a great desertion; malgré moi, I had to take the direction of the siege till Admiral James sent up competent officers to relieve me; and in a fortnight, so hard were the besieged pressed, that they evacuated the city, and one of the first provinces in China was regained to the Imperial Government, and I was enabled to leave Ningpo, with a gunboat alone for its protection. Since that time prosperity has returned to Ningpo and its neighbourhood, and it will be a lasting satisfaction to myself and those under my command to know, that through our efforts those ruthless plunderers the Taepings were driven away from their work of spoliation, rapine, and murder. Trusting that you, Sir, and their Lordships will give me at
  446
  least credit for disinterestedness in my conduct at Ningpo,
  "I have, &c,
  "R. DEW, Captain."
  "To Vice-Admiral Augustus J. Kuper, C.B.,
  Commander-in-Chief."
  Now, he should have acted very discreditably if he had not said that he was satisfied with the explanation which Captain Dew had given. He thought that Captain Dew had acted under the circumstances as a gallant officer would act. He went up to the front, like many others, to see the fighting; but when he got there the French commander told him that he must stay there, because if anything happened to himself, Captain Dew must take the command. Therefore against his judgment, and against his orders in fact, he did stay; but his stay, as it happened, was a most fortunate circumstance. As to Lieutenant Tinling, he behaved, there was no doubt, with the same courage and spirit as he had done before. The Government had had the pleasure of promoting him previously for his conduct in one of the most gallant actions at Ningpo. Lieutenant Tinling served in one of the two or three small gunboats which went to Ningpo. The town had then been for a long time in the possession of the Taepings, who, seeing the smallness of the force, fired upon it. Upon that Captain Dew, as he wrote in his despatch, felt it necessary to attack the town, a place of many thousand inhabitants, which was done with two or three gunboats and the assistance of the French officer's small force. There was no question, therefore, of Lieutenant Tinling's gallantry and courage. There could be no doubt that Lieutenant Tinling was a most gallant officer— he wished the service had more like him— but he was one of those who could not be prevented from putting themselves in danger. On such occasions even the highest officers did not hesitate to risk their lives unnecessarily. When Admiral Hope was expostulated with for having galloped to the front during one of the battles between the Imperialists and the Taepings his reply was, that he wished to see how the Chinese fought, "and besides," he added, "I thought they wanted a little cheering up." The Government deeply deplored the death of Lieutenant Tinling, but with so many gallant young men in the service all over the world such occurrences would take place. For his own part, he was anxious to say anything that would be satisfactory to the unfortunate father, because the service had lost a promising young officer;

  447
  but he could do no more than read the despatch of Captain Dew, and express his belief that in writing that document Captain Dew was only actuated by a desire to give a true statement of facts.
  EARL GREYsaid, it must have been painful to the family of Lieutenant Tinling that his conduct had not been properly represented on a former occasion. From the statement of the noble Duke, he (Earl Grey) gathered that Lieutenant Tinling on the occasion on which he met his death, if not actually was virtually on duty; for although it might be that the instructions were that no officers should engage in hostilities beyond a thirty miles radius from the Treaty ports, yet it was perfectly clear that he was acting under the authority of his superior officer. He went up in charge of a gun, and although, no doubt, he was told that the service was not quite a regular one, yet any officer who volunteered for it must be regarded as practically acting under orders. He (Earl Grey) should not, however, have risen to notice this matter, had it not afforded matter of serious consideration in a public point of view. It threw much light upon the inconvenient and most dangerous position which Her Majesty's Government were assuming in China. Two years ago he called attention to the remarkable change which had taken place in the policy of Ministers. They began by prescribing strict neutrality between the Taepings and the Imperialists. Then they issued instructions that Shanghai was to be protected. Our officers were next told that they might protect any of the Treaty ports which might happen to be menaced. At last they were ordered to protect the country within thirty miles of the Treaty ports, because, said Ministers, unless they protected the country it would be of no advantage to protect the ports themselves. Perhaps their Lordships would recollect that he had ventured to point out that this was a line of conduct which must lead to inconvenience. It was neither war nor neutrality. If Ministers were determined to take up the cause of the Imperialists they should send out a force worthy of the British nation, and one which could interfere with effect; on the other hand, if they wished to remain neutral, they should remain really neutral but, as it was, they were halting between two policies. They could neither make up their minds to see that disorder in China which was the natural result of our breaking down the authority of the native Government, nor yet were
  448
  they prepared to take upon themselves the difficult task of attempting to restore peace and virtually to protect the Chinese Empire. No doubt they felt that this was a duty which would task to the utmost the whole strength and resources of this country; but, he asked, could any good come of half measures—of ineffective but irritating interference? The public orders to our officers were that they were not to interfere beyond thirty miles from the Treaty ports; but when engaged in the execution of these orders they found, as Captain Dew found, that properly to protect a radius of thirty miles they must extend their operations to a distance of eighty or ninety miles, and to attack a town which was the basis of the operations of the Taepings. It was impossible, as the noble Duke admitted, to complain of Captain Dew for going beyond the thirty miles, considering the instructions he had received to protect the country round the Treaty ports, and the impossibility of otherwise effecting this object; but it was right that their Lordships and the country should ask the Government to adopt in this matter some more decided policy. The lives of gallant English officers and men should not be exposed by expeditions of such inadequate force into the heart of China. If Ministers were resolved upon interfering in the internal troubles in China, notwithstanding their own original determination to the contrary, and notwithstanding the enormous difficulties in which they would thereby be involved, they ought to interfere in such a manner as to have a chance of accomplishing their object. The only effect of their present policy was to prolong the war, preventing either party having a decided advantage. He must add that the Government should lay on the table further papers as to the measures they were taking. Two years ago they told their Lordships that they had authorized an officer of the British navy to organize a force which was to act on behalf of the Emperor of China. Everybody now knew that a considerable force was sent out, but that, in consequence of a dispute with the Chinese Government as to the terms on which it was to be employed, it had been disbanded. Their Lordships had a right to expect Ministers to lay before them information as to the grounds upon which they took the strong and unusual course of issuing an Order in Council giving permission to raise that force, and also as to the causes which had led to its disbandment,
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKEsaid, the statements made by the noble Duke, the First Lord of the Admiralty, would be most discouraging to young officers in the navy. The first lesson taught a young officer was obedience; he was to obey above all things. That which the noble Duke called volunteering was in the case of Lieutenant Tin-ling simply an act of duty. When an officer was directed to undertake any duty of an arduous kind, a younger officer of spirit who might wish to accompany him could ask the senior officer to allow him to go; the moment he consented, the young officer was under orders and was not a volunteer. Lieutenant Tinling went up the country with a gun which was intended for warlike operations, and everything he did was done under the eye of Captain Dew. The noble Duke said that Captain Dew did not act under orders; and yet he approved of his despatch on the ground of his brilliant services, and in the same breath he said Lieutenant Tinling, who obeyed orders, did not die in the execution of his duty. In this the noble Duke did not understand the nature of the business over which he was placed, or know the gallantry or the character of the British navy.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSETsaid, he had carefully abstained from expressing any opinion of his own, contenting himself with reading the despatch of Captain Dew, who plainly stated that Lieutenant Tinling was not acting under orders, but that he was on leave, and in a position to act for himself. As to the remarks of the noble Earl on the cross benches (Earl Grey), that Her Majesty's Government ought either to undertake the Government of China or to abandon that country altogether, he (the Duke of Somerset) maintained that neither course would be wise. On the one hand, everybody would admit that it would be preposterous to undertake the administration of the Government of China; while, on the other hand, to abandon Shanghai, where a large number of English merchants resided and where we had an enormous trade, would be equally out of the question. It would not be tolerated in this country that the Government should say, "We will give up our port because the Taepings are coming, and we must not take part with one side or the other." A couple of years ago the Taepings found they were losing ground in the country, and they declared their intention to make up for it by the plunder of Shanghai; and, had it not been for the English and
  450
  French officers who defended the town, it would have fallen into the hands of the rebels, who would soon have made it as desolate as Nankin and the other places of which they had gained possession. If Parliament really thought that we ought not to maintain our hold on China, then it had better say so in a distinct and decided manner. The experiment of allowing the Taepings to take towns had been tried. Ningpo was a treaty port; it was a place of immense commerce, and its river swarmed with vessels. When the rebels threatened it, it was the opinion of the British authorities in China that it was not our business to defend Ningpo. What was the result? The insurgents came, murdered all the inhabitants who did not succeed in fleeing across the river, and plundered and destroyed the town. The English and French vessels were fired at by the Taepings after they had been for some in possession of the town, but Captain Dew and the French commander would not tolerate such treatment, so they retook the place. The Chinese who were gathered on the opposite bank watching the affair, returned as Boon as the town was reconquered. Order was then re-established, shops were reopened, and in about a month the town was restored to its former state of prosperity. The Taepings, however, while they held it kept it in ruins. For his own part he could not approve a policy which encouraged plunder on shore and pillage at sea. As to the pirates, they had caused great havoc among European vessels along the coast of China, and it became a question whether we could continue to carry on our trade in those seas. No doubt it was very desirable that the Chinese Government should possess the power to control their subjects both by land and water; but unfortunately they had not the power, and as long as we traded with China we were in the anomalous position of having to defend ourselves against the rebels and against the pirates. If the Imperial Government could have been furnished with an efficient force under their own command, they might have put down piracy in those waters, and we should then have been relieved from the burden of the extensive, costly, and continuous operations which we had to carry on year after year, and in which gallant officers lost their lives. It would not do to Bay in a hasty, off-hand way, we must choose between two alternatives, either siding with one party or quitting China altogether. We must

  451
  be guided by circumstances as they arose, interfering, however, as little as we possibly could.
  EARL GREYsaid, the noble Duke had misunderstood him. He did not say that we ought either to take upon ourselves the Government of the country or to leave it. What he had always said, and what he now held, was that we ought either to remain neutral between the Imperialists and the Taepings, or if we interfered, to do so in a manner worthy of this country. We ought not to send an English naval officer and a dozen men—volunteers—accompanied by a Chinese rabble and a collection of the adventurers of all nations, to risk their lives in the heart of the country. We ought either to stand aloof, or carry our operations in a serious and effectual way. In 1861 the noble Earl (Earl Russell) laid down the rule that we ought not to defend the towns, lest we should teach the Chinese to rely on us, and have the whole burden thrown on our shoulders. What he (Earl Grey) had all along said was, that we committed a great mistake in breaking down the power of the native Chinese Government, and that before we did so, we should have considered how difficult it was, when such an authority had been overthrown, to establish another in its place. The troubles from which we were now suffering were the natural consequences of the policy, or rather no-policy, we had adopted. The noble Duke told them we must be guided by circumstances as they arose. Now this was precisely what he (Earl Grey) complained of; it certainly seemed that Her Majesty's Ministers had never had a clear and definite idea of the policy they meant to pursue, but determined upon each successive step which they adopted with a view to the convenience of the moment, without considering to what consequences it would ultimately lead. But he would not go farther into the subject at present, because this was a question which would have to be fully discussed during the Session, and he hoped the noble Duke would give them every facility for doing so, by furnishing all the papers relating to the formation and dismissal of Captain Osborne's force.
  EARL RUSSELLsaid, his noble Friend who had just spoken maintained that the Government should have taken one of two courses in China—they should either have remained perfectly neutral, or they should have acted, to quote his vague general phrase, in a manner worthy of the dignity
  452
  and reputation of this country. The former course—the course of being perfectly neutral—was that which was taken in the first instance. We said that the rebellion of the Taepings against the Emperor of China was not a matter in which it was necessary for us to interfere, and that the insurgents might possibly carry on relations of trade and amity with the people of this country. But we discovered the fallacy of that idea. We found that the Taepings never attempted to establish any order or authority whatever; that they had only two notions —murder and plunder; that they killed men, women, and children, even infants in arms, and spread devastation wherever they went. Under these circumstances, we deemed it impossible to refrain from defending our Treaty ports against barbarians of that kind. It was now said that we ought to have acted in a manner worthy of our dignity and reputation. But what did that mean? We could not take part with the insurgents, and in order to espouse the Imperial cause, we should have required a large force. The sacrifices we should have had to make would have been enormous, and the cost immense. Our troops would have had to go to every part where rebellion broke out, now to the north-west, now to the south-east, and they would have been exposed to great hardships and loss of life. Therefore, neither of these two modes of procedure would have suited the interests of this country. We must have had 10,000 men constantly marching through the country to carry out this policy. There remained, however, a third course, which was to protect our Treaty ports, to defend the trade we were carrying on, to check the ravages of the Taepings, and from time to time to allow persons, no matter of what nation, whether English, French, or American, to lend their aid to the Imperial arms. That was the course taken by Her Majesty's Government—it was a course which did not involve any great sacrifice of life or expense, and, moreover, it had been successful. His noble Friend (Earl Grey) spoke as if the consequences of our policy had been most deplorable, but that was a mistake. In the first place, we had developed an extended and flourishing trade. All the evidence showed that the unhappy people whose towns were assailed by the Taepings fled from the houses in which they knew they would be murdered if they remained, and abandoned the cultivation of the soil, which they could not carry on. Whenever,

  453
  on the other hand, a place had been recovered from the rebels, the inhabitants flowed back again, the peasants resumed the cultivation of their fields, returned to their trade with us, and there arose an amount of prosperity which was impossible under the Taeping rule. Such were the consequences which the noble Earl deemed so melancholy. The policy which produced such results, and imposed no considerable burden on the country, he should always hold to be the best.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, be thought it rather unfortunate that the noble Earl on the cross benches should have introduced into an incidental conversation a question of such serious magnitude as our Chinese policy. He desired to say only that he was a personal friend of the father of the gallant and distinguished young man who had so unfortunately fallen. He respected that gentleman as one who had made, to his knowledge, great sacrifices for the benefit of the public service. The letter read by the noble Duke had completely satisfied him as to the official designation which should be given to the particular service on which the young man was engaged at the time of his death. Though there might be some official difficulty in the way of recognizing this service as being "the service of the country," yet the value of the young man's previous services was now fully recognized, and it was acknowledged by all that he was in the fullest possession of all those eminent virtues which distinguished the sailor. In fact, his death was owing to his superabundance of those noble qualities which were characteristic of the British sailor.
  LORD CHELMSFORDsaid, the noble Duke must remember the objection to the expression used by Captain Dew in his letter, that Lieutenant Tinling acted only as an "amateur;" and as he understood the noble Duke had not withdrawn that expression, but rather justified the use of it, he himself thought that a very different character should be given to those services, especially as there was no doubt Captain Dew himself was engaged in hostile operations, and Lieutenant Tinling acted under him. The noble Duke admitted that Captain Dew was so engaged, and Lieutenant Tinling was taking up a gun to be used against Shonshing; though it was said that the officers who accompanied the captain were to be considered as on leave. He thought, that the noble Duke having justified the conduct of Captain Dew, who
  454
  acted outside his orders and according to his discretion, ought also to have justified Lieutenant Tinling, and to have withdrawn the expression which was offensive to his family, and even to have gone further, and said that he had fallen performing his duty.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, he had heard with great interest the letter read by the noble Duke, and the impression left on his mind was that Captain Dew was acting not only without orders, but against orders. All the young officers who were with him knew that perfectly well, and Captain Dew's object in writing that letter clearly was to take all the responsibility on himself, and to relieve those young officers from it. It was an act of generosity on the part of a gallant officer. Of course, these officers were acting practically under Captain Dew's orders; but, like a generous man, he wished to take all the responsibility on himself.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSETsaid, he had never used the word "amateur" himself; and Lord Clarence Paget, who had hastily used it, when he was told that it had given pain, got up in the House of Commons and retracted it.
  LORD CHELMSFORDwas understood to say, that if the noble Duke would turn to the debate of the 21st of July last he would see that the word had not been retracted.

  RAILWAY SCHEMES (METROPOLIS).— THE COMMONS' MESSAGE.—SELECT COMMITTEE.
  Message from the House of Commons of Tuesday last on the Subject of Railway Schemes (Metropolis) considered. Then—
  EARL GRANVILLE: Your Lordships will recollect that last year much alarm existed on the subject of the proposed railways through the metropolis, and that there was considerable discussion in your Lordships' House as to whether there should be a preliminary inquiry on the subject of the railways in the metropolitan district; and also whether that inquiry should be carried on by a Committee, or a Royal Commission appointed by the Government. Ultimately it was decided in the first instance that a Committee should be appointed. That Committee sat, and reported several special recommendations. They pointed out various things that ought not to be permitted, and they suggested r various things which ought to be done, and

  455
  laid down certain principles which ought to govern railway communication in the metropolis. One of their recommendations affected the future conduct of this House with reference to these Bills, and the Committee thought it desirable that there should be a preliminary inquiry, sifting the whole of the schemes which might be proposed. I anticipate, therefore, no opposition now to the appointment of the Committee which I propose. Another point discussed in the matter was as to the manner in which these Bills might be dealt with by both Houses; but, after a full review of this point, and looking to the delicate consideration involved in it, and wishing to avoid any appearance of dictating to the other House, it was thought better to confine the recommendations of the Committee entirely to what could be done in our own House. Certain recommendations were made with reference to reports to be made on these Bills by the Board of Trade and other public Departments, and those have been complied with. A Report of the Board of Trade is already before your Lordships, and to-morrow I shall probably be able to lay before you a supplementary Report of an engineering character, describing the effect of those schemes. The Board of Works and the Corporation of London have also published reports, as recommended by the Committee. The Government are most anxious to act in the spirit of the Resolutions adopted by the Committee of your Lordships' House last year, and they therefore thought that a Committee ought to be appointed in the other House, and your Lordships asked to appoint a Committee of this House—both Committees to sit together and draw up a joint Report. That certainly is going somewhat further than your Lordships' recommendations; and I must add that the precedents for a Joint Committee of this kind are of ancient date, and are rather meagre. There was one in 1695; and there was one in the reign of George III. to conduct an inquiry as to the state of the King's health; but in this latter case the Commons insisted on having double the number of Members on the Committee as compared with the number from your Lordships' House, and this made it impossible to do more than examine witnesses jointly. It became impossible to have a joint Report, and each House therefore presented its separate Report. The fact that your Lordships have power to examine witnesses upon oath, while the
  456
  Commons do not possess that power in such matters as will form the subject of the proposed inquiry, affords another advantage that will be gained from a Joint Committee. I cannot help thinking that this is an exceptional case, in which the experiment of such a Committee may be very well made. This year the alarm in the metropolis is greater than it was last, and I think it desirable that a body having the authority of a Joint Committee should have the subject before them for calm and mature consideration. I should have been glad if the Members of the Government were not to be called to take any part in the inquiry; but an opinion has been expressed that the Government should give every assistance in their power, and we yield to that opinion. I am glad to be able to state to your Lordships that I believe my noble Friend the Chairman of Committees will find time, notwithstanding his other engagements, to serve on this Committee. If your Lordships agree to my Motion, I shall afterwards move the names; and it is proposed that, after the Message to the Commons, the Committee should meet on Monday next. The noble Earl then moved—
  "That a Select Committee be appointed to join with the Select Committee appointed by the House of Commons, as mentioned in the said Message, to consider the best Method of dealing with the Railway Schemes proposed to be sanctioned within the Limits of the Metropolis by Bills to be introduced in the present Session, and to report their Opinion whether any, and, if any, what Schemes should not be proceeded with during the present Session."
  THE EARL OF DERBY: I am not surprised, my Lords, that there should be almost a panic in the metropolis when we contemplate the number, extent, and variety of the schemes with which the whole of the metropolis is threatened. I am told that the total estimated cost of constructing those lines is £35,000,000, and that 8 per cent of the capital, has been deposited. No less than 160 streets of the metropolis will be seriously interfered with by these lines, which are to pass in every direction and by every form of construction—some overground, some underground, and some on the level; they are to run in every possible direction, and appear to have been brought forward without any general scheme, or without any reference one to another. This being the case, I think it is expedient that the matter should be taken up in the way the noble Earl has suggested. Though the course he pro-

  457
  poses—the appointment of a Joint Committee—is not one for which there is a precedent of very recent date, I do not object to try the experiment. Neither do I object to members of the Government serving on the Committee; for if I entertained any feeling on the subject of the interference of the Government, it is one of regret that they did not in the first instance take a more active and prominent part— that they did not themselves lay out for consideration what appeared to them to be the best general scheme for accommodating the traffic throughout the metropolis, without having the slightest reference to this company or to that, but considering only the convenience of the public. Then, if such scheme was approved, applications might be received from companies to take it on something like the French system of concession by the Government. That, no doubt, would be a great innovation on our practice, and with regard to other parts of the country, I would not have supported it, but, with regard to the metropolis, the question is so large that it would have been better to have it decided in such a manner as to exclude all private interest or personal consideration from any influence in the decision. I have to present to your Lordships two petitions on this subject— one from the Institution of British Architects, and the other from the Architectural Association—in which they represent the great inconvenience which will arise from the conflict of railway interests; and they also state that no adequate street thoroughfares have been proposed. They express their opinion that the question of street communication should be first and forthwith considered and determined, and that lines of streets should be laid out, having reference more especially to railway termini, and they suggest that all railway projects should be postponed until the question of the great leading thoroughfares have been considered; and they pray that a Committee or a Commission should be appointed on the subject. I cannot say I concur in the entire prayer of the petitioners, because, I think, its practical effect would be to put off the construction of metropolitan railways for an indefinite period; and I do not envy this preliminary Committee the labour they will have to go through. I am glad my noble Friend the Chairman of Committees will be able to find time to serve on the Committee, for his doing so will give the public additional confidence in the mode of conducting the
  458
  investigation. I should rather like to know on what principle the Committee are going to act—whether the Government are themselves going to put forward any general scheme, which possibly it would be desirable to recommend to the Committee?
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he might, as an individual, have some notions as to what the Committee ought to do, but he did not think it would be prudent of any one who was likely to serve on the Committee—a Committee on which he would be happy to have the noble Earl's (the Earl of Derby) assistance—to make his views on the subject known to the public beforehand— views which might be modified or entirely changed by the evidence.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, he entirely approved of a joint Committee under the circumstances—not, however, as an experiment, but by way of exception, for he considered this to be an exceptional case. The precedents for such a Committee were of ancient date and exceptional character, and appeared to refer to proceedings in which both Houses were jointly concerned, and in which concerted action was necessary, such as when a peer was to be tried on impeachment. The only other course they could take except that now proposed was to appoint separate Committees for both Houses. But inasmuch as the inquiry proposed was an exceptional one of a preliminary character, to determine what Bills, out of a large number, should alone be submitted to the consideration of Parliament, a great difficulty would arise in the event of those Committees arriving at opposite conclusions. A joint Committee was therefore the only feasible plan by which the important subject in question could be satisfactorily considered and disposed of. He did not consider that the appointment of a Royal Commission would be attended with much advantage, inasmuch as it was found in practice that the reports of these bodies on railway matters possessed little weight, and he doubted whether a Commission would have the requisite boldness to deal effectively with these schemes, and decide which should and which should not go forward. Under all those circumstances he was of opinion, that the course proposed for adoption, though an exceptional one, was the best, and he trusted that the joint Committee would be able to present a Report that would give satisfaction. He hoped, however, that in assenting to it, it would

  459
  be upon the distinct understanding that it should not be considered a precedent for the future action of that House. It was a ease of considerable difficulty, and lie hoped that a satisfactory report would be, the result.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, lie admitted that in dealing with these schemes it would be of great public advantage to take such a course as would prevent unnecessary litigation and competition. It gave him much satisfaction to hear that the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees had consented to act on the Committee. But he should be most unwilling to assent to the appointment of a joint Committee, unless it was distinctly understood that the inquiry being an exceptional one, the appointment of a joint Committee should be considered as an exceptional course, and should not be drawn into a precedent in reference to the course of dealing with ordinary railway Bills. They were now practically entering into a new era of railway legislation, and the appointment of this committee would, at all events, have the effect of preventing the construction of useless or improper works, and putting a stop to unfair or unnecessary competition. But the greatest caution would be necessary in dealing with the double machinery at present in use for sifting the merits of private Bills. He was far from saying that the present system of railway legislation was satisfactory; and, though his own experience was limited, he defied any noble Lord who had served upon railway committees to say he had risen from this task with any feeling of satisfaction. At the same time, it was not so easy to suggest a remedy, and their Lordships should be cautious in adopting any course which might commit them to a policy of joint Committees. This House had always been jealous of any unnecessary or arbitrary interference with private rights; and in dispensing with any of the existing machinery by which their Lordships exercised control over companies of enormous power, backed by enormous capital, there must be great care that private interests should not hereafter be seriously compromised.
  THE EARL OF DERBYwished to ask a question in regard to the working of the Committee. Was it intended that those railway schemes should be represented by separate counsel before the Committee? Or did they propose to pass judgment upon their merits without according to railway companies the right of being heard
  460
  by learned counsel? If it were intended to allow those companies to be represented by counsel, they would be imposing upon the Committee the necessity of hearing lengthened arguments and speeches previously to their coming to a decision upon the several schemes. At the same time it might be considered rather unfair to the promoters of those railway projects, if they were to refuse hearing any representation on their behalf.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he could not of course answer as to what course the Committee would be likely to take in regard to hearing counsel upon the merits of the respective railways proposed. Last year, however, the Committee practically avoided going into the merits of particular schemes. They confined themselves to a consideration of what they believed to be consistent with general legislation upon railway communication.
  Motion agreed to.
  Then it was moved,
  That such Select Committee should consist of Five Lords, Three to be a Quorum, agreed to. The Lords following were named of the Committee:—Ld. PRESIDENT, E. ROMNEY, V. EVERS-LET, L. REDESDALE, L. STANLEY of ALDEBLBT. That a Message was Ordered to be sent to the House of Commons, in answer to their Message of Tuesday last, to inform them of the Appointment of the said Select Committee by this House, and to propose to the House of Commons that the joint Committee do meet in the Painted Chamber on Monday next, at Half past Three o'Clock.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.