Sitting of 1 July 1864

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—Resolutions [June 30] reported *.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolutions in Committee—Thames Embankment and Metropolis Improvement (Loans); Registration of Deeds (Ireland) [Stamps] *.
Ordered—Courts of Justice Money*; Courts of Justice Site *; Criminal Justice Act (1855) Extension *; Militia Ballot Suspension *.
First Reading—Improvement of Land Act (1864) * [Bill 187] (Lords); Courts of Justice Money * [Bill 188]; Courts of Justice Site * [Bill 189]; Criminal Justice Act (1855) Extension * [Bill 190]; Militia Pay and Clothing *; Militia Ballot Suspension *.
Second Reading—Indemnity [Bill 97].
Committee—Thames Embankment and Metropolis Improvement (Loans) [Bill 191]; Cranbourne Street * [Bill 154]; Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland)* [Bill 100]; Divorce and Matrimonial Causes (Amendment) * [Bill 162] (Lords); Street Music (Metropolis) [Bill 90].
Report—Cranbourne Street* [Bill 154]; Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland)* [Bill 100]; Divorce and Matrimonial Causes (Amendment)* [Bill 162] (Lords); Street Music (Metropolis) [Bill 90].
Third Reading—Factory Acts Extension * [Bill 55]; Inclosure (No. 2)* [Bill 170]; Railways (Ireland) Act Amendment* [Bill 173]; Tests Abolition (Oxford) [Bill 18], and passed.

WEST RIDING ASSIZES.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL SMYTHsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, in the event of the next Assizes for the West Riding of Yorkshire being held at Leeds, the maintenance of prisoners in the Leeds Borough Gaol, in accordance with the Notice in the Gazette of the 10th instant, will be a charge upon the County Rate of the West Riding, there being ample accommodation for such prisoners in the West Riding Prison at Wakefield?
  SIR GEORGE GREY,in reply, said, he could not give a positive opinion on the point. Hitherto the prisoners committed for trial at the Assizes for the West Riding had been sent to York Castle. [Colonel SMYTH: No; Wakefield.] That was after trial. He believed the fact to be, that whereas the county had been put to the expense of maintenance of prisoners committed for trial at York Castle, those prisoners would now be sent to Leeds instead, but they would have to be paid for as before by the county. The class of prisoners at present sent to Wakefield would continue to be sent to Wakefield.

INDIA—OFFICERS OF THE INDIAN ARMY.—QUESTION.
CAPTAIN JERVISsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, Whether, as by Clause 65 of his Despatch, dated the 17th day of June, No. 194, he recognizes that portion of the Report of the Commission on Memorials of the Indian Officers which stated that the organization given to the newly created Staff Corps has, contrary to the Parliamentary Guarantee, caused extensive supercession of the Officers remaining with their regiments; and as by paragraph 66 he admits that a complete remedy for this superces-
614
sion must be found either in the withdrawal of the rank given to the Staff Corps or in granting such army rank to the Officers of the Indian Army, as shall restore them to a relative position, as regards the Staff Corps Officers, which they held at the formation of that corps; whether he considers that giving Brevet rank to the local Army, such rank in India giving no addition of pay whatever, restores the relative position of the Officers of the Indian Army to that of the Staff Corps, the latter possessing substantive rank with pay proportionate to their rank; and whether he considers this arrangement carries out the pledge which he gave that he would adopt the Report of the Commissioners in its integrity? Whereas the Staff Corps are on the full pay of their respective substantive ranks, whilst the local Army is to have Brevet rank without increase of pay, it is placing the local Army on the same footing as the Staff Corps to make the promotion from the rank of Lieutenant Colonel to Colonel to depend on an Officer having been five years on the full pay of a Lieutenant Colonel, as laid down in paragraph 69; and on what principle the Brevet rank of the Ordnance Corps in India is to be only local, as laid down in paragraph 70, the Parliamentary Guarantee extending to the Ordnance Corps as well as the rest of the Army?
COLONEL SYKESsaid, he would also beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, whether he will lay upon the table of the House a Return comprising the names of all Officers of the Indian Armies who had substantive rank given them by the East India Company, irrespective of promotion by regimental seniority, since the year 1800? Whether, in reference to paragraph 69 of the Despatch of the Secretary of State to the Governor General of India, dated June 17, 1864, the Army rank proposed to be given to regimental Officers after specified periods of service is to proceed pari passu with promotions to substantive rank in the Staff Corps, and whether he considers such Army rank a just equivalent for the substantive rank given to Staff Officers? And whether with reference to paragraph 76 of the same Despatch, all the Lieutenant Colonels in the Regimental Lists of the Indian Armies and Staff Corps are to be struck off immediately, and promotions made regimentally, according to the standing of the Regiment for the Line step, in conformity with the usages of the service?
SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, that he had given no pledge to adopt the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Memorials of Indian Officers, for the simple reason that the Commissioners had carefully abstained from making any recommendations at all. They only stated what they considered to be the interpretation of the Parliamentary guarantee in regard to the organization given to the newly-created Staff Corps, and the alleged supercession of the Officers remaining with their regiments, and he frankly accepted that opinion. But that guarantee had no reference whatever to the employment or pay of the Officers, and therefore when the Officers of the local Army received brevet rank, he considered that this was a sufficient fulfilment of the guarantee in their regard, although the brevet rank carried with it no additional pay. The rank given to regimental Officers in respect to length of service had no connection with substantive rank in the Staff Corps. All the Officers in the Indian Army, whether of the Staff Corps or not, would receive their army rank in respect of length of service. The Officers of the Indian Army would stand in exactly the same relative seniority to each other as they did on the day that the Staff Corps was formed. With regard to the Ordnance Brevet rank being only local, he thought that the Ordnance Corps in India had received greater advantages than almost any other corps, and that they had not the slightest grievance to complain of.

NAVY—THE COURSE OF THE "GLADIATOR."—QUESTION.
SIR JAMES BLPHINSTONEsaid, he rose to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether the opinion of Vice Admiral Fitzroy, President of the Meteorological Department of the Board of Trade, has been taken as to the winds and currents which prevail in the Mid-Atlantic in the months of July, August, and September; and, if so, whether he will lay that opinion upon the table of the House; he might say, in explanation, that Admiral Fitzroy presided over a Department which had the winds and currents particularly under their consideration;—and whether the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty are aware that the facts set forth in Captain Maury's Trade Wind Chart for the month of August are in every respect opposed to the information given to the House by the noble
616
Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty, on the authority of the Hydrographer of the Navy?
LORD CLARENCE PAGETreplied, that the Admiralty had not consulted Admiral Fitzroy; they had consulted then-own Hydrographer. With regard to the latter part of the Question of the hon. Baronet, he had to state that the Admiralty regulations for the transport of the troops, so far from being in opposition to Captain Maury's views, were in exact accordance with them. Captain Maury's work gave the average passage of more than twenty sailing vessels for every month in the year for a distance of 820 miles on both sides of the line, and the result was that in the month of August, when the variable winds prevailed, the passage was made at the rate of 120 miles a day, and in March and November at the rate of 140. so that no great delay might be expected,
SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONBsaid, he wished to know, Whether the noble Lord will obtain the opinion of Admiral Fitzroy, and lay it upon the table?
LORD CLARENCE PAGET: We are quite satisfied with the opinion of our own Hydrographer.

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

HUDSON'S BAY TERRITORY.—PAPERS MOVED FOR.
MR. ARTHUR MILLSsaid, he rose to call attention to the present condition of the territories claimed by the Hudson's Bay Company, and to move an Address for Copies of all Correspondence which had taken place between the Imperial and Canadian Governments respecting the Western Boundaries of Canada, and of any Memorials forwarded to the Colonial Office from the inhabitants of the Red River Settlement. He did not propose to enter into the question of the rights of the Hudson's Bay Company, which had so often been the subject of inquiry in Parliament. It was generally admitted, he believed, that the territory claimed by the Company, comprising 1,500,000 square miles, was granted by a charter of Charles II. at a time when it did not belong to the British Crown. It was now admitted that in 1670 the vast territory now claimed by the Company was

617
in the possession of the Crown of France, and was occupied by a French Company under a charter dated thirty or forty years before that of Charles II. It was notorious that by the Treaty of Ryswick, in 1696, it was admitted in the face of Europe that the territory belonged to the Crown of France. By the Treaty of Utrecht, in 1713, it was admitted that three-fourths of the territory belonged to France. It was not until the Treaty of Paris, in 1763, when Canada was ceded to England, that this territory became the property of the Crown of England. The territory was, therefore, granted by Charles II. to the Hudson's Bay Company 100 years before it became the property of the British Crown. It was also true, by the concurrent testimony of all our eminent legal authorities, from Lord Mansfield to Lord Westbury, that a prescription of 200 years, supported by Acts of Parliament reciting the rights of the Company, cured the defects of the title, however bad and rotten it might have been originally. Therefore, the question was one which was no longer open to dispute; at any rate, it would be unpractical and a mere waste of time to discuss the question now. But there was a question connected with this territory which was not altogether irrelevant at the present time. There was a tract of country containing 60,000 or 70,000 square miles, which—according to the evidence of witnesses examined before the Parliamentary Committee in 1857, including Sir George Simpson, Governor of the Hudson's Bay Company, and who had every interest to represent the territory as barren; Captain Palliser, who was officially appointed to inquire into the state of the country; Professor Hinde, also appointed to make the inquiry—comprised some of the most fertile land in the whole continent of North America. That territory was now practically shut up from colonization. It was perfectly true that this fertile territory was separated from Canada by a very barren and inhospitable tract of 500 miles, between Lake Superior and Lake Ontario. It was also true that up to this time no effort had been made to colonise that territory, and that the natural barrier which lay between it and the other possessions of the Crown was an impediment to colonization. The question now was, what openings offered themselves for the settlement of that territory. It was admitted by all that the connection of the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans by land by a continuous chain of
618
settlements would be of immense advantage both in regard to the territories themselves and to our own interests in North America. The opening of the China trade through British territory would be of vast commercial importance. There was also no doubt whatever of the political importance of doing all in our power to form a bond of union among all our territories in North America. But the serious question was, who was to pay the costs of the operation? He apprehended the House of Commons was not prepared to spend any portion of the public money for founding Colonies in that part of British America; and he also apprehended that they would be very reluctant to give an Imperial guarantee to other parties who might be willing to undertake the task. But it so happened that in this instance the colony of Canada had come forward and expressed its readiness to undertake some share at all events of this large financial responsibility. He would briefly state how the case stood at the present moment. From the correspondence laid on the table it appeared that the colony of Canada was willing to guarantee 4 per cent upon £250,000, to be raised for the purpose of connecting the western frontier of Canada with the Bed River Settlement; but the Colonial Government said they would undertake this obligation only on the condition that the boundaries of Canada should be properly defined. The hindrances to this arrangement were interposed by the Hudson's Bay Company. Last year that Company appeared in a new dress, but it had not lost its ancient character. They refused to go before any tribunal for arbitration—they would not open the question of boundary in any shape or form—but stood upon their ancient rights, which they were prepared to uphold. Thus Canada was baulked in her efforts by obstacles interposed by the Hudson's Bay Company. The question was not whether we were to upset the charter—not whether Great Britain should undertake the expense of founding a Crown colony in Canada, but whether England was prepared to allow an obstruction to intervene between the colonization of that country and a colony which had manifested its readiness to undertake so important a share of the financial burden. In reply to an application from the Canadian Government for co-operation in this matter, Mr. Dallas wrote as follows:—
"While fully admitting the force of the above arguments, and the immediate necessity of some

619
arrangements being come to, I am reluctantly compelled to admit my inability to meet the Government of Canada in this forward movement, for the following reasons:—The Red River and Saskatchewan valleys, though not in themselves fur-bearing districts, are the sources from whence the main supplies of winter food are procured for the northern posts, from the produce of the buffalo hunts. A chain of settlements through these valleys would not only deprive the Company of the above vital resource, but would indirectly, in many other ways, so interfere with their northern trade, as to render it no longer worth prosecuting on an extended scale. It would necessarily be divided into various channels, possibly to the public benefit, but the Company could no longer exist on its present footing."
The Earl of Carnarvon, writing on behalf of the Imperial Government, proposed to the Hudson's Bay Company the policy of acquiescing in the reference desired by the colony of Canada. He said—
"Before deciding finally upon the course to be pursued, he desires to place once more the question before the Hudson's Bay Company, with a sincere hope that on a fuller consideration they may see the expediency of modifying the determination which your letter announced. Where on all sides interests so great and various are concerned, the wisest and most dignified course will be found, as Sir E. Bulwer Lytton has on previous occasions pointed out, in an appeal to and a decision by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, with the concurrence alike of Canada and of the Hudson's Bay Company. If the adoption of such a procedure be advantageous to the interests of all parties concerned, Sir Edward cannot but think it would be particularly for the interest of the Hudson's Bay Company. It would afford a tribunal pre-eminently fitted for the dispassionate consideration of the questions at issue; it would secure a decision which would probably be rather of the nature of an arbitration than of a judgment; and it would furnish a basis of negotiation on which reciprocal concession and the claims for compensation could be most successfully discussed."
The question was, whether the Hudson's Bay Company were to be allowed to stand in the way of the public advantage? He believed that Parliament would not consider it right that the Hudson's Bay Company should stand in the way of establishing settlements, especially when those who were to derive the benefit of them were prepared to bear their full share of the burden involved in making them. He had brought the question before the House in the hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies would state that no obstruction to the plan would be offered on the part of Her Majesty's Government. He was quite aware that there were good reasons why Great Britain alone should not undertake the responsibility of planting a colony in that quarter. He was fully
620
aware that there were great difficulties yet in store with respect to the boundaries between British North America and the United States—there were questions arising respecting the defence of our colonial possessions—respecting the Red River Settlement—and there was a strong probability that that Settlement would have a large influx of immigrants from the States. It appeared to him that if the opportunity were afforded of helping on the federal union of our North American colonies, enabling the colonists to unite themselves by commercial intercourse with the Atlantic and the Pacific, not only would our trade with China be opened, but a chain of settlements would be formed binding the colonists more closely together. While he believed it would be inexpedient that England herself should undertake a new settlement in North America, he nevertheless thought that a policy which would enable the existing colonies to unite themselves by a chain of settlements between the two oceans, would be wise, dignified, and prudent—regard being had to the time when the vast territory to which he referred would contain self-supporting communities. Although the political difficulties were considerable, he believed that those difficulties might be overcome. The question was one of considerable importance; and he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would indicate some means by which the differences between Canada and the Hudson's Bay Company might be cleared up by a reference to the Judicial Committee of Council or some other tribunal before which the questions could be tried; because, if they stood over, the time might come when Canada might say, "We offered to bear our part of the cost; impediments were offered; we were not allowed to settle our boundaries, we could not go forward, and were prevented from doing that which we were desirous of accomplishing." There were, moreover, quite enough points of argument between ourselves and our neighbours in North America (such as the San Juan question, and others) standing over for adjudication, without adding to them "Hudson's Bay and Red River questions" for future controversy. On all these grounds he sincerely hoped that the settlement of this vast and fertile territory would not be left to the chances of desultory immigration, and that no hindrance at all events would be offered to those who might be prepared to undertake its colonization on the part of the Imperial Government.
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEseconded the Motion.
Amendment proposed,
To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House, Copies of all Correspondence which has taken place between the Imperial and Canadian Governments respecting the Western Boundaries of Canada, and of any Memorials forwarded to the Colonial Office from the inhabitants of the Red River Settlement,"—(Mr. Arthur Mills,)—instead thereof.
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
MR. WATKINsaid, the few words with which he should trouble the House could be offered rather as evidence in the case than as intended to convey any peculiar views of his own. He had understood that the hon. and learned Gentleman, the Mover of the Resolution, had laid down the proposition, upon what authority he knew not, that Canada was ready to assume the cost and responsibility of founding a new colony in the vast territory belonging to or at least in the possession of the Hudson's Bay Company; a colony, in fact, which would become one of a great chain of communities between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.
MR. ARTHUR MILLSexplained that what he had meant was merely that Canada was ready to be responsible for a large proportion of the cost of establishing telegraphic and other communication across the continent.
MR. WATKIN: Really the hon. Gentleman, before bringing so large a question before the House, ought to have taken more pains to be accurate. All that Canada had proposed to do was to contribute so much a year, about £10,000, in aid of the construction of a telegraph, and towards providing the means of a postal and passenger transit across the continent. And at the instance of the late Colonial Minister, the Duke of Newcastle, a proposition had been made in May, 1863, which, if at once accepted, would have led to the achievement of that great object. The Duke communicated that proposition in a despatch bearing that date, to both Canada and British Columbia; and Canada, after keeping the despatch unanswered from May, 1863, to the end of February, 1864, at last declined to proceed, and on not over creditable grounds. The House might re-
622
member that the late Government of Canada went out of office early in March last, and on the eve of leaving office they drew up the minute refusing their assistance. Possibly they might not have replied at all, but in the month of February the Colonial Office informed them—as the papers now before the House showed—that British Columbia regarded the proposals with deep interest, and only waited for the decision of Canada in order to forward, as was expected, a favourable reply. Knowing, then, that their refusal would throw over the whole project—for, if refused, British Columbia could not comply—the late Government entirely backed out of their own proposal. And on what ground? why, that the Duke's despatch proposed the erection of a telegraph only. Now, a reference to the despatch itself would show that this plea was unfounded; and he might state that personal explanations had been given to the members of this very Government, so that the House could only assume that those who then guided the affairs of Canada did not desire, as represented by the hon. Member, to see so truly Imperial a work carried out with vigour and certainty. In fact, in their hands and by their delays and excuses and unwillingness, Canada, and Canada only, had stood in the way. The blame, therefore, he regretted to say, must, so far, rest with Canada and not with Her Majesty's Colonial Office or with the Hudson's Bay Company, as was, no doubt, upon erroneous information alleged by the hon. Member. The fault, however, attached to the Government and not to the people of Canada. But the question before the House was much larger, and it involved consequences demanding the most serious and anxious consideration of Parliament. The question came to this—Was this vast territory, above four times as large as Great Britain, worth the attention of the Colonial Office and deserving of the care of that House? Was it worth the while of the House and the Government to consider the future settlement and destiny of a vast and fertile region capable of containing from thirty to fifty millions of free people? The time has almost come when the House must decide whether that region should be peopled with British subjects, or become part of the American union. Regarding the question as affecting Imperial interests—and the consideration of those interests only could guide the House—he felt assured that hon. Members would desire to

623
preserve this territory to the British Crown. Let the House bear in mind that it was considering a portion of the earth's surface at least as large as Russia in Europe. Then came the practical question—could this territory be governed and defended by Canada, or ought it to become a separate and distinct colony under the control of the Crown? Now, so far from Canada, as a whole, desiring to hold itself responsible for the establishment and defence of a new colony, the great bulk of Canadian statesmen—especially in the present state of Canadian finance and Canadian defence—would oppose it. Canada could not just now afford the risk, and it must be remembered that the very men who had repudiated the Duke's despatch, and had backed out of the overland communication, had been in all ways backward as regarded the military defence of the colony itself. They, at least, after refusing to provide adequately for the defence of Canada, would not take the new burden of defending an additional border of 1,500 miles alongside the United States. But the House would bear in mind that a question had, with more or less vehemence, agitated the minds of the Canadian people, namely, that of "Representation by Population." When the union of Lower and Upper Canada was declared, the population of Lower Canada much exceeded that of Upper Canada. Now, however, the population of Upper Canada exceeded that of Lower Canada by some 300,000; and a party in Upper Canada asked for a proportionate representation. Such a measure would of course enable Upper Canada to rule over and destroy the individualization of Lower Canada. Therefore, all French-speaking Canadians, and a large number of the most loyal people in both sections of the province, opposed a change leading inevitably to universal suffrage and the extinction of the political influence of an educated minority. Now, if the Hudson's Bay territory were added to Upper Canada, that portion of the province would overbear the remainder, and all the old contests of race and language would be revived, even perhaps to the end of civil war. He entirely forebore to speak about title, that would settle itself; it was a purely legal question. The question before the House was one of Government. The hon. Gentleman talked of the rights of Canada—meaning, he supposed, that Canada could and would govern, and, if govern, defend. Now Canada was a coun-
624
try 1,500 miles long and 500 to 600 miles broad. It had a population strewn over this area of only 3,000,000—or less than the population of London. Yet, forsooth, the hon. and learned Gentleman proposed to charge this small population with the defence and Government of a new country nearly twice as big as its own, notwithstanding that Fort Garry—the chief settlement of the Hudson's Bay territory—was 1,000 miles from the nearest place at present deserving the name of a settlement belonging to Canada. But while the hon. Gentleman advocated a chain of settlements, forming ultimately one continuous British population between the two oceans, he deprecated any Imperial expenditure on account of such an Imperial purpose. His proposal on behalf of Canada was unauthorized and must break down. It was imperative that any new colony must be founded upon the prestige of the British Empire and its flag. No other foundation would preserve British influence. Either that must happen or a rapid process of Americanization would go on. Already the country was being squatted over by American citizens and soldiers, while the Colonial Office did nothing. But the hon. Gentleman referred to the cost of founding new colonies. Now, the people of the United States founded new communities, and organized their Government, without saddling the Union itself with any permanent expense whatever; they derived their resources from the sale of lands and the taxation of the settlers. And in so fine a region as this, if the British Government could not found a new colony without coming to the Imperial Exchequer except for temporary advances or assistance, the fault must be attributed to mismanagement and incapacity at the Colonial Office. As regarded the alleged impediments to the settlement of the Hudson's Bay territory, he must repeat that the late Canadian, and not the Imperial Government, was responsible. The monied and commercial classes here in England were ready to co-operate liberally; but the confidence in the bona fides of Canada must be first restored. Was it not extraordinary that in the year 1864 a private company of fur traders should rule and govern about a fourth of the whole North American continent, and that a charter of Charles II. should permit such a private company in London to levy war with Indian tribes, to build fortifications, and to have, in fact, if they thought fit, an army of defence?

625
Unless Her Majesty's Government were prepared to take more immediate and practical action, nothing could prevent the alienation of this territory, which ought to become in every sense an integral part of the Empire. The House had had to listen to much discussion for years past; the time for action had arrived. Was the House prepared longer to allow the matter to drift its own way; to permit American squatters to secure the most valuable lands, and American influence to predominate, when by hoisting the British flag and giving to the people of Red River the moral influence of the British Crown, they could render this territory one of the most valuble and hopeful of all the British dependencies?
MR. CARDWELLsaid, he would offer no objection to the production of any papers that remained of the copious Correspondence already presented on the subject. He trusted, however, under these circumstances, that his hon. Friend would not expect him to enter at length into the question she had raised; for if he were to go through the whole history of the matter, he would enter a territory as vast as that of the Hudson's Bay Company. In 1857 a Committee of that House, which had been appointed to inquire into the subject, recommended that Canada should be permitted, if she thought proper, to annex the territories in question, so that they might thereafter form a part of the Canadian possessions; and acting on that suggestion the Colonial Secretary submitted certain propositions to Canada and to the Hudson's Bay Company. The Government, acting under the advice of the Law Officers of the Crown, felt it was impossible to dispute the validity of a charter which had existed for two centuries; but they made the very suggestion alluded to by his hon. Friend—that the question of the western boundaries of Canada should be referred to the decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The Hudson's Bay Company assented; but Canada demanded that the Privy Council should consider, not merely the question of boundaries, but the whole validity of the charter. To this proposition the Company naturally would not consent. The noble Lord who was then Colonial Secretary was succeeded by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Hertfordshire (Sir E. Bulwer-Lytton) who, under the advice of the Law Officers of the Crown, informed the Canadian Government that if they wished to
626
challenge the charter of the Company they must do so by a scire facias in the Court of Queen's Bench. The Canadian Government, however, refused to take any steps to settle the question. The right hon. Gentleman gave full notice that in that case he should feel at liberty to endeavour to settle the question by negotiation. In 1862 negotiations were commenced with his noble Friend the Duke of Newcastle by a company who proposed to connect the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans by means of telegraphic and postal communication. Ultimately the Hudson's Bay Company became united in interest with the persons who promoted that scheme, and the negotiations were carried to this point—that it was agreed the Hudson's Bay Company should be compensated for their interest in the territory out of the proceeds of the sale of portions of the land. The principle was adopted, but the details were not settled. At that stage of the matter he (Mr. Card-well) succeeded to the office he had now the honour to occupy. He had anticipated the desire expressed by the hon. Gentleman, that every facility should be afforded to Canada to take part in the negotiations on this subject. He had informed the Company that if any colony was to be founded in that territory provision for the settlement and good government of the new colony must be made by themselves, by the Canadian Government, or by the Crown; and he renewed the offer made on the recommendation of the Committee of 1857. At the same time he had called on the Canadian Government, if they were not disposed to take upon themselves the responsibility, to state distinctly what were their views on the boundary question, in order that negotiations might be set on foot for the amicable settlement of the dispute. This question involved points of very great difficulty. It was connected with chartered rights of great antiquity. The matter before the House was also connected with the position of the intercolonial railway, which still remained in suspense in Canada, and it was connected, moreover, with the proposal that Canada should maintain at her own expense communication by telegraph and post road with the point at which the telegraph of the Hudson's Bay Company should join the Canadian system. Canada had not yet given her adhesion to that proposal; and the question of the Canadian guarantee of half the cost of the telegraph was also still in abeyance, which was likewise the case

627
with the proposal that the other half should be guaranteed by Vancouver's Island and British Columbia. It also remained undecided whether, if a new settlement were to be established, it should be founded at the expense of the present Hudson's Bay Company, of Canada, or of the Imperial Exchequer. Canada would shortly receive from him an offer based on the recommendations of the Committee of 1857. But the matter was one of great importance, and would have to be maturely considered. With the view of bringing the whole affair to a satisfactory result, he had written to his noble Friend the Governor General of Canada a despatch which, as an answer to the Motion of the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Arthur Mills) he would be glad to lay on the table. He invited the Canadian Government to state whether they were prepared to accept the conditions recommended by the Committee of the House of Commons; and, if not, to intimate what their views were respecting the question of the western boundary? That difficult question it would be his endeavour to bring to a satisfactory conclusion; but all he would say at present was that no pledge would be given on his part without the previous knowledge and consent of the House,
MR. LYALLsaid, it was not true that the Hudson's Bay Company had sent out telegraphic wires for the purpose of connecting Minnesota with the Red River Settlement, and thereby increasing the influence of the United States in the Hudson's Bay territory. The Directors who came into office a year ago took into consideration the subject of communication between Columbia and Canada in association with the question of communication with China, and they had sent out wires for that purpose. But certainly if Canada were not prepared to do her part in overcoming the natural difficulties of the country between her and the Red River Settlement, it would be necessary for the Company to connect their telegraph with Minnesota, from which they were only distant about fifty miles. With respect to the new government of the Company, they were by no means disposed to retard colonization; they waited, however, for roads and other communications; and it was felt, moreover, that greater powers than were given by their proprietary charter must be obtained by the Company in order to establish good order in the settlement. The whole subject was under the consideration of the Colonial Office, and he trusted that
628
an extended colonization of a great territory would be promoted.
COLONEL SYKESurged the great importance of communication with British Columbia. We could not get there at all except by Panama and Cape Horn. So that Columbia were connected with Canada, what mattered whether the communication were effected by the colony of Canada or by an independent Company? The result would be that a direct communication with China would be established. The undertaking was one of great importance; and if it could be effected by a little pressure upon the Hudson's Bay Company it would be politic for the Government to exercise it. The hon. Gentleman who brought the question forward was entitled to the thanks of the House for so doing.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LUNATIC ASYLUMS IN IRELAND.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. BLAKErose to call the attention of the Chief Secretary for Ireland to the necessity which exists for amending the Laws relating to the administration of Lunatic Asylums in Ireland, and for making better provision for the care of Imbeciles confined in the Union Workhouses; and to inquire whether he will introduce a Bill next Session to remedy the defects complained of? For the last three years he had each Session called the attention of Government to the serious defects which existed in the moral treatment, with a few exceptions, in the Lunatic Asylums of Ireland; and in his efforts to have a proper system introduced, he had never been fortunate to obtain much support from the Irish Members. Nevertheless, the question had gained ground, and some good results had followed. He should do the Chief Secretary for Ireland the justice to say that the representations which he had made to him on the subject had not been disregarded, as he had given a good deal of attention to it, both by visiting asylums and endeavouring, as far as he could, to effect a reform in the direction which he had frequently pointed out to him as most necessary. He considered it was only just towards the Inspectors of Lunatic Asylums, as well as towards some of the Managers of these institutions in the country, to say that within the last two years an undoubted improvement had taken place in many of the asylums, so far as regarded

  629
  increased suitable occupation and amusement for the patients, although in some much remained to be done. It was also very pleasing to see in the last published Report of the Inspectors, that that portion of the treatment in each of the asylums had a prominent place in their remarks. On the present occasion he would only allude to it incidentally in suggesting some legislation which he thought would materially aid the carrying out improved moral treatment. If the suggestions he was about to offer for amending the laws relating to Lunatic Asylums had not the merit for the most part of originality, they had at least what was much better, which was the fact of many of them being so manifestly necessary that they had been recommended for adoption by much higher authority than he was. Nearly all would be found in the Report of the Royal Commissioners appointed in 1857 to inquire into the state of the Irish Asylums, which consisted of men of great ability and eminence, amongst them one of the foremost physicians in the empire, Dr. Corrigan. Subsequently the noble Lord the Member for Cockermouth (Lord Naas), then Chief Secretary for Ireland, introduced a Bill, in which also might be found many of his (Mr. Blake's) suggestions on the present occasion. The Royal Commission recommended that the asylums should be under the direction of a central board, to consist of three salaried members, who should also act as Inspectors—two to be of the medical profession, one of the legal. To that recommendation he would add three more Commissioners, who should be salaried, so far as paying them one or two guineas each for every time they attended a meeting of the board: this would not entail a cost of more than a couple of hundred a year, and would be certain to secure a punctual attendance. To this Commissioner he would delegate nearly all the duties now performed by the Privy Council in reference to asylums, and would, in certain cases, give the Lord Lieutenant a veto. As things then stood, nearly all the control devolved on the Inspectors; as the Lord Lieutenant and the Privy Council must necessarily be influenced by their recommendations; and without at all intending to disparage those gentlemen, for whom he entertained the highest respect, he thought it would be far better to have some other gentlemen associated with them in the direction of the asylums, especially as their duties would every day increase
  630
  from the additional asylums in progress of construction. The present board of control would, of course, merge into the new Commission. He thought that, for purposes of inspection, Ireland ought to be divided into two districts, assigning one to each Inspector, who would thus have a greater responsibility than at present, and more inducements to forward the asylum intrusted to him. It would promote a desirable emulation, as each Inspector would naturally endeavour not to have the asylum of his district inferior to those of his colleague. Power should also be given to the Lord Lieutenant to appoint for particular purposes, when occasion called for it, a special Commissioner to hold investigations and report. This would prove most useful at times when there might be a great difference of opinion between a local board and the Inspectors, and when it would be desirable to have the assistance of a person who would be certain to be totally unprejudiced. Two-thirds of the governors of asylums ought to be appointed by the grand jury, and in certain instances by town councils; or, in the event of transferring the maintenance of lunatics to the poor rates—as ought to be done—the appointment to be made by the guardians. One-third of the boards might be left to be nominated by the Lord Lieutenant, which would be always sufficient to secure a fair representation from the gentry. It was manifestly unfair, that whilst the asylums were maintained from grand jury rates, that that body had no voice whatever in appointing those who were to administer them. There were many other objections to vesting such power in the hands of the Government. Dr. Nugent, in his evidence before the Royal Commission, stated that the governors were usually appointed on the recommendation of the Inspectors. Such a practice was most undesirable. It was for the interest of the asylums that the governors should in every respect be wholly independent of either Inspectors or local medical officers. If the Government were usually guided in their selection by the recommendation of the Inspectors, it was not going too far to assume that the latter, in their turn, were often influenced in their selection by the local officers; and it was only natural that the latter would not recommend any one likely to be unfriendly to them, or who would not accord in their views. He believed the independence and efficiency of many local boards

  631
  was much impaired by the mode in which they were appointed. To a board constituted in the way he had suggested, he would give the appointment of all the superior officers, subject to the approval of the central board or the Lord Lieutenant. On this subject the Royal Commissioners justly observed—
  "As regards the appointment of superior officers, resident and medical physician, &c, we consider they should be left to the governors. The evidence we have received is to a great, perhaps preponderating extent, opposed to this power being given to the governors. But, as a general principle, we do not see why the executive Government should interfere in these matters, or that its interference has, or is likely to lead to, a better selection of officers than would be made by the local authorities. It is true, as has been stated, that the appointment of these officers may tend to local contention, and that private feeling may prevail to the prejudice of the institution. We think there is not a little reason to believe that political influence might lead to an equally unfortunate result."
  Out of the 4,506 patients in asylums, only 1,135 were returned as probably curable; and of the 3,371 incurable, there were many in a state of hopeless idiotcy, and, unfortunately, occupied the place of many insane confined in gaols or workhouses, or with their families, who, if placed early under curative treatment, might have a chance of recovery, which was lessened every hour they were out of the asylum. Some arrangement ought to be made by which many of the hopeless tranquil cases, where the mind had sunk into fatuity or idiotcy, belonging to two or more counties, could be sent to special institutions, and thus relieve the asylums of their care, and make room for hopeful cases. Power should be given to magistrates to commit dangerous lunatics direct to asylums, instead of sending them to prison, where they could not be so well cared for, or have the same chance of recovery. Boards should be empowered to receive and enforce payment from patients capable of contributing in the whole or part for their maintenance. There was considerable doubt as to the law on the subject, which ought to be settled. In some places, boards sought and obtained payment from parties capable of paying, whilst elsewhere they considered themselves not entitled to do so. A great burden was, therefore, thrown on the ratepayers—for example, at Limerick there appeared to be seven patients well able to pay who were supported out of the rates. Boards should also be empowered to send strange lunatics to their
  632
  own localities. In the larger towns, particularly seaports, persons after only residing a short time, or perhaps only passing through, were sent to the asylum, and became a charge on a district to which they did not belong. Central boards should have the power of fixing the dietaries of asylums. The quantity and description of food was a most important element in the treatment of insanity, and on no account should be left to the discretion of local boards, who, as a rule, could not be competent to determine what should be given to patients. The dietary table in various institutions varied considerably; and in some instances the Inspectors had remarked on the insufficiency. These gentlemen and the other Commissioners should have the power of absolutely determining on the dietary; and on them should also devolve the duty of laying down regulations for the moral treatment, and ordering to be provided all necessary appliances for the occupation and amusement of the patients. The judicious employment and recreation of a lunatic was the most important part of the curative treatment; and those who, like the Inspectors, were supposed to be best informed as to what was necessary to soothe and restore the diseased mind to its healthy state, should have as ample powers to have everything provided for the purpose as to insist that good and sufficient medicine was furnished for the bodily ailments of the patients. It would be most desirable if the Inspectors would, as he believed they were bound to do by Act of Parliament, furnish to each member of the local boards a copy of the Report relative to his own asylum. The expense would be very small, and the probable advantages considerable, as governors would then be made aware of the state of progress and requirements of their asylum, of which many knew very little. Many governors never even once attended the asylum from their appointment—often extending over a period of twenty years; several others, perhaps, once in two or three years. There ought, therefore, to be an enactment by which governors who, not being either ill or away from the locality, absent themselves from a certain number of stated meetings in succession, should forfeit their position on the board. As some medical I officers of asylums excused themselves from taking their patients outside the asylum for exercise and recreation, on the ground that it would be illegal to do so, the practice ought to be legalized, as, with

  633
  proper precaution, there was little or no danger to be apprehended, and the gratification and advantage to the patients was considerable. No doubt the system pursued in an asylum should be a good one before patients were brought to that tranquil, orderly state when they could be trusted outside; indeed, it was a great test of their progress; and it was, therefore, a great pity that incompetent or inefficient medical officers were afforded an excuse which their convenient interpretation of the law furnished them for not following the example of more zealous and better qualified officers. While on this point of the subject, he would allude to the great necessity in all future appointments of resident medical officers in making a theoretical and practical knowledge of the treatment of insanity an absolute condition; and that no one should be eligible unless he produced a certificate of having, for at least six months, resided in or attended and watched the practice in an hospital for the insane for that period. Besides this, they should undergo an examination before the Inspectors without whose certificate of competency they could not be appointed. As a rule, under every Government political influence went before every other consideration in making the appointments, and the unfortunate lunatics were the sufferers. Means of clinical instruction should be provided in some of the larger asylums. The criminal one would probably be best, as being altogether under Government control. There was nothing the Royal Commissioners more strongly urged than the absolute necessity which existed for clinical instruction; but this recommendation, as well as others equally useful, had been totally disregarded. The chaplaincy question was one which imperatively called for legislation. Fortunately, the only instance where a board had persisted in refusing to appoint a chaplain was that of Belfast; but even that was sufficient to call for the interference of the Legislature. He believed, without exception, every eminent authority concurred in recommending judicious religious ministration as a most important agent in promoting the happiness and recovery of the insane; in fact, an essential link in the chain of curative treatment. Some few boards in Ireland had for a time resisted the appointment of chaplains—sometimes supported in their views by the medical officers—but they gradually gave in, and all had acknow-
  634
  ledged that beneficial results had followed. Belfast alone still stood out. The Commissioners had closely inquired into the question, and reported strongly in favour of chaplains being appointed. The Inspectors, in their annual Reports, did the same. Successsive Lord Lieutenants had made the appointments; but, owing to the state of the law, the board successfully resisted the payment of the salaries. The Catholic and Protestant Bishops, and, he believed, one Presbyterian member of the board, were in favour of chaplains. On yesterday he had a conversation with the Right Rev. Dr. Knox, Protestant Bishop of Down, on the subject, who told him that whilst the Protestant chaplain had been acting, his flock appeared to derive much comfort and benefit, and no unpleasantness of any kind had occurred. His Lordship also stated that he had written to all the asylums in Ireland to ascertain whether the appointment of chaplains had turned out satisfactorily, and the answers were in the affirmative. From the communications the Most Rev. Dr. Denvir had favoured him with on the subject, he found him equally anxious as the Protestant Bishop to be enabled to afford the portion of his congregation in the asylum spiritual ministrations. He trusted, therefore, with all this concurrent testimony on the subject, that the Chief Secretary for Ireland would give an assurance that Government would take steps to afford the poor inmates of the Belfast Asylum the same means of religious consolation that the insane of every institution of the kind in the empire were in possession of, with acknowledged comfort and advantage. There was only one more reference he would make to Lunatic Asylums. In whatever Bill might be introduced to amend the laws relating to them, there ought to be a clause placing their maintenance on the poor rates. It was a strange and unjust anomaly that, while a sane pauper was maintained at the joint expense of landlord and tenant, he would, if he became insane, become chargeable altogether on the tenant. Having occupied so much time on the subject of Lunatic Asylums, he should touch very briefly on the second part of his Motion relative to idiots. For that unfortunate class there was, unhappily, no adequate provision for their care in Ireland. They were, unfortunately, very numerous, being nearly equal to the lunatic class; and whilst for the latter there were sixteen public asylums

  635
  and several others in course of construction, besides many private institutions, there was not a single one for idiots. The pauper ones were placed in workhouses, and the others were at large or with their families, but no effort whatever was made to endeavour to cultivate those faculties of their mind which were not obliterated. Until lately it was thought that this unfortunate class were incapable of cultivation, but experiment had proved the contrary. The hon. Member having read a description of the improved condition of the patients at Earlswood, many of whom had been so far instructed as to be able to go out and earn their living, and an extract from the Report of the Census Commissioners in 1861, proceeded to say that he could not conclude without thanking the House for the very patient hearing they had given him on a subject which he felt conscious was far from being generally interesting; but he trusted his having trespassed at such length would be excused when he assured them that bringing such subjects before Parliament was almost the only way of having evils remedied or reforms accomplished. He hoped he would receive an assurance from the right hon. Baronet that he would introduce measures next Session to remedy the laws relating to Lunatic Asylums, and also to initiate something for the benefit of the more unfortunate class of whom he last spoke. The right hon. Baronet would probably tell him that much that he had suggested regarding lunatics could be accomplished by the Privy Council rules. No doubt that was true, but he respectfully asked why the Privy Council did not do what was necessary? If they did so, there need not be legislation on all the points he had touched on; and an act would only be required for what the Council could not effect. Although he felt he had but feebly pleaded on behalf of those for whom he felt the deepest compassion and interest, he ventured to hope that he had made it manifest to the House that humanity and policy alike called on us to endeavour to mitigate still further the misfortunes of those whom Providence in its wisdom had visited with the most fearful of all afflictions.
  MR. BAGWELLsaid, he doubted the expediency of giving the appointment of officers to the governors of asylums, as owing to the violence of party feeling in Ireland they could not be sure that in every case the best men would be em-
  636
  ployed. He was not fond of central boards, and any change in the direction of striking off governors who did not attend ought to be made very carefully, as the ratepayers of outlying districts were not the less entitled to representation. He believed that the Irish Lunatic Asylums were in general very admirably conducted; but there was one point to which he attached very great importance—namely, the training of the resident physician. He thought these officers should receive a special training, and that they should acquire a practical knowledge of the treatment and cure of the insane by residence and study in some of the great lunatic establishments in England.
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, he willingly bore testimony to the zeal and humane spirit which had actuated his hon. Friend the Member for Walerford in bringing the matter before the House. He could not, however, agree with his hon. Friend that further legislation on this subject was needed. The fact that this subject had not been lost sight of by the Irish Government was proved by the circumstance that since 1821 fifteen separate Acts of Parliament had been passed specially dealing with the treatment of the insane poor of Ireland. He quite concurred with the hon. Member for Clonmel in thinking that the resident physicians should be educated with a more especial eye to the duties they had to perform; but even in the present day, with the aid of the consulting physicians, they were able to deal with the unfortunate persons under their charge in a manner much more satisfactory than was formerly the case. Not having been able to catch as accurately as he could desire the observations which had fallen from the hon. Member for Waterford, the written outline of the points in which he felt interested, furnished by his hon. Friend, would enable him to deal in detail with those various matters. As regarded the appointment of a central board, his idea was that the local authorities, with the supervision of the central Government, ought to have the main direction of the institutions. Dr. Nugent and Dr. Hatchell, the present Inspectors of Lunatic Asylums, performed their duties to the satisfaction of the public, and he was always anxious that the poor inmates should be treated with every consideration. Under the existing rules and regulations the Lord Lieutenant had power to direct a special inquiry, and only recently a case occurred at

  637
  Clonmel which Dr. Hatchell was sent down to investigate.
  MR. BLAKEsaid, what he contemplated was the appointment of a special Inspector, distinct from the regular officials.
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, he did not think the division of Ireland into districts like those rendered compulsory by the Prisons Act would be advisable in the case of Lunatic Asylums. It was important that it should not be known beforehand what Inspector was to hold the inquiry. With regard to appointments, it was proposed in 1859 by the Ministry of that day to vest these in the governors; but the measure was strongly opposed by Liberal Members, and the present arrangement, which gave to each of the political parties in turn a share of the patronage, was, he thought, preferable. There were 16,000 of these poor creatures altogether in district Lunatic Asylums, poor houses, gaols, and private asylums. A great many boards were taking steps for affording recreation and amusement to these poor patients. It was also of great importance that chaplains should be provided for these institutions. That subject had occupied the attention of successive Lord Lieutenants. The Earl of Clarendon, the Earl of Eglinton, the Earl of St. Germans, and the present Lord Lieutenant, agreed that every Lunatic Asylum ought to have a chaplain attached to it. The Belfast Asylum was now the only one without a chaplain. Representations had been made to the board of the asylum that the patients ought to have the advantage of devotional services, but the board had hitherto resisted these appeals. Bearing in mind the great advantages that had resulted in other establishments from the services of clergymen of different denominations, he could not but think it very desirable that the deficiency should be supplied. At Londonderry, after holding out for a long time, the board agreed to make the trial. They had since reported that the effect of the ministrations of the chaplain upon the minds of the poor patients was most remarkable. It was thought that religious controversies might arise; but Roman Catholic, Presbyterian, and Episcopalian ministers attended at different hours, and the proceedings were conducted with perfect harmony. The majority of the cases in these asylums were chronic, and the patients were collected and rational, except in regard to the particular delusion in which their insanity was manifested. In the Report
  638
  presented to the Lord Chancellor by the Commissioners of Lunacy in England, of whom Lord Shaftesbury was chairman, it was stated that the patients looked forward with pleasure to the performance of Divine service, and regarded their exclusion from it as a privation. They added that the prayers of the Church exercised a soothing influence even upon insane hearers. A great deal had been done of late to promote the cure and comfort of this unhappy class of persons. There were at present seventeen Lunatic Asylums in active operation. Six other Lunatic Asylums were now being built; so that the complaints that these patients were placed in gaols would soon be obviated. When these six additional Lunatic Asylums were opened, 235 of the 389 insane persons now confined in gaols would be removed to them, leaving the balance in the Dublin district. He had been in communication with the grand juries, and something would, he hoped, be done to relieve the Richmond Asylum from the pressure that fell upon it from the Dublin district. The imbeciles confined in the union workhouses in Ireland were not less than 2,400, two-thirds of whom were women. They were for the most part in a state of harmless imbecility, and it would be better to leave them there. The Boards of Guardians were giving them an increased dietary, and it was not desirable to establish large asylums for the reception of these hopeless idiots. The cost of a patient in a Lunatic Asylum averaged £20, while the cost of an insane pauper in a union workhouse was only £10. To transfer these harmless imbeciles from the workhouse to the Lunatic Asylum would, therefore, be attended by great expense, without any corresponding good. He trusted that after this explanation the hon. Gentleman would not press the subject any further.
  COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he did not agree with the right hon. Gentleman in the satisfaction which he expressed with reference to the centralized power. They were unanimous in Ireland in their wish to manage their local affairs themselves. In his own county they were most anxious to have the appointment of the governors, or some of the governors, because they wanted to check extravagance; but though he had been many years a Member of Parliament, the Irish Executive had taken care that he should have nothing to do with the management of the Lunatic Asylum in his county. He desired to draw attention to one point,

  639
  which was the difficulty that existed at the present moment in getting a criminal lunatic removed to an asylum. He hoped the Government would take the subject into consideration, in order to remedy the inconvenience.
  COLONEL FRENCHsaid, he agreed with almost all that had fallen from the right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary, and that no unfortunate people were better taken care of than the lunatics of Ireland. He thought, however, that the taxpayers ought to have some control over the appointment of governors and medical officers.
  MR. CORBALLYbore testimony, as governor of an asylum, to the fact that the inmates were well cared for. The only fault he had to find with the management of the institutions was the difficulty of getting people in. When a person was suddenly struck with madness, a week or a fortnight might elapse before he could be got into an asylum. He would suggest that, as medical officers were at hand, a certificate of insanity might be obtained without delay, and the afflicted person removed at once to the institution.

INNS OF COURT.—PAPERS MOVED FOR.
MR. GRANT DUFF: Sir, the Commission to whose Report I wish to call, or rather to recall, the attention of the House, was appointed on the 5th of May, 1854, and reported on the 10th of August, 1855. During that period, and for some time after it, the mind of the country was so wholly engrossed by the Russian war, that it had no time or thought to spare, even for matters so closely touching its daily life as those to which the present Lord Chancellor and other Members of this Commission hardly less distinguished had been devoting so much of their scanty leisure. The Report, which goes to the root of the question, as to what guarantees society has a right to demand for help in legislation, as well as for the intelligent and efficient administration of the law, treats of the discipline of the property and of the educational system pursued in those great and ancient institutions, the Inns of Court. With regard to the first of these subjects, I shall say nothing, because it is already in other hands. With regard to the second, I shall only say what every one will agree to, that it is a most truly lamentable thing that so large an amount of gross revenue as that possessed by the Inns of Court should produce such a very small amount of available
640
net income which can be applied to promote the study of law and jurisprudence; and I am sure many will think that the Commissioners were right in saying that, having regard to the great value of the site of these institutions, a doubt arises whether some mode might not be devised of rendering their property more productive, without departing from the purposes for which these societies were formed. I mean to confine myself to the third subject discussed in the Report—that is, to the part which the Inns of Court ought to take in facilitating and guarding the access to the bar. This subject has been frequently discussed in Parliament during the last twenty years, and I think I may say that the invariable result of its discussion in this building has been some reform in that gloomy but most important quarter of this great city, which stretches from Gray's Inn to the river. In the year 1846 Mr. Wyse moved for a Committee to inquire into the state of legal education in Ireland, and it was made an instruction to that Committee that it should inquire also into the state of legal education in England. The result was a most interesting Report, which was presented in August, 1846. Some time appears then to have been allowed to pass, in order that it might be seen whether the Inns of Court meant to take any steps to remedy the extraordinary and altogether disastrous state of things which had been disclosed by the evidence, and had been severely condemned by the Report; but I find from Hansard that on the 4th of July, 1848, a gentleman whom many of us will remember taking an important part in our discussions, and sitting on the other side of the House—I mean Mr. George Anthony Hamilton—asked whether anything was being done to carry out the suggestions of the Committee, and was informed, in reply, that the Inns of Court were holding conferences with the view of effecting a reform. The subject seems to have slumbered, as far as this House was concerned, till April, 1852, when my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries elicited from the Attorney General of that day the very agreeable information that the Inns of Court had made a very real beginning of improvement by establishing a Council of Legal Education, by creating five readerships, by allowing such students as desired it to present themselves for examination, and encouraging them to do so by the offer of various rewards. No one of any authority doubted that this was a step in the

641
right direction, but many thought that the Inns had not gone nearly far enough, and in the latter part of the Session of 1852 a short discussion took place in another place, in which Lord Campbell, while apologizing for more not being done, very clearly showed it to be his opinion that the then recent changes could only be considered as an instalment, while Lord Brougham and Lord Lyndhurst declared, in the strongest possible way, that the examination at the threshold of the bar should be not voluntary, but compulsory. The name of Lord Lyndhurst leads me to observe that the country owes about as much gratitude for what of good has been done with regard to this question to one party as to the other; and the fact that it was Mr. Napier, so well known in connection with Lord Derby's Irish Administration, who took the next step, and moved for the Commission of 1854, further illustrates that observation. The Commission of 1854 echoed to a great extent the recommendations of the Committee of 1846, and, above all, brought into strong relief the point on which I wish chiefly to fix the attention of the House—that no one should be called to the bar who has not gone through some systematic training in the theory as well as the practice of law, and passed a satisfactory examination. This is a question with regard to which the opinions of very few individual Members are of much value, and what I want to impress upon the House is, not that the dominant party in the Inns of Court has opposed itself to what seemed to me, or to others, to be sound principles, but that they have put themselves in opposition to a perfectly overwhelming weight of legal authority. Of course no one considers that a compulsory examination, taken by itself, is a matter of very extraordinary importance; but it is of extraordinary importance as being the indispensable complement of the whole system of legal education proposed by the Committee and Commission. Without it that system cannot possibly be worked, and must remain all but a dead letter. I have said that I wish to put the question chiefly on the ground of authority. Still I wish to state, in a few words, the arguments which seem to my mind to be decisive. I can understand free trade in law; I can understand the bar being a monopoly; but our present system combines all the disadvantages of free trade and of monopoly. It is a monopoly for the advantage of the barrister, without any better guarantee for the public than would be
642
obtained if any one who pleased might exercise the profession of advocacy. We have, it cannot be sufficiently often repeated, no real guarantee at this moment for the competency of a barrister. Let us see how the system works with regard to the three classes into which the members of the bar may be divided—those, namely, who go to the bar with a view to practice; those who are called chiefly with a view to the various appointments which are by law or custom confined to members of the bar; and those who are merely nominal barristers. With respect to the first of these; classes, it may be said that the fact of their being in practice is of itself a sufficient guarantee. Well, supposing I were to admit that it is a sufficient guarantee for their being up to the requirements of ordinary business, it will not be contended that there exists any guarantee for their having the enlargement of mind which is necessary when they come to the higher walks of the profession—when they come to be Judges or law-makers. Is it not perfectly notorious that men who succeed sufficiently well as practitioners often fail egregiously in these other capacities? Have not Judges often been the worst enemies of law reforms, and do not the pages of the evidence taken before the Committee of 1846 and the Commission of 1854 afford abundant proofs that the truth of what I am now saying is generally acknowledged? With respect to the second class, you have not even the guarantee of practice. Read Lord Brougham's evidence before the Committee of 1846, and you will see how difficult he found it to put his hand upon men who had been fitted by systematic training to undertake the duties of Colonial Judges. Read Mr. Norton's very interesting evidence in the same blue-book, and you will see in how very difficult a position is a Judge who, knowing only a little English law, and having had no scientific training in jurisprudence, is suddenly sent to a colony. I think, Sir, we hardly realize how important a question this is in relation to the management of our colonies. If ever there were lawyers who ought to be grounded in the general principles of jurisprudence, which underlie all laws, it should surely be the lawyers of England. A few remarkable sentences, which I shall ask leave to read to the House, will bring this before it in a way far more vivid than I can do. They were written some time ago, but matters have not much altered since, and English barristers have still to deal either as Colo-

643
nial Judges or as practitioners before the Privy Council with the widely distinct systems to which I am going to allude:—
"At this moment there are few of the systems of legislation, either of ancient or modern times, which are not in force as living law in the British Empire—Menu and Mohammed, beside the civil rights of the Hindoo and the Mussulman, and an appeal from India compels our Privy Councillors to consult the Koran and the Puranas as authorities at Whitehall. In the Norman Isles, the severed portions of the domain of the Conqueror, the barbaric custumal framed by his justiciars still guides the grand bailiff and the seneschal who dispense the equity of Rollo, now forgotten, in the hall of Rouen. Canada cherishes the volumes which have been cast forth from the Palais de Justice, and the legitimate representatives of the proud and learned Presidents of the Parliament of Paris are found in the court-house of a colonial town. Banished from the flowering meadows of the Seine, the ordonnances expounded by St. Louis, under the oak tree at Vincennes, constitute the tenures of land on the Gulf of St. Lawrence. In the opposite hemisphere, we bestow an equal protection upon the Codes of Napoleon. Our Sovereign appoints her alcaldes and her corregidores in the Indies of Columbus, while her landrosts in Southern Africa are guided by the placets of the departed Republic of the Netherlands."
It is enough to have spoken of Colonial Judges. I pass over a host of other appointments, in the nomination to which favour or political interest has much to do. I come, then, to the third class, a very large one, that of nominal barristers. It is a class which has numerous representatives on the magisterial bench, numerous representatives in this House, numerous representatives in general society; and for the interest of this class, and of all connected with it, it is above all desirable that there should be some systematic training, and an effective examination, otherwise their attaining the degree of barrister is a mere useless form, without advantage to themselves, and of serious detriment to all who, on the strength of it, conclude that they have necessarily any tincture whatsoever of legal learning. There are many other arguments: one might point to the absurdity of examining candidates for the line of the army, and not examining candidates for the one profession which gives in this House the title of learned. One might point to the void in the shelves of an English library where works on jurisprudence should be, and where Bentham, Austin, Maine, and the younger Stephen look wistfully around for companions. One might ask how long are we to wait for that great blessing, a codified law, if we do not begin to train lawyers, who will
644
be inclined to work, or able to work a code. All these, however, and many more, with which. I will not weary the House, are set forth in the blue-book which records the labours of this Commission, and by it, as by the Committee of 1846, a compulsory examination is pronounced indispensable. Such, then, being the recommendations of the Select Committee and of the Royal Commission, backed by those of our greatest legal luminaries, what have the Inns of Court done? Have they adopted them? Have they instituted a systematic training, followed by a compulsory examination? Far from it. The history of their action in this matter is as follows:—In 1856, the Council of Legal Education met, and reported unanimously in favour of compulsory examination. They supported their recommendation by a document signed by all the readers, and supporting the same views without the slightest reservation. In May 1859, the Committee of the Four Inns appointed to reconsider the whole subject of Legal Education made their Report, and insisted in the strongest terms on the necessity of a compulsory examination, and proposed that it should embrace precisely the same subjects which were suggested by the Royal Commission. This report is signed by the present Lord Chancellor, and marks the period of greatest advance in the history of this question. But now a change came. Lincoln's Inn took upon itself to oppose the recommendations of the committee appointed by the Four Inns, and passed, by a majority of its members, in November, 1859, resolutions condemnatory of the proposed compulsory examination. Somewhat later they declared open war with the two Templars, and on the 4th of July, 1860, a committee of Lincoln's Inn made a report which contemplated the establishment of a system of education distinct from theirs, the great cause of quarrel being, of course, the compulsory examination. Then followed negotiations, the result of which was that Lincoln's Inn carried its point, and succeeded in persuading the other Inns, against their own better judgment, to be parties to the issuing of the consolidated regulations, by which the students of these societies are now governed, dated Michaelmas, 1863. In them I find many good things and several improvements; but I also find a heavy blow and great discouragement to the cause which I advocate, in the fact that, under these regulations, a student of the Inns of Court is now quali-

645
fied to be called to the bar if he has attended lectures and private classes of two of the readers for a year, or if he has spent a year in chambers, without having passed an examination. We all can imagine, and many of us know from experience, that the mere obligations of attending a year's lectures does not imply the acquisition of any knowledge whatsoever, and that a large number of the students occupy themselves with matters quite alien to those about which the reader desires to interest them. In short, they look upon the obligation to attend lectures, not as a means of acquiring legal knowledge, but as a sort of corvée, which it is their right to evade in every possible way. Again, many of us have passed a year in chambers, and we know that doing so may imply very great assiduity, absolute idleness, or anything between these two extremes. On the other hand, an examination, which is even decently conducted, at least guarantees some modicum of knowledge and power of application in the candidate for admission to the bar. I bring this subject forward in the most friendly spirit to the governing bodies of the Inns of Court, but my respect for them does not prevent my calling upon them to set forth, for the information of the public, those strong reasons of principle and expediency which have induced them to disregard, in a most essential point, the unanimous recommendation of a Select Committee, the unanimous recommendation of a Royal Commission, the unanimous recommendation of the Council of Legal Education, the unanimous recommendation of all the readers of all the Inns of Court, the opinions of Lord Brougham, Lord Lyndhurst, Lord Westbury, backed by those of eminent lawyers too numerous to mention. In May, 1856, and again in May, 1857, the Report of the Commission was alluded to in this House. It has not, I think, been mentioned since. On the latter occasion, the Attorney General of that day more than hinted that, if the Inns of Court would not carry out the views of the Commission, the Government would be obliged to do so. I do not ask the Government to take any action now. I had infinitely rather that reform came from within, but, if it does not, I beg to give notice that I will next year bring forward this Motion in another form.
Amendment proposed,
To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words
646
"an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House, a Copy of any Correspondence that may have passed between the Government and the Inns of Court, with regard to the Report of the Commission on the Inns of Court,"—(Mr. Grant Duff,)
—instead thereof.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
MR. NEATEsaid, that the difficulty of dealing with the Inns of Court was that they claimed to be associations of private individuals, and repudiated all responsibility. They denied that there was any process for compelling them to discharge their duties. In fact, they might be described as squatters upon the legal constitution. They had acquired title by prescription. He had the honour of being a member of one of the Inns of Court, and he had had a good deal of correspondence with them. When a man had once become a member of one of the Inns of Court, it would not allow him to withdraw without requiring him to enter into an obligation which it had no right to impose. Now, if a man wished to renounce his privileges in an University he had only to write to the bursar of his college to take his name off; but a man was not allowed to retire from an Inn of Court without entering into a covenant that he would not practise anywhere as a barrister.
THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he understood the hon. Member who had brought forward the question not to make any attack upon the Inns of Court, but only to complain that they had not carried out the recommendation of the Royal Commission, that a candidate for the bar should pass a preliminary examination before being admitted. He would remind him that with respect to that question a good deal could be said on both sides. He confessed that his own inclination was in favour of compulsory examination; but there were reasons which influenced the benchers in arriving at a different conclusion, and which were still to a great extent under consideration. It should be borne in mind that all who were called to the bar were not necessarily practitioners, or persons who intended to practise. Many only intended to qualify themselves for performing their duties as magistrates, or as chairmen of Quarter Sessions. He might instance many Members of that House, among whom were some of its

647
greatest ornaments, who were called to the bar but never intended to practise. It had been considered by the Inns of Court that if they imposed a strict examination, such as the hon. Member required, it might have the effect of deterring such persons from becoming candidates for admission to the bar, and would therefore be prejudicial not only to the bar but to the public. As the hon. Member said, that if the Government did not take up the question he would bring it forward again, probably the most convenient time for discussing it would be on that future occasion. He (the Solicitor General) could only say further, that it did not appear to him that the Government were called upon at present to take any steps in the matter. He believed that the Inns of Court thoroughly represented and had the full confidence of the profession. If the Inns of Court did not fairly represent the bar, nor conduct themselves to the satisfaction of the great body of the profession, they would have heard complaints from the profession, but he was not aware of any such complaints having been made. With regard to the complaint of the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Neate), he believed that it was unfounded. He understood the case to be this—if a barrister wished to take his name off the books of his Inn, it was necessary that he should undertake that he would not practise at all as a barrister, and for that purpose they took from him some security. The Government would be willing to produce any papers in their possession on the subject if the hon. Member would indicate them; but he hoped he would be satisfied with his explanation and not press his Motion.
Amendment negatived.

ROYAL FORESTS IN ESSEX.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. COXrose to call the attention of Her Majesty's Government to the terms of a Resolution of the Select Committee on Royal Forests in Essex which sat in the Session of 1863. It might be in the recollection of the House that in February, 1863, it was agreed to present an Address to Her Majesty praying that Crown forestal right existing within fifteen miles of the metropolis should not be disposed of, nor encroachments thereon be permitted. The encroachments which had been going on were, however, continued; the public paid no attention to the rights of the Crown,
  648
  and the Government paid no attention to the Vote of the House. A Committee was afterwards appointed to inquire into the subject, and by it a most elaborate Report was presented to the House. The Members of the Committee, of whom he was one, were nearly equally divided in opinion. The minority, in which also he was included, thought it better to leave the whole thing as it was; the majority, on the other hand, were in favour of enclosing certain parts of the land which had not before been used by the public, and of retaining portions which it was proved they had been in the habit of enjoying. He now admitted that he had changed his view; and, together with another hon. Member of the Committee who was one of the minority, had come to the conclusion that the majority was right. It might be objected that no inclosure at all should be made; but though that was his former opinion he did not now go to that extent. He thought, however, that unless something were done soon to preserve a portion of the forest in question to the public there would be no forest left, and not only would the Crown lose its right but the public be deprived of the privilege they had long enjoyed. One of the Resolutions of the Committee to which he had referred was to the effect, that a considerable part of the forest having been enclosed without consideration of Crown rights, the Crown be recommended to take immediate steps to ascertain its rights and to abate such inclosures. As yet, however, as was admitted recently by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury, no steps had been taken by the Government to carry the Resolution of the Committee into effect, or to prevent any further enclosures taking place. The Committee further recommended that the sanction of Parliament should be obtained
  "For the inclosure of the remaining portion of the forest, to ascertain the rights of the several parties interested, and to make provision for securing an adequate portion of the forest for the purposes of health and recreation, for which, it has been proved to your Committee, this forest has from time immemorial been enjoyed by the inhabitants of the neighbourhood and the metropolis."
  It would be said, perhaps, by the Government, where was the money to come from with which to carry the recommendation into effect? He would tell the Government in reply that the Crown held 2,000 acres, which had been taken out of the forest, and which were worth £100 an acre, and to those the public had some claim.

  649
  This would be seen from the fact that Fairlop Oak was situated, and Fairlop Fair was accustomed to be held, on the very spot in possession of the Government, and from which land the Government were deriving a revenue of £4,000 or £5,000 a year. The public by usage had a right to the portion of the forest referred to, and as this portion was worth at least £200,000, the Government could not say they had not the funds with which to carry out the recommendations of the Committee. Further, after paying the expenses of draining and fencing, this land yielded a profit of £15,000 on the sale of the timber. He therefore called on the Government to stop the encroachments that were being made on the forest, and to carry into effect the recommendations of the Committee. In conclusion, he begged to move—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, Her Majesty's Government should at once take the necessary steps to carry into effect the Recommendation of the Select Committee on Royal Forests (Essex) in Session, 1863, and which Recommendation was as follows: 'To obtain the sanction of Parliament for the inclosure of the remaining portion of the forest; to ascertain the rights of the several parties interested; and to make provision for securing an adequate portion of the forest for those purposes of health and recreation for which, it has been proved to your Committee, this forest has from time immemorial been enjoyed by the inhabitants of the neighbourhood and the metropolis.'"
  MR. SPEAKER: The House having already resolved "that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," it is not competent for the hon. Member to move any further Amendment to the Motion that I do leave the Chair.
  MR. PEELsaid, that the hon. Member, in complaining of the Government for not carrying out the Recommendations of the Committee, had not made allowance for the difficulties in which they were placed; but if the course they had adopted had not been satisfactory to the hon. Member, it had satisfied the House. In February last year the House voted an Address to the Crown, praying it to give directions that no sale to facilitate inclosures should be made of Crown lands or forestal rights within fifteen miles of the metropolis. The recommendation of the Select Committee, however, was that the lands should be inclosed, and that the rights of the Crown in Eppitig Forest, which were merely those of keeping and hunting deer over open spaces, but which prevented inclosure as long as it remained, should be sold. In this conflict between
  650
  the Report of the Committee and the Resolution of the House, the Government had felt it their duty to follow the latter as long as it continued unrescinded. The Address to the Crown had been agreed to, he must remark, rather in opposition to the opinion of the Government, who thought that it was scarcely fitting that the forestal right of the Crown over Epping Forest, the soil of which was private property, should be used as an instrument for converting that private property into public property; and they were advised by the Law Officers that it would be very difficult to institute successful legal proceedings for the purpose of abating bit by bit encroachments over a considerable space. Moreover, they had also doubted whether it would not be subversive of the principle of the Acts relating to the land revenues of the Crown, that a large expenditure should be incurred in asserting rights which, when vindicated, would be productive of no income to the Crown. The Committee of last Session in their Report recognized the force of the objections made by the Government, and expressed an opinion that to employ the forestal rights of the Crown to obstruct the process of inclosure would not only be a course doubtful in point of justice, but one which, judging from the experience of the past, was likely to fail in securing the desired object. He was inclined to think it would be advisable that some Resolution, such as that which the hon. Member had wished to move, should be adopted by the House; but he took exception to the words stating that Her Majesty's Government ought at once to take the necessary steps for carrying out the recommendation of the Committee of last year. It would not be in the power of the Government to do that. The question was not one merely as to disposing of the forestal rights of the Crown. If that were all, they could, no doubt, either sell those rights to the owners of the soil or obtain in exchange for them some equitable equivalent for the benefit of the public. But the Committee recommended that open spaces in the forest should be inclosed, subject to the reservation and acquisition of an adequate portion for the health and recreation of the inhabitants of the metropolis. As the law now stood, it rested with the owners and others interested in these open spaces to originate the proceedings for inclosure, and the Government had no compulsory power to require any open space to be inclosed.

  651
  It was a difficult question, too, from what source the means of purchase should be derived. The hon. Member had endeavoured to dispose of that difficult question by saying that the Government could, without coming to that House, appropriate 2,000 acres to the purpose of a public park in Epping Forest. The £200,000 which the hon. Member said was the value of the Crown property in Epping Forest, was however as much portion of the landed revenue of the Crown as any other, and the Crown had no power to divert that amount to the purposes contemplated. It was very undesirable that the House should commit itself indirectly or by implication to the making of any grant for the acquisition of that portion of the forest which it was desired to procure. The question was actually under discussion between the Treasury and the Metropolitan Board at the present moment, and a letter had been written to that Board from which, as it had been already moved for, he might be permitted to read the following extract:—
  "Their Lordships are even more unable to act upon the second alternative proposed by the Committee" (that now recommended by the hon. Member). "Parliament, by the Act 14 & 16 Vict. c. 42, which separated the Departments of Woods and Forests and Land Revenues and of the Commissioners of Public Works, assigned certain Royal Parks in the neighbourhood of London to the management of the latter department, in order that they might be maintained principally for the recreation of the inhabitants of the metropolis, and left all other portions of the landed property of the Crown under the management of the Commissioners of Woods, in order that during Her Majesty's reign the revenues should be administered for the benefit of the Exchequer. By this Act Parliament decided the extent to which the recreation of the inhabitants should be provided for from public funds, and, it may be added, that it has very liberally provided by annual Votes for the maintenance and embellishment of the metropolitan parks and gardens. Not only, however, does the Act of 1851 define the extent to which public aid should be afforded for this, but the enactment above quoted clearly throws upon the Metropolitan Board the duty of providing any additions to the public parks which circumstances may require. My Lords, therefore, before they decide upon any further proceedings on this subject, wish to ascertain whether the Metropolitan Board is disposed to take any measures for obtaining Parliamentary powers for the inclosure of Epping Forest as a place of recreation under the authority of the enactment in question (18 & 19 Vict. c. 120, s. 144, and 19 & 20 Vict. c. 112, s. 10). If they should be disposed to do so, my Lords will be prepared to consider any arrangements for the cession of the rights of the Crown which may be necessary for effecting the objects in view. Two courses presented themselves to the Committee as applicable to the remaining portion of Waltham Forest—one is to
  652
  discontinue the sale of the forestal rights of the Crown, vigilantly to maintain these rights without regard to the question of cost, for the purpose of preventing all future inclosures, and to preserve the forest in its present extent and wild uninclosed condition. Tour Committee are of opinion that to employ the forestal rights of the Crown for the purpose of obstructing that process of inclosure to which the Lords (Commons?) and copyholders of the manors comprised within the forest are entitled, in common with all other persons similarly situated, would not only be a course of doubtful justice, but might in accordance with the experience of the past fail in securing the desired object."
  A reply had been received from the Metropolitan Board, asking for further information before deciding upon the proposition made to them; and therefore he was not in a position to state what course the Government might decide upon taking, with a view to carry out the suggestion of the Committee as to setting aside an adequate portion of Epping Forest. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would be satisfied with this explanation.
  MR. PEACOCKEpreferred wild forests to tame parks, and would rather see Epping Forest kept in its present wild state by asserting the forestal rights of the Crown than that portions of it should be inclosed in the manner proposed. It was far more enjoyable for residents in the neighbourhood, and for visitors from London in its existing condition; while, as a question of economy, the 7,000 acres still uninclosed could be purchased for £30,000, and at least £70,000 or £80,000 would be required to lay down 100 or 150 acres, in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman said it would be an expensive process to act upon the Crown forestal rights and to abate inclosures; but this he looked on as a frivolous excuse. Did the right hon. Gentleman imagine that no corresponding expense would be entailed upon the encroachers, or that any person would like to engage in a lawsuit with the Crown? Moreover, if the Crown were successful in one suit there need be no apprehension that other suits would follow. The inclosures going on at the present moment, he believed, were taking place upon grounds over which the Crown had parted with its forestal rights. In such cases the power of the House no longer existed; but the hon. Gentleman who had brought forward this subject was bound, he thought, to give some evidence in support of his views, and likewise to account for his own change of opinion.

  653
  The present position of the question was most unsatisfactory, and he hoped the hon. Member for Lambeth, who carried a Motion with regard to it a few evenings ago, would at the commencement of next Session move for a Committee to inquire into the whole subject of open spaces, with which might be advantageously coupled a further inquiry into the general working of the Inclosure Act.
  SIR JOHN TROLLOPEsaid, the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down was virtually the author of the Select Committee—[Mr. PEACOCKE: No]—having carried a Resolution preventing the sale of forestal rights over Epping Forest. He (Sir John Trollope) had been appointed a member of that Committee, and he was bound to say that the interest of the Crown, and the consequent protection which it was calculated to afford, seemed in this case to be almost infinitesimal, extending as it did only to the right of keeping deer in the forest and consequently to herbage for them. The real question was as to the persons in whom the right to the soil was vested. The real right to the soil was vested in these, and if they could agree to go to the Inclosure Commissioners, under the General Act, they could at once obtain an inclosure, and the rights of the Crown would be preserved by a small allotment but it was the lords of the soil, the commoners, and the copyholders who were the proper persons to stir in the matter. They had nothing whatever to do with the public. The public might squat upon it, or live the life of gipsies upon it, but they had no right to interfere with its ultimate appropriation. The Committee recommended larger allotments for purposes of public recreation and enjoyment than the Inclosure Commissioners had the power to award. They recommended that from 150 to 200 acres, not lying altogether, but separated by intervals of space, should be allotted to the public in this manner. There was a great difficulty in dealing with Epping Forest in that respect. If, for example, a larger allotment was set out than usual, it must be vested in some body which would improve it and keep it in proper condition. This was what ought to have been done in Chigwell. There fifty acres were appropriated to the public that were neither drained, levelled, nor inclosed; no monies were provided for those purposes; they were useless for recreation, and, unless they were placed under the care of the Board of Works
  654
  or the Metropolitan Board, it would be impossible to make this land useful for the public at large. As he took a somewhat utilitarian view of this subject, he could not agree with his hon. Friend (Mr. Peacocke) as to the value of the land in its present wild and unimproved condition. It was covered with brushwood, with tangled briars and thorns, and nineteen-twentieths of it was useless except to feed a few scrubby cattle and miserable ponies. It was a disgrace to our civilization that within fifteen miles of the metropolis 7,000 acres of land should be allowed to remain in such a state when it might so easily be turned to some useful account. Let any one visit the forest in unfavourable weather and the result would be that he would leave his upper garments on the bushes and his shoes in the mud. The Committee took the practical view of this subject, and the hon. Member for Maldon the poetical and sentimental. He (Sir John Trollope) introduced a clause in the Report, which was, however, negatived, giving to the Government Department the credit he thought it deserved for the improvements it had made in Hainault Forest, which now produced £4,000 a year, whereas formerly the same land scarcely produced barely £500. If a similar improvement were made in Epping Forest it would be conducive to the public interest as well as to private advantage.
  MR. DOULTONsaid that, having regard to the Resolution come to the other evening respecting open spaces, the proper plan would be to appoint a Committee to inquire into the subject, and the present matter would then properly form part of the inquiry, and he should move early next Session for such a Committee. His object was to preserve the forest in its wild and uncultivated condition, because that formed its greatest attraction in the eyes of those for whom it was desirable the forest should be preserved. If the Motion of the hon. Member for Finsbury had gone to a division, he should certainly have voted against it, not only because it was antagonistic to the vote of the other evening, but on account of the expense of laying out this park, and also the annual cost of the maintenance of a park of 7,000 acres. The proper course was to refer the matter to a Select Committee, to investigate not only the open spaces and commons in the neighbourhood of the metropolis, but also the state of Epping and other forests. The

  655
  rights of the Crown in regard to Epping Forest were very small, it was true; but if the Crown would only retain the rights it possessed, that would be the best guarantee that the forest would be preserved in its present state for the inhabitants of the metropolis. He would remind the hon. Member that no one was more energetic than he in opposition to the expenditure on Kennington Park, which was infinitely small in comparison with that which the hon. Member now proposed to lay out in connection with Epping Forest.

DENMARK AND GERMANY.

  EARL RUSSELL & THE CONFERENCE.
  LORD BURGHLEYsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he can explain the statement which appeared in The Times of Tuesday, the 28th of June, to the effect that the President of the Council of the Lower House of the Rigsraad, in answer to a question upon the Conference, made the following reply?—
  "The Danish Plenipotentiaries were instructed to accept the line of demarcation of the Schlei, and to agree to a fortnight's prolongation of the armistice should England firmly adhere to that line. Earl Russell promised that neither would he make a proposal himself, nor support the proposal of any other Plenipotentiary which would be less favourable to Denmark, unless Denmark herself should consent to such new proposals. Earl Russell nevertheless proposed, in the sitting of the Conference on the 18th, that the question should be submitted to arbitration, although Denmark did not consent to this proposal."
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, there is no inconsistency in the assurance of my noble Friend and the course which he took. The statement is not absolutely correct. It is very easy to substitute one word for another, and so to alter the meaning. My noble Friend did not say he would make no proposal. What he stated was, that if the Danes would agree to the line of the Schlei, he would not himself propose any other line, or support any other line if it was proposed by any other Power; and to that engagement he adhered. But when, at last, it was found that the Danes would not consent to any line north of the Schlei, and that the Germans would not consent to any line south of Apenrade, it then became necessary either to give up the whole thing in despair, or to make the proposal which, in concert with the other neutral Powers, my noble Friend made—not for another line, but that an arbiter should be appointed to whom should be referred the
  656
  question pending between the parties. That arbiter might have determined on the line of the Schlei, or the line of the Apenrade, or he might have determined on some other line. But, unless my noble Friend had been prepared to abdicate his functions, it was impossible for him to say that he would make no other proposal with a view to a peaceful settlement of the matters in dispute. I may take advantage of this Question to explain another misunderstanding which has arisen. My noble Friend stated in another place the other day that henceforward no trust could be reposed in the German Powers. That statement, I know, has hurt the feelings of the persons concerned, and has been interpreted in a way not intended by my noble Friend. He by no means intended to say that any assertion and any declaration of the German Powers was not trustworthy, inasmuch as it was not given truthfully or with a sincere intention; but what he meant—as, indeed, the context of his statement clearly shows—was that the German Powers have upon more than one occasion been driven from their original intention by a pressure which they were unable to resist, and that, therefore, you could not be sure that any intention, however sincerely and truthfully stated at the time, was one that the German Powers would be able to maintain against the pressure which might be brought to bear against them. That was my noble Friend's meaning: and he, like myself, is very sorry that the words spoken should have been interpreted in a different sense, and should have given pain to parties for whom my noble Friend and the Government are naturally disposed to show the greatest possible consideration and respect.
  MR.NEWDEGATE: Did I understand the noble Lord to say that the line of the Schlei and Dannewerke was the line proposed by Earl Russell and supported by the neutral Powers?
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Yes; that appears on the Protocols.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.

SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
SUPPLY considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
(1.) £3,750, Ecclesiastical Commissioners.
MR. HADFIELDsaid, the Ecclesiastical Commission ought to be able to pay

657
all expenses out of their own funds, and the Vote was objectionable.
MR. PEELsaid, when that portion of the business of the Commissioners which arose under the Church Building Acts was transferred to their management by the 19 & 20 Vict. c. 55, Parliament decided to provide the means for paying the expenses which should be incurred under the Act, and the Commissioners had no power to pay such expenses except out of money voted by Parliament.
MR. W. WILLIAMSalso objected to the Vote, and said he should support his hon. Friend if he went to a division.
THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, the opposition to the Vote showed how inconvenient it was that the Church Building Acts had not been consolidated. If that had been done, the charge in question might have been removed.
MR. HADFIELDsaid, the objection to the consolidation was that the new parish churches should be thrown upon a church rate.
Vote agreed to.
(2.) £11,224, to complete the sum for Temporary Commissions.
In reply to Colonel FRENCH,
MR. PEELstated, that the item for English and Irish Law Courts was to pay the expense incidental to the Commission appointed to consider the expediency of assimilating the practice and procedure of the Irish Law Courts to those of the English Law Courts.
Vote agreed to.
(3.) £22,689, to complete the sum for Patent Law Expenses.
(4.) £11,152, to complete the sum for Fishery Board, Scotland.
(5.) £2,000, Trustees of Manufactures, Scotland.
(6.) £37,948, to complete the Bum for Dues under Treaties of Reciprocity.
(7.) £2,220, to complete the sum for Inspectors of Corn Returns.
(8.) £500, Boundary Survey, Ireland.
(9.) £680, Malta and Alexandria Telegraph, &c.
MR. PEEL,in reply to Mr. Torrens, said, that the working of the Malta and Alexandria line had been twice interrupted, once in last year and again in the present year; but the cable had been repaired, and the line was now in good working
658
order, and was realizing large receipts at the present time.
Vote agreed to.
(10.) £12,457, to complete the sum for Civil Contingencies.
COLONEL FRENCHsaid, that the item of £982 constituted a large expenditure for the repairs and inclosure of the British burial ground at Varna. With regard to the sum of £315 10 s. 6d. for Mr. J. Morrin, of the Rolls Office, Dublin, for extra duties and expenses in connection with editing and publishing the first two volumes of the Calendar of Patent and Close Rolls in Ireland, there were certain people, himself among the number, who disputed the capability of Mr. Morrin for the work. A great many errors had been detected in the work in question.
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, that £552 was to be paid for fees connected with the installation of Prince Alfred as a Knight of the Garter. That was not, in his opinion, a charge which ought to fall on the public purse.
MR. PEELsaid, the condition of the cemetery at Varna was such that it had become necessary to go to some expense for an inclosure. As to the case of Mr. Morrin, he was aware that charges of inaccuracy had been brought against his work; but it was not a question on which the Treasury could form an opinion of their own. It had been arranged that the Master of the Rolls in England should appoint two competent persons to inquire into the matter.
SIR JERVOISE JERVOISEasked for information as to when and where the outlay for the inspection of sheep, with a view to the prevention of disease, had been incurred, and whether the persons employed were duly qualified.
MR. H. A. BRUCEsaid, that two years ago the prevalence of small pox in sheep excited great alarm in certain districts of England, and the Government appointed two most experienced and competent gentlemen, Professor Simonds and Dr. Marsden, to inquire into the matter.
COLONEL FRENCH,in reference to the charge for an inspection of the drainage works on the banks of the Shannon, said, he wished to ask a question on the subject. The Shannon Commissioners had spent a sum of £300,000 in deepening the Shannon. On the ground that the works executed by that Commission were to effect

659
great improvements in the Shannon districts, the land in the vicinity had been taxed for the entire cost. The work was entirely a Government one; but its effect had been to increase the inundations, and so do positive injury to the properties of those who were made to pay for it. He wished to know what was the intention of the Government with reference to the matter, now that they were in possession of the Report of Mr. Bateman, the engineer who had recently been appointed to inspect the works.
MR. PEELsaid, that a number of gentlemen in the West of Ireland having represented to the Government that the inundations had been increased by the works executed by the Shannon Commissioners, the Treasury, though they did not concur in that view, agreed to appoint Mr. Bateman, the eminent engineer, to inspect and report upon the works. Mr. Bate-man's expenses were to be paid by the Government; but there was a distinct understanding with the gentlemen at whose request the inspection had been made, that any works which Mr. Bateman might recommend should be undertaken by the landed proprietors at their own cost. The Report of Mr. Bateman, which was an able one, bore out the view which all along had been taken by the Treasury, and showed that the works executed by the Shannon Commissioners, so far from having aggravated had mitigated the evils complained of. Mr. Bateman had recommended additional works, which would cost £250,000; but he had not heard what steps the local gentry had taken to have those works executed.
COLONEL FRENCHsaid, the agreement between the proprietors and the Treasury was that the former should pay for any improvements which Mr. Bateman might recommend, and which had not been included in the works which the Shannon Commissioners had been appointed to carry out; but it had never been intended by the proprietors that they should pay over again for what the Shannon Commissioners were bound by their contract to perform.
Vote agreed to.
House resumed.
Resolutions to be reported on Monday next; Committee to sit again on Monday next.

THAMES EMBANKMENT AND METROPOLIS IMPROVEMENT (LOANS).

  COMMITTEE.
  Resolutions considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER moved the following Resolutions:—
  "That it is expedient to authorize the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury to guarantee the repayment of any money that may be borrowed under the Thames Embankment and Metropolis Improvement Acts, together with the interest thereon; and to cause advances to be made out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland of such sums as may be necessary for the repayment of such principal and interest, in aid of any other moneys applicable for that purpose under the said Act.
  "That the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt be authorized to advance the money which, by the Thames Embankment and Metropolis Improvement Acts, the Metropolitan Board of Works is authorized to raise."—(The Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  The Resolutions were strictly limited to the objects expressed—they were purely financial, and he was not about to ask the Committee to sanction any new expenditure or undertake any new works. The Legislature had by Act of Parliament provided for the outlay of certain sums upon the embankment of the Thames, and the question now was how the money was to be raised. The Metropolitan Board of Works had power to raise money, and found that they could raise it at the rate of 4½ per cent; but when they raised a greater sum a short time ago for executing the main drainage works they obtained the guarantee of the Government, and by means of it were able to borrow from the Bank of England at the rate of £3 15 s. per cent. They were of opinion that they had a claim upon the Government for similar assistance in regard to the embankment of the Thames and the improvement of the metropolis in connection with it. What they said was that of late years the metropolis had been called upon to undertake very heavy burdens, although until recently it had not possessed any local resources beyond the coal and wine dues, and that it contained a great mass of Government property which made no contribution to its improvement. He might add, on his own part, that the whole charge of metropolitan improvements, though those improvements were of the most permanent character, was laid upon the temporary and fugitive occupiers of the metropolis. The consumers in the

  661
  Metropolis paid in the shape of coal and wine dues, and the ratepayers sustained a very heavy charge, but those who had the greatest and most permanent interest in the improvement of the metropolis—namely, the ground landowners, did not pay a single farthing. He mentioned that, not for the purpose of proposing any change, but to illustrate the position in which the Metropolitan Board of Works found themselves placed. On receiving the application of the Board for a Government guarantee, he took means to satisfy himself of the sufficiency of their resources; but the question arose whether they should be limited to the Bank of England, or whether they might not be permitted to ask advances from the National Debt Commissioners. As a general rule the Commissioners invested in whatever was guaranteed by Parliament, and, being satisfied that the present was a case in which the guarantee of Parliament should be given, he thought it would be proper to take power to make advances to the Metropolitan Board from the funds at the command of the Commissioners. Such would be the object of the Bill which he was about to introduce, and he had only to add that plenty of time would be given for the consideration of the measure before the second reading. In addition to the security of the coal and wine dues, there would be the collateral security of the rates of the metropolis; and there was no doubt that between the Bank of England and the National Debt Commissioners the Metropolitan Board of Works would get all the money they required for this undertaking, or about £2,500,000.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUasked, Whether there was any provision made for the contingency of the Thames Embankment costing far more than was contemplated by the Metropolitan Board of Works. In that event, how would they raise the additional sum required?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERapprehended that they must come to Parliament.
  In reply to a question from Mr. WILMAMS,
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that 4½ per cent was the rate of interest at which the Metropolitan Board of Works would be able to borrow without the guarantee of the Government. With that guarantee they could borrow from the Bank of England at 3¾ per cent.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he
  662
  could not of course give a decided opinion on the scheme without seeing the Bill; but he thought the Metropolitan Board had a fair claim to the assistance that could properly be afforded to them by the Government. It was now proposed that the Government should afford them an amount of indirect financial assistance. Since the establishment of that Board it had conducted the business intrusted to it in a manner that justified the confidence which the inhabitants of the metropolis were now prepared to repose in it, and he thought the plan proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer beneficial.
  MR. T. J. MILLERsaid, the great value of that measure was, that it would save the metropolis the difference between 4½ and 3¾ per cent interest on the money raised for this work. It was a matter of comparative indifference to the Metropolitan Board of Works, whether the money was raised at 4½ or 3¾ per cent; but the great object which that Board had in view was to effect the greatest amount of improvement in the metropolis at the smallest expense to the inhabitants generally. There could be no doubt as to the security for the repayment of the loan.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUsaid, he could not admit that it was a matter of indifference to the Metropolitan Board of Works whether they raised this money at 4½or 3¾ per cent, and that it would only affect the ratepayers. The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Tite) the other day stated before the Committee on Subways that the rates of the Metropolitan Board of Works had reached their utmost legal limit, and consequently the Board could lay no heavier rates on the metropolis. It had also reached its utmost legal limit in borrowing. But by the present measure it would obtain a larger sum than it otherwise could do for carrying on certain works. The boon granted by the Bill would be a boon entirely to the Metropolitan Board of Works, and not one to the metropolis at all; and unless the House were satisfied that the money would be wisely expended, and that those persons would obtain the contracts who sent in the lowest tenders, he did not think that additional powers ought to be given to that Board.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the House need not then concern itself with the question, whether the tenders were properly taken or the estimates sound? Their security was based first on the wine and coal dues, and, se-

  663
  condly, not merely on the present rating powers of the Metropolitan Board of Works, but also on the new rating powers which the Bill about to be introduced would give to the Board.
  MR. KINNAIRDasked, whether the right hon. Gentleman would not take some step for carrying out his own most fair suggestion—that the taxation for these improvements should be shared by those who would permanently benefit by them?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERthought the time had not come when a proposal of that kind should be made.
  MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONSmaintained that, as this measure would enlarge the borrowing powers of the Metropolitan Board of Works, the Government ought to take care that the money was likely to be wisely and economically applied.
  Resolutions agreed to.
  (1.) Resolved,
  That it is expedient to authorise the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury to guarantee the repayment of any money that may be borrowed under the Thames Embankment and Metropolis Improvement Acts, together with the interest thereon; and to cause advances to be made out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, of such sums as may be necessary for the repayment of such principal and interest, in aid of any other moneys applicable for that purpose under the said Act.
  (2.) Resolved,
  That the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt be authorized to advance the money which by the Thames Embankment and Metropolis Improvement Acts the Metropolitan Board of Works is authorized to raise.
  House resumed.
  Resolutions to be reported on Monday next.

INDEMNITY BILL— [BILL, 97.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. HADFIELDsaid, he had an Amendment to propose. The Bill itself, which, contrary to usual practice, had been circulated among Members, was a perfect curiosity. It recited no less than twelve Acts of Parliament, most, if not all of which, he believed, had been repealed by subsequent Acts of Parliament. Among them was the 25th of Charles II.,
  664
  which required an oath against Transubstantiation. Another required a declaration that the signer would upon no pretence take up arms against the King; and yet in 1688 all classes took up arms to get rid of a tyrant. There was a declaration against the oath called the Solemn League, and an Act of the 30th of Charles II. disabled Papists from sitting in either House of Parliament. Another Act extorted an oath not to injure the Church. He would, therefore, beg to move the Amendment of which he had given notice.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "considering the long period during which yearly Indemnity Bills have passed, on account of the non-compliance with the requirements of Acts of Parliament made and passed in times of political excitement and trouble (some of them two hundred years ago), imposing oaths and declarations as stated in the Indemnity Bill, a Select Committee be appointed to consider and report first of all whether a complete and effectual Indemnity can be given by Parliament for all omissions to the present time; and, in the next place, whether the time has not arrived to repeal so many of the said requirements as are useless and no longer required for the present times,"—(Mr. Hadfield)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. PEELsaid, that whatever objections might be offered to the oaths and declarations to which the hon. Member referred, there was nothing antiquated in the present declarations. As far as he knew, there was no declaration at present in force of an earlier date than 1828, when the old declaration against Transubstantiation was repealed, and another form of declaration enacted instead. In the same manner the old oaths of allegiance, supremacy, and abjuration were repealed in 1858, and a short oath appointed in lieu of them. The mistake which the hon. Member made was in supposing that because those oaths and declarations were repealed, therefore the original Acts imposing them were also repealed. That was not so; the Acts remained in force, and they had to be read as if they contained the new form of declaration or oath. He very much agreed with the hon. Member in his desire to see the repeal of the Acts themselves; he did not believe that any of the security which the Church or State had enjoyed during

  665
  the last 100 years was derived from their existence on the statute-book. He, however, could not understand why the hon. Member proposed an Amendment to this Bill, because it took the same direction as the hon. Gentleman desired to go, the only difference being that it did yearly what the hon. Member desired to see done once and for all. If the Committee were appointed, it would be impossible to pass the Indemnity Bill this Session, and great inconvenience would result from the old Acts being revived. He suggested that if the hon. Member thought it better to proceed by way of Committee than by a Bill, as he had hitherto done, he should move, next Session, for the appointment of a Select Committee, a course to which the House would probably assent; but the effect of referring this Bill to a Select Committee would be altogether to prevent it passing this Session. He hoped, therefore, that the hon. Member would withdraw his Amendment.
  MR. HADFIELDsaid, he must press his Amendment.
  MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURTsaid, he hoped the hon. Member would withdraw his Amendment, for unless he did so the Indemnity Bill might run the risk of not passing this year. Surely the hon. Member did not intend that the persons who had not taken the oaths should be liable to the pains and penalties to which they would be subjected unless the Bill passed into law. If the hon. Member would next Session bring forward the grievances which he believed persons laboured under from the experience of the present law, and point out how changes could be made, he might then properly ask for a Select Committee; but it would not be proper to stop the progress of the Bill in order that the hon. Member might obtain a Select Committee in this manner. This would be to prevent a present remedy to evils about which they were all agreed. At this period of the Session it would be better to allow the Bill to pass as usual, and if the hon. Member moved for a Select Committee next Session he would meet with support on that side of the House.
  MR. HADPIELDsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read 2o, and committed for Monday next.

TESTS ABOLITION (OXFORD) BILL.

  [BILL 18.] THIRD READING.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  SIR WILLIAM HEATHCOTE: Sir, in moving that this Bill be read a third time upon this day three months, I do not intend to enter at any length into a discussion of the merits of the Bill, or of its object or probable results. All of these subjects have already been discussed at considerable length, and hon. Gentlemen have expressed their opinions upon them. What I desire to do is to call attention to the position of the Bill, to the course of proceeding with regard to it, and to the results growing out of these proceedings. For the purpose of my argument I am willing to suppose that every Gentleman in this House will adhere to the opinions he has previously expressed on the Bill. What I wish to point out is, that if the different parties in this House do adhere to the opinions previously expressed, the decision ought to be different from that of former divisions, and the Bill ought to be rejected.
  Throughout its progress there have been three distinct opinions as to the proper mode of dealing with it. The hon. Member who introduced it (Mr. Dodson) and those who agreed with him, were desirous that the Bill should pass as introduced, and were unwilling to accept any Amendment. On the other hand there were those on this side the House who thought that the difficulties of legislating on the subject were out of all proportion to any advantages to be derived from the proposed change, or to any disadvantages intended to be removed. We therefore not only objected to the Bill as it stands, but declined to take on ourselves the responsibility of proposing Amendments; which, however, we were ready to consider if proposed by others. The third section, headed by my right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, while they emphatically declared that the Bill could not pass in the form in which it was introduced by the hon. Member for Sussex, said that it was without much difficulty capable of Amendments which would make it in their opinion useful, and they accordingly voted for the second reading, with an intimation that they should

  667
  oppose it in future stages, if not so amended. That is the position in which the Bill stands. The second reading was carried by a small majority, and was supported by many holding the views of the right hon. Gentlemen opposite. Time went on and no Amendments appeared. We took it for granted that notice of Amendments would have been given by the other side. None appeared, however, and we asked the House to refuse to go into Committee on the ground that no notice had been given of those Amendments, which the right hon. Gentlemen opposite, supporters of the Bill, admitted to be necessary. The House, nevertheless, went into Committee. A considerable interval of time elapsed, and plenty of time was allowed for notice of Amendments. Still none appeared. The Bill has gone through Committee in its original state; and now, on its third reading, it stands in precisely the same form as that in which it was introduced. I make no complaint of that. It was very natural that the hon. Gentleman who brought in the Bill should not desire to amend it; and if he had accepted Amendments at all, it would probably have been only because he would have preferred them to losing his Bill. Neither do I complain of my right hon. Friends for not bringing forward Amendments. I know that they had applied themselves to the framing of important Amendments and had found the difficulties insurmountable, and that they thought it better to abandon the attempt. I do not complain of either side; but I do say if this Bill was supported on its second reading by a considerable number of Members only on the faith of expected Amendments, of which it was alleged to be capable, and if it has gone through 30 far without attempt at amendment, that I am then entitled to claim the votes of the right hon. Gentlemen, and all who sympathize with them, and to ask them to assist me in rejecting the Bill on the third reading. It is for the hon. Member for Sussex (Mr. Dodson) to consider whether it would not be better for him at some other time to frame and introduce a measure more likely to receive general support. For the present, at any rate, I venture to think that the course which I recommend is the best.
  On the present occasion I rest my opposition on these special grounds; but, in addition, I will ask the House to remember, as a matter of fact, that the Bill does not now stand in such a form
  668
  as will put Oxford in any way in the same position as Cambridge. It will put Oxford in a situation very much in advance, as my hon. Friend (Mr. Dodson) would call it, but, as I think, in a very much worse position; and hon. Members who will support the third reading will do so on the distinct understanding that they are doing what has not yet been sanctioned for either University. On these grounds I beg to move that the Bill be read a third time this day three months.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."—(Sir William Heath cote.)
  Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  The House divided:—Ayes 150; Noes 140: Majority 10.

  AYES.

  Acton, Sir J. D.

  Duff, M. E. G.

  Adeane, H. J.

  Dunbar, Sir W.

  Anstruther, Sir R.

  Dundas, F.

  Ayrton, A. S.

  Dundas, rt. hon. Sir D.

  Aytoun, R. S.

  Enfield, Viscount

  Bagwell, J.

  Ennis, J.

  Baines, E.

  Esmonde, J.

  Baring, rt. hon. Sir F.T.

  Evans, T. W.

  Baring, T. G.

  Ewart, W.

  Bass, M. T.

  Fermoy, Lord

  Baxter, W. E.

  Finch, C. W.

  Beaumont, W. B.

  Finlay, A. S.

  Biddulph, Colonel

  Fitzwilliam, hn. C.W.W.

  Black, A.

  Foljambe, F. J. S.

  Bonham-Carter, J.

  Forster, W. E.

  Bouverie, rt. hon. E. P.

  Fortescue, hon. F. D.

  Brand, hon. H.

  Fortescue, rt. hon. C.

  Bright, J.

  Gaskell, J. M.

  Bruce, rt. hon. H. A.

  Gibson, rt. hon. T. M.

  Buchanan, W.

  Gilpin, C.

  Buller, Sir A. W.

  Goldsmid, Sir F. H.

  Bury, Viscount

  Gower, hon. F. L.

  Buxton, C.

  Greene, J.

  Caird, J.

  Gregson, S.

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

  Grenfell, H. R.

  Grosvenor, Lord R.

  Cardwell, rt. hon. E.

  Gurdon, B.

  Cavendish, Lord G.

  Hadfield, G.

  Childers, H. C. E.

  Hankey, T.

  Clay, J.

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Clifford, C. C.

  Hayter, rt. hn. Sir W.G.

  Collier, Sir R. P.

  Headlam, rt. hon. T. E.

  Colthurst, Sir G. C.

  Hodgson, K.D.

  Cowper, rt. hon. W. F.

  Howard, hon. C. W. G.

  Cox, W.

  Hutt, rt. hon. W.

  Craufurd, E. H. J.

  Jervoise, Sir J. C.

  Crawford, R. W.

  King, hon. P. J. L.

  Dalglish, R.

  Kinglake, J. A.

  Davie, Colonel F.

  Kinnaird, hon. A. F.

  Dent, J. D.

  Knatchbull-Hugessen, E.

  Dering, Sir E. C.

  Dillwyn, L. L.

  Layard, A, H.

  Douglas, Sir C.

  Lawson, W.

  Doulton, F.

  Lefevre, G. J. S.

  669

  Locke, J.

  Scholefield, W.

  Mackinnon, W.A,(Lym)

  Seely, C.

  Maguire, J. F.

  Seymour, A.

  Marjoribanks, D. C.

  Shelley, Sir J. V.

  Martin, P. W.

  Sheridan, H. B.

  Martin, J.

  Smith, J. A.

  Massey, W. N.

  Smith, M. T.

  Merry, J.

  Stansfeld, J.

  Mills, J. R.

  Steel, J.

  Mitchell, T. A.

  Stuart, Colonel

  Moffatt, G.

  Sykes, Colonel W. H.

  Moncreiff, rt. hon. J.

  Taylor, P. A.

  Monsell, rt. hon. W.

  Tollemache, hon. F. J.

  Morris, D.

  Tomline, G.

  Neate, C.

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

  O'Hagan, rt. hon. T.

  Villiers, rt. hon. C. P.

  O'Loghlen, Sir C M.

  Vivian, H. H.

  Padmore, R.

  Vyner, R. A.

  Paget, C.

  Watkin, E. W.

  Paget, Lord C.

  Watkins, Colonel L.

  Paxton, Sir J.

  Weguelin, T. M.

  Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

  Western, S.

  Peel, rt. hon. F.

  Whalley, G. H.

  Pinney, Colonel

  Whitbread, S.

  Potter, E.

  White, J.

  Price, R. G.

  White, hon. L.

  Pugh, D.

  Williamson, Sir H.

  Ramsden, Sir J. W.

  Winnington, Sir T. E,

  Ricardo, O.

  Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.

  Robartes, T. J. A.

  Woods, H.

  Robertson, H.

  Rothschild, Baron M. de

  TELLERS.

  Russell, H.

  Dodson, J. G.

  Russell, F. W.

  Goschen, G. J.

  NOES.

  Adderley, rt. hon. C. B.

  Fane, Colonel J. W.

  Astell, J. H.

  Farquhar, Sir M.

  Baring, A. H.

  Farrer, J.

  Bathurst, A. A.

  Fellowes, E.

  Bective, Earl of

  Fitzgerald, W. R, S.

  Beecroft, G. S.

  Fleming, T. W.

  Bentinck, G. C.

  Floyer, J.

  Beresford, rt. hon. W.

  Gard, R. S.

  Beresford, D. W. P.

  George, J.

  Bramley-Moore, J.

  Gladstone, rt. hon. W.

  Bramston, T. W.

  Gower, G. W. G. L.

  Bremridge, R.

  Greenall, G.

  Bridges, Sir B. W.

  Grey de Wilton, Visct.

  Bruce, Sir H. H.

  Griffith, C. D.

  Bruen, H.

  Grogan, Sir E.

  Burghley, Lord

  Hamilton, Lord C.

  Cairns, Sir H. M'C.

  Hamilton, I. T.

  Cargill, W. W.

  Hardy, G.

  Cave, S.

  Hartopp, E. B.

  Cecil, Lord R.

  Harvey, R. B.

  Chapman, J.

  Hervey, Lord A.

  Cobbold, J. C.

  Hassard, M.

  Cole, hon. H.

  Hay, Sir J. C. D.

  Cole, hon. J. L.

  Hesketh, Sir T. G.

  Copeland, Mr. Aid.

  Heygate, Sir F. W.

  Corry, rt. hon. H. L.

  Heygate, W. U.

  Curzon, Viscount

  Hill, hon. R. C.

  Damer, S. D.

  Holford, R. S.

  Dickson, Colonel

  Holmesdale, Viscount

  Du Cane, C.

  Hopwood, J. T.

  Duncombe, hon. W. E.

  Hotham, Lord

  Dunne, Colonel

  Humberston, P. S.

  Du Pre, C. G.

  Hume, W. W. F.

  Egerton, Sir P. G.

  Humphery, W. H,

  Egerton, hon. A. F.

  Hunt, G. W.

  Egerton, hon. W.

  Jelliffe, rt. hn. Sir W.G.H.

  Estcourt, rt. hn. T.H.S.

  Jones, D.

  670

  Kekewich, S. T.

  Phillips, G. L.

  Kendall, N.

  Powell, F. S.

  Kerrison, Sir E. C

  Powys-Lybbe, P. L.

  King, J. K.

  Ridley, Sir M. W.

  Knatchbull, W. F.

  Rogers, J. J.

  Knightley, R.

  Rowley, hon. R. T.

  Langton, W. G.

  Selwyn, C. J.

  Lefroy, A.

  Smith, A.

  Leslie, C P.

  Smith, S. G.

  Leslie, W.

  Smyth, Colonel

  Lever, J. O.

  Somerset, Colonel

  Longfield, R.

  Somes, J.

  Lopes, Sir M.

  Stanhope, J. B.

  Lygon, hon. F.

  Stracey, Sir H.

  Mainwaring, T.

  Sturt, Lt.-Col. N.

  Malcolm, J.W.

  Surtees, H. E.

  Malins, R.

  Thynne, Lord E.

  Manners, rt. hon. Lord J.

  Thynne, Lord H.

  Miller, T. J.

  Tottenham, Lt.-Col. C. G.

  Montgomery, Sir G.

  Trefusis, hon. C H. R.

  Mordaunt, Sir C.

  Trollope, rt. hon. Sir J.

  Morgan, O.

  Turner, C.

  Mowbray, rt. hn. J. R.

  Vance, J.

  Mundy, W.

  Vyse, Colonel H.

  Naas, Lord

  Walcott, Admiral

  Newport, Viscount

  Walker, J. R.

  Nicol, W.

  Walpole, rt. hon. S. H.

  Noel, hon. G. J.

  Walsh, Sir J.

  Pakenham, Colonel

  Watlington, J. W. P.

  Palk, Sir L.

  Wyndham, hon. P.

  Palmer, Sir R.

  Yorke, J. R.

  Papillon, P. O.

  Peacocke, G. M. W.

  TELLERS.

  Peel, rt. hon. Gen.

  Heathcote, Sir W.

  Pennant, hon. Colonel

  Northcote, Sir S.

  Main Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a third time."
  LORD ROBERT CECILsaid, the House had been taken somewhat by surprise, and had come to a division earlier than had been expected owing to the remarkable policy of Her Majesty's Government. It would be remembered that the Government were in a position of some embarrassment on account of the course taken on the second reading of this Bill. When the Bill was passing the second reading the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department, who he saw had now returned to the House, and the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer supported the Bill, and the ground they gave for supporting it was, not that they agreed with the Bill as a whole, or in its most important clauses, but that they objected to the principle of indiscriminate resistance, as they were pleased to call it; and they told the House that, although they should like to see certain alterations in the Bill—such as the striking out of the clauses that allowed those who were not members of the Church of England to vote in Convocation—still they should support the Bill for the sake of other clauses of very inferior importance

  671
  that it contained. On that plea they supported the Bill; and they gave the House to understand that they intended to support Amendments in Committee which would make the Bill such as they desired to see it. They gave the House to understand that they gave no support or countenance to the principle of a Bill which handed over the government of the Universities for educational purposes to Dissenting Masters of Arts. But in Committee there were proposed none of those Amendments which the Government foreshadowed. The right hon. Member for Oxford University (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was absent on that occasion [Cries of "Divide!"] Surely they would allow him to proceed to discuss the matter especially when the small majority just announced was gained by a snapped division. This Bill was not debated on going into Committee, and they could not object to the discussion of it now. They might, at all events, be well excused for deliberately considering all the events before they came to a further expression of their opinion. This was a measure such as had never passed the House of Commons before. It absolutely handed over the Government of the University to those not of the Church of England. Those on the opposite side might think that was a desirable measure, but they could not say it was a measure of that insignificance that it was to be dispatched in ten minutes. What he wanted was to draw their attention to the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, who having given the House to understand on the second reading that Amendments would be moved in Committee, and who in Committee abstained from moving any such Amendments, now in the third reading, when the division was called for, the right hon. Gentleman who was the representative of the Government for the purposes of this Bill, and to whose Department the measure specially belonged, would not give an opinion on this important matter, but walked out of the House. He (Lord R. Cecil) did not think that a Bill of this character ought to pass without some explanation from the responsible Minister of the Crown. It was hardly dealing fairly with the House of Commons to hold out opinions on the second reading and then not to follow them up by his conduct. At all events, the right hon. Gentleman who had warned them against
  672
  "indiscriminating resistance," had given them a good idea that evening of what discriminating resistance was. It meant promising to oppose a Bill when no great party struggle was in prospect, and not opposing it when party votes became of consequence. "Discriminating resistance" was discriminating in point of time; it was resistance when it suited. But, at all events, some gratitude was due to those, whoever they might be, who enriched their native language. "Running away" was a coarse and vulgar term. It was now called "discriminating resistance." They had had lately a good many specimens of "discriminating resistance." We should soon have to discuss a foreign policy in which "discriminating resistance" had been shown. ["Question."] Surely it was material to show how perfectly consistent the foreign policy of the Government was, whether they were dealing with the domestic or the foreign question. In each case they promised to render help when it was convenient, and when it ceased to be convenient they walked out of the House. ["Divide, divide!"] He saw that the House was not much inclined for discussion. He only rose to draw attention to the conduct of one of the chief members of Her Majesty's Government, and he trusted that before the House finally decided on this important question the right hon. Gentleman would explain the course which he had pursued.
  SIR GEORGE GREY: I am quite ready to afford the noble Lord the explanation which he asks, but in doing so I must disclaim the character in which he has spoken of me as the representative of Her Majesty's Government on this occasion. In the previous discussion upon this Bill I spoke only my own individual opinions; and in speaking these opinions I did not, as the noble Lord has imputed to me, promise to oppose this Bill at any stage. I agreed with the principle of the Bill, but I said that I thought my hon. Friend (Mr. Dodson) would act wisely if instead of asking what I thought Parliament would not be likely to grant—if instead of pressing the Bill in a shape in which I felt that it could not ultimately pass—he would consent to the introduction of Amendments which would place Oxford on the same footing as Cambridge. I was prepared to go further and to give to Masters of Arts a right to vote, for Members of Parliament as members of Convocation. I thought that that would have been a

  673
  more prudent course, and would have resulted in the acceptance by Parliament of a Bill which would have done justice to those who are now excluded from privileges which they have a right to enjoy, I did my best by private communications with my hon. Friend to induce him to agree to such a modification of the Bill, and I have reason to believe that if he had consented to it there were those on the opposite side actuated by a spirit very different from that of the noble Lord, who would have met my hon. Friend in a spirit of generous conciliation, and that a Bill would have passed through Parliament which would have been a great amendment of the existing law. Not objecting to the principle of the Bill I did not feel myself bound to vote against it on the third reading. I should willingly have seen the Bill in another shape, but I never promised to oppose it, I never promised to introduce Amendments, I did not wish to press those Amendments against the judgment of my hon. Friend, and I thought that I was only taking a course which became me in not recording a vote either against or in favour of the Bill, but in walking out of the House when the Question was put. The noble Lord says that this is not a fitting question to be disposed of in ten minutes. Why did not the noble Lord, who was here when the Amendment was moved by the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford, rise in his place, and state the ground upon which he was opposed to the third reading of the Bill? Now that the Amendment has been negatived, he is taking a most unusual course in order to gain the advantage of the votes of any hon. Members who may happen to come down to the House. He had a right to comment upon my conduct if he thought fit to do so. I have stated the reasons which influenced me, and I hope that the House will not think that I have acted improperly.
  LORD JOHN MANNERS: The right hon. Gentleman says that when he spoke the other day he expressed only his individual opinion, and did not speak as the organ of the Government. I suppose that he has to-night again spoken in his individual capacity, and consequently, up to the present moment, we have not been favoured with the opinions of Her Majesty's Government upon this Bill. But who, let me ask, is the Member of Her Majesty's Government who speaks to the House upon this subject merely in his individual capa-
  674
  city? It is the Home Secretary. And in whose Department, I should like to I know, are questions affecting the Universities of this land, if not in that of the Home Secretary? If the right hon. Gentleman tells us—as I conclude he means to; tell us—that Her Majesty's Government have really no opinion as a Government upon this important Bill, I am perfectly willing to believe the statement, and I shall not go through the useless form of expressing at it a surprise which I do not feel. But I hope it will go forth to the country that upon a measure affecting one of the most famous and venerable Universities of the land Her Majesty's Government express no opinion, have no opinion, and, so far as the Department charged with the affairs of the Universities is concerned, do not even give a vote upon this important measure. With respect to what the right hon. Gentleman has said about my noble Friend not rising after my hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford (Sir William Heathcote), I must say that I never heard a more unjust or a more unfounded charge. My hon. Friend had stated the objections to the Bill in very clear and precise terms, and no one rose to answer him—not even a Member of Her Majesty's Government. Was my noble Friend the Member for Stamford to rise and beat the air—to fight with shadows when no one had replied to my hon. Friend? It was unnecessary for him to occupy the attention of the House merely to support what had been so well said by my hon. Friend. But, after the course which Her Majesty's Government have taken, he was quite justified in making the observations which he has done with reference to their conduct; and when this scene is described, when this debate is read to-morrow, it will not redound to the credit of the Government.
  SIR MINTO FARQUHARsaid, that the House was placed in a very remarkable position. Early in the evening the right hon. Baronet (Sir George Grey) declined to answer a question asked by his noble Friend the Member for Northamptonshire (Lord Burghley) with reference to Denmark, in the absence of the noble Lord at the head of the Government; and now no reply had been given to the speech of the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford. The right hon. Gentleman the other Member for that University was on the Treasury Bench, and he was perfectly astonished that he had given no

  675
  explanation of the course which he intended to pursue. The position in which the House was placed at present was a very remarkable one. When a debate took place the Members of the Government sat still and made no reply, and hon. Gentlemen who sat behind them thought it prudent to hold their tongue. He hoped that this occasion would not be forgotten, and that the House would go to another division upon this important Bill.
  MR. NEATErose to address the House; but the cries for a division were so continuous, and the confusion so general, that the hon. Member sat down without proceeding.
  MR. COLLINSalso rose to speak; but the interruption was so great that the hon. Member could not be intelligibly heard.
  Main Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 170; Noes 170.

  AYES.

  Acton, Sir J. D.

  Dalglish, R.

  Adeane, H. J.

  Davie, Colonel F.

  Anstruther, Sir R.

  Dent, J. D.

  Antrobus, E.

  Dering, Sir E. C.

  Ayrton, A. S.

  Dillwyn, L. L.

  Aytoun, R. S.

  Douglas, Sir C.

  Bagwell, J.

  Doulton, F.

  Baines, E.

  Duff, M. E. G.

  Baring, rt. hn. Sir. F.T.

  Duff, R. W.

  Baring, T. G.

  Dunbar, Sir W.

  Bass, M. T.

  Dundas, F.

  Baxter, W. E.

  Dundas, rt. hon. Sir D.

  Beaumont, W. B.

  Enfield, Viscount

  Bellew, R. M.

  Ennis, J.

  Berkeley, hon. Colonel F.W. F.

  Esmonde, J.

  Evans, T. W.

  Biddulph, Colonel

  Ewart, W.

  Black, A.

  Fenwick, H.

  Bonham-Carter, J.

  Fermoy, Lord

  Bouverie, rt. hon. E. P.

  Finch, C. W.

  Brand, hon. H.

  Finlay, A. S.

  Bright J.

  Fitzwilliam, hn. C.W.W.

  Bruce, rt. hon. H. A.

  Foljambe, F. J. S.

  Buchanan, W.

  Forster, W. E.

  Buller, Sir A. W.

  Fortescue, hon. F. D.

  Bury, Viscount

  Fortescue, rt. hon. C.

  Buxton, C.

  Gaskell, J. M.

  Caird, J.

  Gibson, rt. hon. T. M.

  Calthorpe, hn. F.H.W.G.

  Gilpin, C.

  Cardwell, rt. hon. E.

  Goldsmid, Sir F. H.

  Cavendish, Lord G.

  Gower, hon. F. L.

  Childers, H. C. E.

  Greene, J.

  Cholmeley, Sir M. J.

  Gregson, S.

  Clay, J.

  Grenfell, H. R.

  Clifford, C. C.

  Grosvenor, Lord R.

  Clifford, Colonel

  Gurdon, B.

  Clive, G.

  Hadfield, G.

  Collier, Sir R. P.

  Hankey, T.

  Colthurst, Sir G. C.

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Cowper, rt. hon. W. F.

  Hayter, rt. hon. Sir W.G.

  Cox, W.

  Headlam, rt. hon. T. E.

  Craufurd, E. H. J.

  Henderson, J.

  Crawford, R. W.

  Hodgson, K. D.

  676

  Howard, hon. C.W.G.

  Robertson, D.

  Hutt, rt. hon. W.

  Robertson, H.

  Jervoise, Sir J. C.

  Rothschild, Baron M. de

  King, hon. P. J. L.

  Kinglake, J. A.

  Russell, H.

  Kinnaird, hon. A. F.

  Russell, A.

  Knatchbull-Hugessen, E.

  Russell, F. W.

  Russell, Sir W.

  Layard, A. H.

  Scholefield, W.

  Langton, W. H. G.

  Seely, C.

  Lawson, W.

  Seymour, A.

  Lefevre, G, J. S.

  Shafto, R. D.

  Lee, W.

  Shelley, Sir J. V.

  Lewis, H.

  Sheridan, H. B.

  Locke, J.

  Smith, J. A.

  M'Cann, J.

  Smith, M. T.

  Mackinnon, W. A.(Lym)

  Stacpoole, W.

  Maguire, J. F.

  Stansfeld, J.

  Marjoribanks, D. C.

  Steel, J.

  Martin, P. W.

  Stuart, Colonel

  Martin, J.

  Sykes, Colonel W. H.

  Massoy, W. N.

  Taylor, P. A.

  Merry, J.

  Tollemache, hon. F. J.

  Mills, J. R.

  Tomline, G.

  Mitchell, T. A.

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

  Moffatt, G.

  Villiers, rt. hon. C. P.

  Moncreiff, rt. hon. J.

  Vivian, H. H.

  Monsell, rt. hon. W.

  Vyner, R. A.

  Morris, D.

  Warner, E.

  Neate, C.

  Watkin, E. W.

  O'Hagan, rt. hon. T.

  Watkins, Colonel L.

  O'Loghlen, Sir C. M.

  Weguelin, T. M.

  Padmore, R.

  Western, S.

  Paget, C.

  Whalley, G. H.

  Paget, Lord C.

  Whitbread, S.

  Paxton, Sir J.

  White, J.

  Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

  White, hon. L.

  Peel, rt. hon. F.

  Williamson, Sir H.

  Pinney, Colonel

  Winnington, Sir T. E.

  Potter, E.

  Wood, rt. hn. Sir C.

  Powell, J. J.

  Woods, H.

  Price, R. G.

  Pugh, D.

  TELLERS.

  Ramsden, Sir J. W.

  Dodson, J. G.

  Ricardo, O.

  Goschen, G. J.

  Robartes, T. J. A.

  NOES.

  Adderley, rt. hon. C.B.

  Chapman, J.

  Angerstein, W.

  Cobbold, J. C.

  Anstell, J. H.

  Cole, hon. H.

  Baring, A. H.

  Cole, hon. J. L.

  Bateson, Sir T.

  Collins, T.

  Bathurst, A. A.

  Copeland, Mr. Ald.

  Bective, Earl of

  Corry, rt. hon. H. L.

  Beecroft, G. S.

  Curzon, Viscount

  Bentinck, G. C.

  Damer, S. D.

  Benyon, R.

  Dickson, Colonel

  Beresford, rt. hon. W.

  Du Cane, C.

  Beresford, D. W. P.

  Duncombe, hon. W. E.

  Booth, Sir R. G.

  Dunne, Colonel

  Bramley-Moore, J.

  Du Pre, C. G.

  Bramston, T. W.

  Edwards, Colonel

  Bremridge, R.

  Egerton, Sir P. G.

  Bridges, Sir B. W.

  Egerton, hon. A. F.

  Bruce, Sir H. H.

  Egerton, hon. W.

  Bruen, H.

  Estcourt, rt. hon. T. H. S.

  Burghley, Lord

  Cairns, Sir H. M'C.

  Fane, Colonel J. W.

  Cargill, W. W.

  Farquhar, Sir M.

  Cave, S.

  Farrer, J.

  Cecil, Lord R.

  Fellowes, E.

  677

  Fergusson, Sir J.

  Montgomery, Sir G.

  Fitzgerald, W. ft, 8.

  Mordaunt, Sir C.

  Fleming, T. W.

  Morgan, O.

  Floyer, J.

  Morgan, hon. Major

  Franklyn, G. W.

  Mowbray, rt. hn. J R.

  Gard, R. S.

  Mundy, W.

  George, J.

  Naas, Lord

  Gladstone, rt. hon. W.

  Newdegate, C. N.

  Gore, J. R. O.

  Newport, Viscount

  Gore, W. R. O.

  Nicol, W.

  Gower, G. W. G. L.

  Noel, hon. G. J.

  Greenall, G.

  Pakenham, Colonel

  Grey de Wilton, Viscount

  Palk, Sir L.

  Griffith, C. D.

  Palmer, R. W.

  Grogan, Sir E.

  Palmer, Sir R.

  Hamilton, Lord C.

  Papillon, P. O.

  Hamilton, I. T.

  Peacocke, G. M. W.

  Hardy, G.

  Peel, rt. hon. General

  Hartopp, E. B.

  Pennant, hon. Colonel

  Harvey, R. B.

  Phillips, G. L.

  Hervey, Lord A.

  Powell, F. S.

  Hassard, M.

  Powys-Lybbe, P. L.

  Hay, Sir J. C. D.

  Ridley, Sir M. W.

  Hesketh, Sir T. G.

  Rogers, J. J.

  Heygate, Sir F. W.

  Rowley, hon. R. T.

  Heygate, W. U.

  Sclater-Booth, G.

  Hill, hon. R. C.

  Scourfield, J. H.

  Holford, R. S.

  Selwyn, C. J.

  Holmesdale, Viscount

  Smith, A.(Herts)

  Hood, Sir A. A.

  Smith, S. G.

  Hopwood, J. T.

  Smyth, Colonel

  Humberston, P. S.

  Smollett, P. B.

  Hume, W. W. F.

  Somerset, Colonel

  Humphery, W. H.

  Somes, J.

  Hunt, G.W.

  Stanhope, J. B.

  Ingestre, Viscount

  Stracey, Sir H.

  Jolliffe, rt. hon. Sir W.G.H.

  Start, Lt.-Col. N.

  Surtees, H. E.

  Jones, D.

  Taylor, Colonel

  Kekewich, S. T.

  Thynne, Lord E.

  Kelly, Sir F.

  Thynne, Lord H.

  Kendall, N.

  Tottenharn, Lt.-Col. C.G.

  Kerrison, Sir E. C.

  Trefusis, hon. C. H. R.

  King, J. K.

  Treherne, M.

  Knatchbull, W. F.

  Trevor, Lord A. E. H.

  Knight, F. W.

  Trollope, rt. hon. Sir J.

  Knightley, R.

  Turner, C.

  Langton, W. G.

  Vance, J.

  Lefroy, A.

  Vansittart, W.

  Legh, W. J.

  Verner, E. W.

  Lennox, Lord G. G.

  Vyse, Colonel H.

  Lennox, C. S. B. H.K.

  Walcott, Admiral

  Leslie, C. P.

  Walker, J. R.

  Leslie, W.

  Walpole, rt. hon. S. H.

  Lever, J. O.

  Walsh, Sir J.

  Longfield, R.

  Walter, J.

  Lopes, Sir M.

  Watlington, J. W. P.

  Lygon, hon. F.

  Whitmore, H.

  Macdonogh, F.

  Wyndham, hon. P.

  Mainwaring, T.

  Yorke, J. R.

  Malcolm, J. W.

  Malins, R.

  TELLERS.

  Manners, rt. hn. Lord J.

  Heathcote Sir W,

  Miller, T. J.

  Northcote, Sir S.

  Whereupon, the numbers being equal, Mr. Speaker stated that after the votes that had been taken this evening, the House would not be surprised if he desired to afford them another opportunity of deciding the Question themselves; this
  678
  they would be able to do on the Question, "That this Bill do pass;" on the present stage he declared himself with the Ayes.
  Question put, "That this Bill do pass."
  The House divided:—Ayes 171; Noes 173: Majority 2.

  AYES.

  Acton, Sir J. D.

  Ewart, W.

  Adeane, H. J.

  Fenwick, H.

  Anstruther, Sir R.

  Fermoy, Lord

  Antrobus, E.

  Finch, C. W.

  Ayrton, A. S.

  Finlay, A. S.

  Aytoun, R. S.

  Fitzwilliam, hn. C.W.W.

  Bagwell, J.

  Foljambe, F. J. S.

  Baines, E.

  Forster, W. E.

  Baring, rt. hn. Sir F. T.

  Fortescue, hon. F. D.

  Baring, T. G.

  Fortescue, rt. hon. C.

  Bass, M. T.

  Gaskell, J. M.

  Baxter, W. E.

  Gibson, rt. hon. T. M.

  Beaumont, W. B.

  Gilpin, C.

  Bellew, R. M.

  Goldsmid, Sir F. H.

  Berkeley, Colonel hon. F. W. F.

  Gower, hon. F. L.

  Greene, J.

  Biddulph, Colonel

  Gregson, S.

  Black, A.

  Grenfell, H. R.

  Bonham-Carter, J.

  Grosvenor, Lord R.

  Bouverie, rt. hon. E. P.

  Gurdon, B.

  Brand, hon. H.

  Hadfield, G.

  Bright, J.

  Hankey, T.

  Bruce, rt. hon. H. A.

  Hartington, Marquess of

  Buchanan, W.

  Hayter, rt. hn. Sir W. G.

  Buller, Sir A. W.

  Headlam, rt. hon. T. E.

  Bury, Viscount

  Henderson, J.

  Buxton, C.

  Hodgson, K. D.

  Caird, J.

  Howard, hon. C. W. G.

  Calthorpe, hon. F. H. W.G

  Hutt, rt. hon. W.

  Jervoise, Sir J. C.

  Cardwell, rt. hon. E.

  King, hon. P. J. L.

  Cavendish, Lord G.

  Kinglake, J. A.

  Childers, H. C. E.

  Kinnaird, hon. A. F.

  Cholmeley, Sir M. J.

  Knatchbull-Hugessen, E.

  Clay, J.

  Clifford, C. C.

  Layard, A. H.

  Clifford, Colonel

  Langton, W. H. G.

  Clive, G.

  Lawson, W.

  Coke, hon. Colonel

  Lefevre, G. J. S.

  Collier, Sir R, P.

  Lee, W.

  Colthurst, Sir G. C.

  Lewis, H.

  Cowper, rt. hon. W. I.

  Locke, J.

  Cox, W.

  M'Cann, J.

  Craufurd, E. H. J.

  Mackinnon, W. A.(Lym)

  Crawford, R. W.

  Maguire, J. F.

  Dalglish, R.

  Marjoribanks, D. C.

  Davie, Colonel F.

  Martin, P. W.

  Dent, J. D.

  Martin, J.

  Dering, Sir E. C.

  Massey, W. N,

  Dillwyn, L, L.

  Merry, J.

  Douglas, Sir C.

  Mills, J. R.

  Doulton, F.

  Mitchell, T. A.

  Duff, M. E. G.

  Moffatt, G.

  Duff, R. W.

  Moncreiff, rt. hon. J.

  Dunbar, Sir W.

  Monsell, rt. hon. W.

  Dundas, F.

  Morris, D.

  Dundas, rt. hon. Sir D.

  Neate, C.

  Enfield, Viscount

  O'Hagan, rt. hon T.

  Ennis, J.

  O'Loghlen, Sir C. M.

  Esmonde, J.

  Padmore, R.

  Evans, T. W,

  Paget, C.

  679

  Paget, Lord C.

  Stansfeld, J.

  Paxton, Sir J.

  Steel, J.

  Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

  Stuart, Colonel

  Peel, rt. hon. F.

  Sykes, Colonel W. H.

  Pinney, Colonel

  Taylor, P. A.

  Potter, E.

  Tollemache, hon. F. J.

  Powell, J. J.

  Tomline, G.

  Price, R. G.

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

  Pugh, D.

  Villiers, rt. hon. C. P.

  Ramsden, Sir J. W,

  Vivian, H. H.

  Ricardo, O.

  Vyner, R. A.

  Robartes, T. J. A.

  Warner, E.

  Robertson, D.

  Watkin, E. W.

  Robertson, H.

  Watkins, Colonel L.

  Rothschild, Baron M. de

  Weguelin, T. M.

  Western, S.

  Russell, H.

  Whalley, G. H.

  Russell, A.

  Whitbread, S.

  Russell, F. W.

  White, J.

  Russell, Sir W.

  White, hon. L.

  Scholefield, W.

  Williamson, Sir H.

  Seely C.

  Winnington, Sir T. E.

  Seymour, A.

  Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.

  Shafto, R. D.

  Woods, H.

  Shelley, Sir J. V.

  Sheridan, H. B.

  TELLERS.

  Smith, J. A.

  Dodson, J. G.

  Smith, M. T.

  Goschen, G. J.

  Stacpoole, W.

  NOES.

  Adderley, rt. hon. C. B.

  Estcourt, rt. hon. T. H. S.

  Angerstein, W.

  Fane, Colonel J. W.

  Astell, J. H.

  Farquhar, Sir M.

  Baring, A. H.

  Farrer, J.

  Bateson, Sir T.

  Fellowes, E.

  Bathurst, A. A.

  Fergusson, Sir J.

  Bective, Earl of

  Fitzgerald, W. R. S.

  Beecroft, G. S.

  Fleming, T. W.

  Bentinck, G. C.

  Floyer, J.

  Benyon, R.

  Franklyn, G. W.

  Beresford, rt. hon. W.

  Gard, R. S.

  Beresford, D. W. P.

  George, J.

  Booth, Sir R. G.

  Gladstone, rt. hon. W.

  Bramley-Moore, J.

  Gore, J. R. O.

  Bramston, T. W.

  Gore, W. R. O.

  Bremridge, R.

  Gowcr, G. W. G. L.

  Bridges, Sir B. W.

  Greenall, G.

  Bruee, Sir H. H.

  Grey de Wilton, Visct.

  Bruen, H.

  Griffith, C. D.

  Burghley, Lord

  Grogan, Sir E.

  Cairns, Sir H. M'C.

  Hamilton, Lord C.

  Cargill, W. W.

  Hamilton, I. T.

  Cave, S.

  Hardy, G.

  Cecil, Lord R.

  Hartopp, E. B.

  Chapman, J.

  Harvey, R. B.

  Cobbold, J. C.

  Hervey, Lord A.

  Cole, hon. H.

  Hassard, M.

  Cole, hon. J. L.

  Hay, Sir J. C. D.

  Collins, T.

  Hesketh, Sir T. G.

  Copeland, Mr. Ald.

  Heygate, Sir F. W.

  Corry, rt. hon. H. L.

  Heygate, W. U.

  Curzon, Viscount

  Hill, hon. R. C.

  Damer, S. D.

  Holford, R. S.

  Dickson, Colonel

  Holmesdale, Viscount

  Du Cane, C.

  Hood, Sir A. A.

  Duncombe, hon. W. E.

  Hopwood, J. T.

  Dunne, Colonel

  Humberston, P. S.

  Du Pre, C. G.

  Hume, W. W. F.

  Edwards, Colonel

  Humphery, W. H.

  Egerton, Sir P. G.

  Hunt, G. W.

  Egerton, hon. A. F.

  Ingestre, Viscount

  Egerton, hon. W.

  Jermyn, Earl

  680

  Jolliffe, rt. hon. Sir W. G. H.

  Phillips, G. L.

  Powell, F. S.

  Jones, D.

  Powys-Lybbe, P. L.

  Kekewich, S. T.

  Ridley, Sir M. W.

  Kelly, Sir F.

  Rogers, J. J.

  Kendall, N.

  Rowley, hon. R. T.

  Korrison, Sir E. C.

  Sclater-Booth, G.

  King, J. K.

  Scott, Lord H.

  Knatchbull, W.F.

  Scourfield, J. H.

  Knight, F.W.

  Selwyn, C. J.

  Knightley, R.

  Smith, A. (Herts)

  Langton, W. G.

  Smith, S. G.

  Lefroy, A.

  Smyth, Colonel

  Legh, W. J.

  Smollett, P. B.

  Lennox, Lord G. G.

  Somerset, Colonel

  Lennox, C. S. B. H. K.

  Somes, J.

  Leslie, C. P.

  Stanhope, J. B.

  Leslie, W.

  Stracey, Sir H.

  Lever, J. O.

  Sturt, Lt.-Col. N.

  Longfield, R.

  Surtees, H. E.

  Lopes, Sir M.

  Taylor, Colonel

  Lygon, hon. F.

  Thynne, Lord E.

  Macdonogh, F.

  Thynne, Lord H.

  Mainwaring, T.

  Tottenham, Lt.-Col. C.G.

  Malcolm, J. W.

  Trefusis, hon. C. H. R.

  Malins, R.

  Treherne, M.

  Manners, rt. hn. Lord J.

  Trevor, Lord A. E. H.

  Miller, T. J.

  Trollope, rt. hon. Sir J.

  Montgomery, Sir G.

  Turner, C.

  Mordaunt, Sir C.

  Vance, J.

  Morgan, O.

  Vansittart, W.

  Morgan, hon. Major

  Verner, E. W.

  Mowbray, rt. hon. J. R.

  Vyse, Colonel H.

  Mundy, W.

  Walcott, Admiral

  Naas, Lord

  Walker, J. R.

  Newdegate, C. N.

  Walpole, rt. hon. S. H.

  Newport, Viscount

  Walsh, Sir J.

  Nicol, W.

  Walter, J.

  Noel, hon. G. J.

  Waterhouse, S.

  Pakenham, Colonel

  Watlington, J. W. P.

  Palk, Sir L.

  Whitmore, H.

  Palmer, R. W.

  Wyndham, hon. P.

  Palmer, Sir R.

  Yorke, J. R.

  Papillon, P. O.

  Peacocke, G. M. W.

  TELLERS.

  Peel, rt. hon. General

  Heathcote, Sir W.

  Pennant, hon. Colonel

  Northcote, Sir S.

STREET MUSIC (METROPOLIS) BILL.

  [BILL 90.] COMMITTEE.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1 (Repeal of recited Provisions, and Substitution of amended Provision).
  MR. AYRTON,who had given notice to move at the end of the clause to add these words—
  "Provided he shall have been truly informed by such householder of the circumstances under which he is required to depart, and shall be given into custody by such householder,"
  said, the object of the Amendment was to secure to the musician as a condition precedent to his arrest a knowledge of the circumstances under which he was given into custody. The hon. Member was proceeding when he was interrupted by cries

  681
  for a division; whereon the hon. Gentleman said, he would move that the Chairman report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 52; Noes 138: Majority 86.
  Amendment proposed,
  At the end of the Clause, to add the words "provided he shall have been informed by the person making such charge of the circumstances under which he is required to depart."—(Mr. Ayrton.)
  MR. ADDERLEYsaid, a lady might be engaged in her domestic duties, and a German brass band with twenty performers might come to the window and blow a terrific blast. By the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman she would have to state to each performer why she wished them all to go away. They perhaps would be unable to understand English, and she might not be able to speak German. Well, then, the Amendment provided that the notice should be given to the musician by the householder. Why the householder might not be at home, and in that case the musician might play as long as he liked.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, the Amendment was altogether unnecessary, because the present law provided that a person playing an instrument in the street, to the annoyance of an inhabitant, could be ordered to remove, and if he refused he could be summoned.
  MR. LOCKEsaid, it was quite obvious that the right hon. Gentleman had misunderstood the Amendment. As the clause now stood it was altogether unnecessary that any communication should be made to the musician. If the Amendment were not adopted it would be left to the caprice I of any one to direct a policeman to take a street musician into custody.
  MR. CLAYsaid, he could see no objection to an Amendment requiring that the musician should be informed by some person in the house of the reason why he was told to withdraw. But it was utterly unreasonable to provide that the householder should perform that duty, for the householder might be absent, or might be laid up by illness.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he was ready to alter the Amendment by providing that the person who told the musician to retire should state the reason for his so doing.
  Question put, "That those words be there added."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 67; Noes 98: Majority 31.
  MR. AYRTON MR. AYRTON moved, at the end of the clause to add—"Provided he shall be given into custody by the person making the charge." His object was to provide that the charge should be made on the responsibility of the inhabitant of the house, and not merely on that of the policeman.
  SIR GEORGE GREYthought that the Amendment was a reasonable one.
  MR. LONGPIELDalso supported the Amendment.
  MR. WHALLEYcomplained of the arbitrary conduct of the metropolitan police, and said the Bill would largely increase their power.
  Amendment agreed to.
  SIR GEORGE GREYthen moved at the end of the clause to add—
  "Provided that the person making a charge for an offence against this Act, shall accompany the constable who shall take into custody any person offending as aforesaid, to the nearest police station-house, and there sign the charge-sheet kept for such purposes."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause agreed to.
  SIR GEORGE GREY SIR GEORGE GREY moved to insert new clause—
  "Whenever any person charged with an offence under this Act, shall be brought to any station-house during the time when the police court shall be shut, it shall be lawful for the constable in charge of the station-house to require the person making the charge to enter into a recognizance conditional as is provided by the Act passed in the 2& 3 Vict. c. 47, s. 72; and, upon the refusal of such person to do be, it shall be lawful for such constable to discharge from custody the person so charged."
  Clause added to the Bill.
  MR. AYRTON MR. AYRTON moved to add at end of the clause—
  "And upon such recognizance being entered into, it shall be lawful for the said constable to discharge from custody the person so charged, on his entering into a recognizance to appear to answer the same."
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that the proviso was already contained in the existing law.
  Amendment withdrawn.
  MR. AYRTON MR. AYRTON moved to insert clause—
  "Any person who shall sound or play any musical instrument, or shall sing in any thoroughfare near any premises licensed for the sale of beer, wine, or spirits, shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding 40 s., and it shall be lawful for any con-

  683
  stable belonging to the metropolitan police force, to apprehend any such person if he shall continue so playing or singing, after being warned to desist therefrom, in view of such constable."
  MR. WALTERthought there was an ambiguity in the clause which required explanation. At present the words seemed somewhat invidious. He had no objection to bands being required to remove upon being warned; but from whom was the warning to come? If from the householder he should not object, but if it was intended that any person passing along the street should have the power to order the removal of a band, he should certainly object to such a power. He had noticed that bands near public houses were generally tolerably good bands, and not mere barrel organs. He could not but suspect that the words were intentionally ambiguous, and certainly they would enable a person passing along the road to order the removal of a band.
  Clause negatived.
  MR. THOMSON HANKEY MR. THOMSON HANKEY moved to insert proviso—
  "That nothing in this Act contained shall extend or apply to a dramatic representation usually performed in the streets of the metropolis, and generally known as the show of Punch and Judy, nor to any person representing any of the characters in such show, nor to any music performed or payed in connection with such show, in the same manner as has been usual before the passing of this Act; but such dramatic representation, show, and music may continue to be played as heretofore, before the passing of this Act."
  MR. PEACOCKEsaid, that the only effect of the insertion of such a clause in the Bill would be to render their legislation ridiculous.
  MR. CLAYsaid, he hoped the Committee would assent to the clause, and afford the necessary protection to an innocent amusement.
  MR. HUNTsaid, he believed the Bill would not in any way interfere with Punch and Judy.
  The ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that if Punch were to sound any musical instrument, and was ordered to withdraw, he would run a great risk of being taken to the station-house if he resisted that order.
  MR. BASSsaid, he had no wish to oppose the clause.
  SIR GEORGE GREYdid not think the representation of Punch and Judy would come under the Bill unless accompanied by music. He agreed that the clause would make the Bill absurd.
  Clause (This Act not to extend to Punch and Judy)—(Mr. Sanhey)—brought up, and read 1o.
  Question put, "That the Clause be now read a second time."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 34; Noes 65: Majority 31.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered on Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 186.]
  House adjourned at half after Two o'clock till Monday next.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Lunacy (Scotland) * (No. 172); Thames Conservancy * (No. 173); Local Government Supplemental* (No. 174).
Second Reading—Public and Refreshment Houses (Metropolis, &c.) * (No. 135).
Report—Cathedral Minor Corporations* (No. 166).

JAPAN.—RESOLUTIONS.
EARL GREY,who had given notice of Resolutions to the effect that the relations between this country and Japan appear to this House to be at present in an unsatisfactory state, and to move an Address to Her Majesty thereon, said: My Lords, the subject to which I am about to draw your Lordships' attention is one which has on more than one occasion been under the consideration of the House. Up to the present moment, however, no decided opinion has been pronounced by your Lordships as to the policy which has been pursued in Japan by Her Majesty's Government; and therefore, thinking the time has now arrived when your Lordships should be asked to deal more decisively with the matter, I have placed upon the paper the Resolutions which I shall conclude by moving. But, before I proceed further, I may be allowed to observe that my Resolutions are not intended to imply any censure on the Government. Not that I approve their
574
policy—far otherwise; but what has been done cannot be undone, and while it is very unlikely that I could induce your Lordships to agree to a Vote of Censure, my asking you to do so would greatly diminish the probability of your Lordships being prevailed upon to express a practical opinion as to what ought to be the policy of the country for the future.
The Resolutions I am about to move have, accordingly, been so drawn as not to express any opinion as to the past; they begin by setting forth the various facts of our intercourse with Japan, and they then proceed to state the inferences which I think ought to be drawn from the facts narrated in the papers which have been laid before the House. I trust it will not be necessary for me to take up more than a small portion of your Lordships' time in showing that my statement of facts is correct, and supported by the papers. After a Resolution, which is merely introductory, the second states—
"That it is shown by the papers laid before Parliament, by command of Her Majesty, that the treaty concluded between Her Majesty and the Tycoon of Japan, on the 26th of August, 1858, gives to British subjects in Japan rights and privileges which the Government of that country was avowedly reluctant to grant, and was only induced to confer upon them through dread of British naval and military power."
And the next—
"That the Government of Japan has also been induced by this same fear to make with other European nations and with the United States, treaties generally similar to that which it has concluded with Her Majesty."
I might quote many passages from the despatches to show that the treaties concluded by Japan with the Western nations were not entered into willingly, but were obtained from Japan by coercion; but the fact is so notorious, and has been so explicitly avowed by Sir Rutherford Alcock (whose authority is conclusive) in his work called The Capital of the Tycoon, that it is needless for me to take up your Lordships' time by quotations in support of a statement which can hardly be questioned. The next Resolution proceeds to state—
"That under the above-named treaty British subjects are entitled to claim admission into certain portions of the territory of Japan without being subject to the jurisdiction of its Government, Her Majesty having taken upon herself the obligation of enforcing on their part good conduct and obedience to the law."
This Resolution has reference to the fifth Article of the Treaty, commonly called the "exterritoriality clause," which is to the

575
effect that Japanese subjects guilty of any criminal act towards British subjects shall be arrested and punished by the Japanese authorities, according to the laws of Japan; and any British subjects who may commit any criminal act against Japanese, shall be tried and punished by the Consuls, or other public functionaries, according to the laws of Great Britain. Your Lordships will observe that this is a distinct stipulation of reciprocity on the part of both countries. We are bound to enforce the good conduct of our own subjects, as Japan is bound also to enforce the good conduct of hers; but, unfortunately, on neither side had that obligation been fulfilled, as neither party has been able to perform what it had promised. The next Resolution I have to submit accordingly is that
"The Reports of Her Majesty's diplomatic servants show that Her Majesty has not been able to fulfil this obligation; the provisions of the statutes authorizing Her Majesty's Consuls to try and punish British subjects for offences committed in Japan, and the means available for carrying these laws into effect, having proved altogether insufficient to prevent gross outrages and insults from being inflicted on the people of Japan by British subjects and persons assuming that character."
Now, I think that those who have paid attention to the papers that have been laid upon the table of the House must be aware that that is not an over-statement of the facts; and I will refer you particularly to the despatch of Sir Rutherford Alcock of the 21st of November, 1859, in which he describes the lawless violence which he says in less than five months after the opening of the trade had become habitual on the part of British sailors and others in the ports of Yokohama and Kanagawa. He states in this despatch that drunken sailors have been allowed to land and go about singly or in bands, offering violence to the Japanese whom they have met, or into whose shops they have intruded. He describes these outrages and the insufficiency of English law to put them down still more fully in his book than in the official correspondence; but the statements contained in his despatches were considered so strong that they produced from the Foreign Secretary a letter in severe condemnation of such conduct on the part of British subjects in that country. A letter was written on the 1st of February, 1860, by Mr. Hammond, to the East India and China Association, under the direction of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in which, after describing the state of things,
576
he went on to say that Her Majesty's Government had a right to expect that the extension of the commerce of the country should not be neutralized by such proceedings, and that the whole weight of the commercial interests of this country should be brought to bear upon a state of things which was at once discreditable to the British name, and which was incompatible with the successful progress of our trade with Japan. Sir Rutherford Alcock, in his work on Japan, has expressed in strong language his sense of the misconduct of unscrupulous adventurers in that country. He shows that persons of higher position than common sailors have also shown a contemptuous disregard for the prejudices and long-established customs of the Japanese. I fear that the fault extends still further than Sir Rutherford Alcock alleges, and that even our diplomatic agents there are not exempt from this charge. It has been asserted that in spite of the laws of Japan, which impose the penalty of death on firing a gun within a certain distance of the residence of the Tycoon, the members of our Legation have set the example of shooting within the prohibited distance. Your Lordships will find that Sir Rutherford Alcock records in his own book an act which I will venture to call one of the greatest violence and illegality committed by himself. Sir Rutherford Alcock found a private road, leading to a coal mine, the property of one of the Daimios, stopped by a barrier guarded by two sentinels. When he was going to pass the barrier the sentinels endeavoured to prevent him, but, by his own account, he pushed passed them, so that they were unable to stop him without actual force, which it seems they abstained from using, so that he succeeded in getting by. Why, under such circumstances, the sentries, according to the practice of all Europe, would have been justified if they had shot Sir Rutherford Alcock on the spot; and if he had been so shot he would only have got what he deserved. My Lords, I have already mentioned that the treaties entered into by Japan with this country and with other Western nations were not conceded willingly but from fear. It is important to add that this concession was made against the wish of a very powerful party in Japan, which desired at all hazards to maintain the long cherished policy of the Empire by continuing the rigorous exclusion of foreigners. It is not surprising that

577
this party was greatly increased in strength, and that the disposition to receive foreigners kindly, which had in the first instance been shown by a large part of the population, was unhappily changed into a very different feeling by such misconduct on the part of foreigners as I have described; and this misconduct produced a more intense feeling of animosity in Japan than it might have done elsewhere, owing to the peculiar state of society that exists there. Your Lordships are aware that for many centuries Japan has been ruled by a feudal nobility, and that the law of honour is there carried to the greatest extreme. In Japan an insult to an individual can only be washed out with blood. It is illegal to draw a sword there except in self-defence; but the person who does draw it in self-defence is punished with death if he puts it in the scabbard again without having despatched his adversary. The only alternative given to him is that of suicide in the form prescribed by ancient custom. It is scarcely to be expected that a people so sensitive of their honour will submit to outrages at the hands of Europeans. Accordingly, very dreadful crimes have been committed by Japanese in revenge for what they have suffered in that way. The English Embassy has been attacked, and murderous assaults have been made on several British subjects, some of whom have lost their lives. These crimes are referred to in the next Resolution I have to submit to your Lordships, which is in the following terms:—
"That the animosity against foreigners excited in the minds of the Japanese by these outrages and insults has increased the repugnance long felt by the most powerful classes among them to renewed intercourse with European nations, and has led to the perpetration of some murders and several daring and desperate attacks upon foreigners; diplomatic servants and other subjects of Her Majesty having been among the sufferers from these acts of violence."
In support of what that Resolution asserts, I may refer to despatches of Sir Rutherford Alcock and to an able Report on the state of Japan by Admiral Hope, dated August 20, 1861, and presented to Parliament in 1862. Both these high authorities state that the acts of violence committed by the Japanese arose out of the provocation that had been given, though often it was not the individual who had been guilty of the original insult who became the victim of the revenge it provoked. The murder of the Secretary of one of the Embassies was traced to the fact that the
578
servant of one of the Daimios had been struck by a person connected with the Embassy, and the person who received the blow had been reproached for having dared to appear before his master without having avenged the insult. The next Resolution which I have to submit to your Lordships states—
"That the Government of the Tycoon has professed the strongest desire to prevent the commission of these crimes and to punish their perpetrators, but has declared itself unable to do so; nor docs there appear to be any reason to doubt the truth of these declarations, since two Tycoons and a Regent of Japan have themselves been murdered, and one of the principal Ministers narrowly escaped the same fate, owing to the hostility they had incurred from being supposed to favour an increased intercourse with foreigners."
The accuracy of this Resolution, so far as regards the professions made by the Government of Japan, is beyond question, since the whole Correspondence is full of the expression of their earnest desire to comply with the demands of the British Minister, by affording better protection to British subjects, and by punishing the perpetrators of the sanguinary outrages complained of. Nor is there the slightest reason for doubting the sincerity of these professions; on the contrary, everything combines to show that the Government was totally unable to control the excited passions of that large part of the population which had become bitterly hostile to foreigners. Strong evidence of the sincerity of the Government of Japan may be drawn from what befel those who held the highest posts in it, from their being supposed to be too favourable to foreigners. One Tycoon had been poisoned; another was otherwise murdered. The Regent, in the midst of his guard, was set upon in open day by a band of conspirators, who sacrificed their own lives for his destruction, and succeeded in butchering him, and carrying away his head. A similar attack was made upon the Foreign Minister, who escaped with difficulty, after an affray in which several of his own followers and of his assailants were killed. These things are quite inconsistent with the supposition that the outrages on foreigners could have been prevented by the Government; but the strongest proof of their sincerity is afforded by the fact reported by Colonel Neale. The Government of Japan, in the hope of guarding against collisions which it felt that it was otherwise unable to prevent, had determined to close against its own subjects, and reserve for the exclusive use of foreigners,

579
forty miles of the imperial highway to the capital. Suppose we had been asked to give up forty miles of the Great Western road to foreigners, and go to the expense of making a new road for our own people in order that they might not be exposed to meet these foreigners? In order to make this case intelligible, your Lordships must observe that the old law of Japan allowed no person to remain on horseback in the presence of a Daimio. Our countrymen, however, refuse to obey this law, and claim the right, not only of not getting off their horses when they meet the Daimios, but of riding along the road when they are coming. I do not pretend that the notions entertained by the Japanese on this matter are consistent with civilized ideas; but if Englishmen for their own purposes choose to go to Japan and find among the people certain opinions and certain prejudices which have existed for centuries, I think they are bound to consider those feelings and prejudices in their treatment of that people. What makes their proceedings more offensive is, that by long tradition persons in trade are looked upon in Japan as of an inferior class. In Japanese society the lowest workman and handicraftsman ranks higher than the richest merchant; and, therefore, when our merchants meet these Daimios in the way I have described, great offence was taken by the Japanese. Nor have our countrymen been content to ride along the roads in a manner to violate only an unreasonable law, and unreasonable customs of the people. The Bishop of Victoria in his account of his visit to Japan, describes as highly reprehensible the reckless manner in which Englishmen were in the habit of riding at full speed through the crowded ways, often causing serious injury and sometimes risk of their lives to the inhabitants, and I hold in my hand an official notice issued by the Consul at Kanagawa condemning this practice. In these circumstances, the Japanese might very fairly have said, that in order to prevent collisions it was our duty to execute our treaty obligations, and compel British subjects to respect the law; and it shows no ordinary desire on their part to preserve peace, that instead of doing this they were willing to deprive themselves of the use of their principal road to the capital, and abandon it altogether to foreigners. It is more important to bear these facts in mind, because it was in riding along a road when one of the greatest Princes of
580
the land was approaching that Mr. Richardson was murdered. Undoubtedly this was a violent outrage for which Her Majesty's Government were entitled to ask redress; but still, in my opinion, what they asked as redress was unreasonable, and the measures taken to enforce their demands were contrary alike to the law of nations, to the plainest principles of amity and justice, and to good policy. Though I cannot conceal from you that this is the view I myself take of what has been done, I do not ask your Lordships to adopt it. I have been content to waive the expression of any opinion, and I have strictly confined myself to a naked recital of facts as to which there can be no dispute, in the following Resolution which I have next to submit to you.
"That in order to enforce a demand made by Her Majesty's Government of redress for the murder of a British subject, it was found necessary to undertake hostile operations against one of the Daimios, in the course of which considerable loss was experienced by Her Majesty's ships, and a large and flourishing Japanese town was burnt to the ground."
My Lords, I trust that what I have now said will be sufficient to satisfy your Lordships that the brief statement of facts contained in the first eight of the Resolutions I have laid before you is strictly accurate, and is fully borne out by the papers on your table. It remains for me to show-that these facts properly lead to the conclusions which I have drawn from them in the remaining Resolutions of which the next is as follows;—
"That this experience of what has already taken place leaves little hope for the future of its being possible to avert fresh collisions between Her Majesty's subjects and the Japanese if the existing arrangements for regulating the intercourse between them are maintained unaltered; and if such collisions should occur they must sooner or later lead to a war which would necessarily cost many lives and much money both to this country and to Japan, and would probably bring upon the latter the heavy calamities of general anarchy and confusion from the destruction of its existing Government, while there would be no means of creating any other authority to replace it."
In submitting to you this Resolution I would ask you to consider whether there is any ground for hoping, that if the existing arrangements for regulating the intercourse between our countrymen and the Japanese remain unaltered, they will produce any other effects than they hitherto have? Can it be supposed that if British subjects are left in Japan without any effective control either by the Japanese or

581
the English law they will act otherwise than they have done? But, if British subjects continue to ill-treat and insult the people among whom they live, fresh murders will follow, and new demands for redress, which the Government of Japan will be unable or unwilling to comply with, and which we shall think it necessary to enforce. This, indeed, seems to be what is anticipated by Her Majesty's Ministers; for, on the 14th of November, 1863, the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs addressed a communication to the Lords of the Admiralty, intimating that he had instructed Her Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires in Japan to take measures for protecting British subjects, and for resenting any outrages upon them, and he requested that the Admiral on the station might receive such orders from their Lordships as would authorize him to act for that purpose, so far as the means at his disposal enabled him to do so. The British Minister is further authorized to send for 500 troops in addition to those already in Japan. But the effect of these instructions is to give authority to the British Minister and Admiral to begin a war with Japan at their own discretion Now, my Lords, I would remind my noble Friend that, during his own administration, a very strong opinion, and, I may add, a very just one, was expressed by the late Duke of Wellington as to the danger and inexpediency of intrusting Her Majesty's servants abroad with the power of making war without direct instructions from the Government at home. That power is in reality one of far too dangerous a character to be intrusted to the discretion of any subordinate officer. Local circumstances, the opinions of those by whom they are surrounded, and the feelings with which Englishmen are apt to regard semi-civilized nations with whom they are brought into contact, necessarily exercise so much influence over the minds of those who are employed in the service of the Crown in these countries as to render them unfit to be intrusted with the power of involving the nation in war. Her Majesty's Government have recently had calamitous proof of the effect of leaving such large discretionary powers to subordinate officers in what had recently occurred on the Western Coast of Africa. Her Majesty's Government seem also to have formed a most inadequate notion of the difficulties they would have to encounter in a war with Japan. If, unfortunately, we should
582
be involved in such a war, not the 500 soldiers they propose sending there, nor even 5,000, would prove sufficient for the operations it would require. Our wars with China have been attended with heavy expense in money if not in blood. If I am not mistaken, the Chancellor of the Exchequer estimated the cost of the last short war at £8,000,000, but a war with Japan would cost us far more both in money and in blood. Its people are of a very different character, and its Government of very different efficiency from those of China. They are a high-spirited people, always accustomed to carry arms of a most formidable character, in the use of which they are skilful. Instead of undervaluing the arts and knowledge of the West, they show an anxious desire to acquire them. Already they have learned to construct steam-engines, and have purchased steam-vessels. They are turning their attention to modern improvements in artillery: it is said, and I believe with truth, that they are purchasing rifled guns in the United States, and are endeavouring to obtain instruction in their use. Nor is it likely that the Government of Japan will, like that of China, allow a British force to wage war with them in one place, while British subjects in other parts of the empire are allowed to enjoy all the advantages of peace and continue their trade unmolested. Judging from what we know of the feelings and the character of the people, we may anticipate that if war is begun it will be carried on by them in earnest, and that our merchants and their property at Yokohama and the other open ports will be exposed to attacks from which it will be difficult to protect them. Bear in mind how large is the value of British property in those ports exposed to the torch of the incendiary, and how difficult it will be to defend English residents from the midnight attacks of men who have shown how ready they are to sacrifice their own lives in order to kill the foreigners whom they hate. The nature of the war we shall have to wage, if we allow ourselves to be involved in it, deserves also to be considered. We shall have no means of carrying it on except by measures which will fall most severely upon the part of the population which is best affected to us. Already in trying to punish Satsuma we have burnt a rich and flourishing town, and if we have to attack other batteries we shall in like manner (either unavoidably or by design) destroy the property if

583
not the lives of the unarmed and peaceable population. And when we have destroyed the batteries on the coast and the trading towns what are we to do next, and what shall we have gained? The Daimios and their armed retainers will probably retire inland, and it requires to be explained how it will be possible to follow them into the mountainous and difficult country which composes the greater part of Japan. What measures of coercion can we bring to bear upon them, and of what use will it be to occupy a few spots on the sea coast, if the rest of the territory is in the hands of those who will then be our bitter enemies. It seems to me, therefore, that while a war with Japan would certainly be attended with a fearful sacrifice of lives and of treasure, there is no small hazard that in the end we might be foiled by an enemy totally incapable of meeting us in the field. But assuming that our arms are as successful as you can desire, it remains to be considered whether the war would not be one in which success would be even more calamitous than defeat. The extension of our trade certainly will not be promoted by burning other towns as we have burnt Kagosima, or by the devastation of the country which will be the seat of war, since the destruction of their property will not increase either the power or the willingness of the Japanese to purchase our manufactures, or to supply us with the commodities we wish to buy. But it is not merely the direct consequences of the war which we ought to regard; we ought also to take into consideration results which, though indirect, would be found to be still more important. If we succeed in overcoming the resistance of the Japanese, the result will in all probability be the exaction of a new treaty imposing more onerous conditions upon the people of that country than they have hitherto laboured under. It is well, in considering the question, to glance for a moment at the effect of such treaties. What has been their operation in China? When we first employed our arms to establish closer relations with that country some twenty-five years ago we found the empire peaceful and prosperous, its provinces in a high state of cultivation, and supporting a numerous and a happy population. But by the effects of our wars the authority of the Government in China has been completely broken down, and a state of anarchy has been brought
584
about which has caused the deepest misery throughout that vast empire. Provinces which, on our first entrance into China, were rich and flourishing, are now utterly ruined, hundreds of thousands of human lives have been sacrificed, and in the newspapers of this day I find the latest accounts from China state that some provinces are so completely ruined that the inhabitants have been driven to support life by that last and most dreadful resource—cannibalism. The same process is now in its first stage in Japan. If our present policy be persisted in, it will not be many years before all the authority of the Japanese Government would be entirely destroyed, and we should not be in a position to substitute an authority in its stead to maintain order throughout that extensive empire. A successful war with Japan can hardly lead to any other result. Its institutions are not such as to withstand the effects of defeat, and it is the nature of Asiatic Governments to be easily overthrown, while it is impossible when their strength has once been broken to re-establish their authority, or to create another to take its place. Such are the grounds upon which I submit to the House that it is our duty to avert these evils, and therefore I propose a Resolution—
"That, apart from all higher considerations, the true interests of this country, and especially its permanent commercial interests, require that such calamitous results should not be risked by maintaining the existing treaty with Japan unaltered, and that it is desirable that the provisions of this treaty should be so modified as to place the future intercourse of the two nations on a better footing for the future."
The truth of this assertion can hardly, I think, be disputed, and, if not, I think there can be no objection to the next Resolution which I propose—
"That it would therefore he advisable that Her Majesty's servants should without delay enter into friendly communication with the Government of Japan and with the Governments of other nations having treaties with Japan similar to our own, for the purpose of determining what changes it would be expedient to make in the provisions of these treaties."
In this Resolution I have not ventured to prescribe what modifications should be introduced into the treaty, as I do not consider that it falls within the province of Parliament to do so, since it properly belongs to Her Majesty's servants to consider in the first instance what changes might advantageously be made. When they have made up their minds as to what changes it

585
would be desirable to make in the treaties with Japan, it would be well to have an understanding with other civilized Powers, and especially with France. If the concurrence of these Powers could be Boomed, after the experience of our power which the Japanese have recently had, there would be little difficulty in obtaining their concurrence to any modifications of the treaty which might be suggested. But although I have not thought it right to point out in the Resolution what modifications should be introduced into the treaty, because upon constitutional grounds I think it beyond the province of Parliament to prescribe them, yet I do not think there is any impropriety in my stating what are my own views upon that point. I will therefore express my conviction that if we wish to remain on good terms with Japan, that it is in the first place indispensable greatly to restrict the operation of what is called the "exterritoriality" clause. At present British subjects in certain ports of Japan, and for a considerable distance beyond them, are altogether exempted from the control of the Native authorities. I will venture to say that such a system could not possibly be worked in Europe. If English sailors at Havre or New York, or American and French sailors in Liverpool, were exempt from the interference of the local police, and if they could only be dealt with by their own Consuls, it would be impossible for a single day to maintain order and peace in these towns. It is exactly the same in China and Japan, where we have no machinery to control our own subjects. Indeed, without taking the government of those countries into our own hands, it would be impossible to have an efficient police or proper tribunals for the maintenance of order or the administration of justice. If, therefore, it should be thought necessary to adhere to the principle of "exterritoriality" at all, and I am by no means sure that we ought, for I am far from being convinced that a substitute for that system might not be provided with the assent of the Japanese Government, which would ensure to foreigners all necessary protection without the present abuses—if, I say, that principle is to be maintained at all, it ought to be confined within the narrowest limits possible, and the privilege should be enjoyed within a very restricted space set apart in the different open ports for the residence of foreigners and for carrying on their trade. I do not mean to say that British subjects should be pre-
586
vented from going beyond the ports. There would be no occasion for prohibiting of reigners from going, or even from residing beyond the defined limits, provided it were distinctly understood that if they thought proper to do so it would be at their own risk, that they would be amenable for any misconduct to the Native authorities, and must look also to these alone for protection from violence or wrong without having a claim to call upon the British Minister or Admiral to relieve them from any danger or difficulty. No doubt a great clamour would be raised against such a restriction of the privileges now enjoyed by foreigners in Japan, but with this restriction all that is really necessary for trade, and surely it is not expedient that we should risk all the calamities of war in order that a few merchants and some drunken sailors should be allowed to seek for amusement, without control, for thirty miles round the trading ports. And under this system men who would really act with prudence and consideration for the feelings and customs of the people would have no difficulty in safely visiting the interior, as we may infer from the kind treatment met with by Mr. Fortune and Mr. Veitch. The evils which must necessarily spring from the absence of police have not yet been developed in Japan. To judge of their extent, we should look to China. I have a trade report from Shanghai, which describes the population as in a state of utter lawlessness; and the evils of such a state of things are greatly increased by the mutual jealousies of the Consuls of the Foreign Powers. The English Consul cannot punish an American subject, nor the American Consul an English subject; and the result is that utter lawlessness prevails among the population. I especially complain that vessels are allowed to hoist the British flag on the coast of China, under cover of which they commit depredations which bring odium on this country. Strict measures should be taken to prevent the growth of a similar system on the coasts of Japan.
My Lords, this is the main alteration which is required in the treaty, but I think it would further be advisable to simplify a good deal the stipulations we have imposed upon Japan with respect to trade; and there are some other points on which I should have wished to touch, were it not that I am ashamed of having so long occupied your Lordships' attention. I will, therefore, only state generally what appears to

587
me to be a wise policy to pursue. In the first place, we ought to restrict as much as possible the engagements we impose on Japan, and we should reduce and simplify as much as we can the stipulations of our treaties, in order that the Government of that country might not be tempted to break them, and thus impose on us the necessity of applying coercion. Then I contend that it is on every account in the highest degree desirable that we should be able to reduce the very large force we have in China and Japan. It appears from the papers produced that it has been found necessary to order 1,000 additional men to China, partly with a view to the demands it may be necessary to make on the force in China for service in Japan. And in addition to the land forces, I find, on reference to the naval papers, that we have at this moment in Japan or China no fewer than thirty-five vessels of war—all steamers, including gunboats. This is a very large force, kept up at great expense to the country, and on the principle of my noble Friend we ought to reduce these demands on our resources as much as possible. This is advisable also for another reason—the maintenance of so large a force kept up the feeling of suspicion in the minds of the Japanese. The Bishop of Victoria has stated that the people are quite aware of the origin and history of our connection with India. They know we went there as traders, and ended by subduing all the Native Princes and Powers of India. They are very much afraid of the same fate themselves, and most anxious to maintain their independence. It appears to me that a really profitable trade between the two nations can never be carried on unless goodwill and friendship be established. It is in vain to go on as we are now doing. So long as their object is to thwart or cripple our trade, they will always find out some new means of accomplishing it, apparently within the letter of the treaty. But if we go on the opposite principle—if we make them feel the value of our trade—if we endeavour to remove their just suspicions and just fears as to the consequences of what is now going on—if we do that, the commerce is so mutually advantageous that we may rely on it the people and Government of Japan will learn to see its benefits, and gradually relax their restrictions upon it. I have it upon the authority of my noble Friend himself (Earl Russell) that it was the misconduct of British subjects, their overbearing and lawless behaviour,
588
which has been the source of all these evils. It is the knowledge that they are backed by the force of this country which leads them to adopt such a line of conduct, and nothing would have so good an effect in inducing them to alter their behaviour as the withdrawal or diminution of the force at their command. I may remind my noble Friend how well this policy succeeded in China during his own administration. Almost immediately after my noble Friend formed his Administration (in which I had the honour of holding the office of Secretary of State for the Colonies), in July, 1846, the Government received intelligence of an expedition which had been sent without instructions from the Government at home by the Governor of Hong Kong to destroy the forts in the Canton river in order to punish the Chinese for certain offences which they were said to have committed. With the full assent of my noble Friend and the Cabinet, I addressed to the Governor of Hong Kong a despatch containing a severe reproof for this unauthorized exercise of power; and, in order to prevent the possibility of such an attempt being repeated, followed it up by greatly reducing the strength of the garrison of Hong Kong. That had the very best effect in producing a conciliatory disposition on the part of the British authorities, and for six years there was no quarrel between them and the Chinese. No sooner, however, was the Crimean war at an end than an additional force was sent to Hong Kong; and in a very short time the Governor picked a quarrel with the Chinese, which led to a war, all the ill consequences of which have not yet been fully experienced.
My Lords, my last Resolution proposes that a humble Address should be presented to Her Majesty setting forth the substance of the preceding ones. I must express my earnest hope that my noble Friend will not regard this as a censure upon the policy of the Government. Although I recommend a change of policy, I do not consider this to imply blame of those who are now in office, because the responsibility for the policy hitherto pursued does not rest entirely with Her Majesty's present Government. It rests in part, at least, with their predecessors, and still more with Parliament, which has tacitly approved that policy. I ask the House to pronounce no censure; I only ask it to express an opinion that our experience of the working of the treaty concluded six

589
years ago with Japan has shown that it is desirable that that treaty should be revised and its terms amended. If Her Majesty's Government are inclined to take that course, it is most desirable that they should have the declared support of Parliament, because it cannot be done without provoking some clamour out of doors, I trust that your Lordships will agree to the Resolutions which I am about to move, I have asked for your support only upon the ground that our commercial interests render desirable the course which I am recommending; but I am persuaded that your Lordships will agree with me that this question involves far higher considerations than that, and that we are bound to consider not only what is for our interest, but what is consistent with our notions of right and wrong. Even if it can be proved—which it cannot—that it is necessary to adhere in Japan to a system by which we should inevitably become involved in a war with the Japanese, we should be bound to abstain from taking a course so contrary to the plainest rules of justice and right.
The noble Earl then moved to resolve,

1. That the Relations between this Country and Japan appear to this House to be at present in a highly unsatisfactory State:

2. That it is shown by the Papers laid before Parliament by Command of Her Majesty, that the Treaty concluded between Her Majesty and the Tycoon of Japan on the 26th of August, 1858, gives to British Subjects in Japan Rights and Privileges which the Government of that Country was avowedly reluctant to grant, and was only induced to confer upon them through Dread of British Naval and Military Power:

3. That the Government of Japan has also been induced by this same Fear to make with other European Nations and with the United States Treaties generally similar to that which it has concluded with Her Majesty;

4. That under the above-named Treaty British Subjects are entitled to claim Admission into certain Portions of the Territory of Japan without being subject to the Jurisdiction of its Government, Her Majesty having taken upon Herself the Obligation of enforcing on their Part good Conduct and Obedience to the Law:

5. That the Reports of Her Majesty's diplomatic Servants show that Her Majesty has not been able to fulfil this Obligation: the Provisions of the Statutes authorizing Her Majesty's Consuls to try and punish British Subjects for Offences committed in Japan, and the Means available for carrying these Laws into effect, have proved altogether insufficient to prevent gross Outrages and Insults from being inflicted on the People of Japan by British Subjects and Persons assuming that Character:

6. That the Animosity against Foreigners excited in the Minds of the Japanese by these
590
Outrages and Insults has increased the Repugnance long felt by the most powerful Classes among them to renewed Intercourse with European Nations, and has led to the Perpetration of some Murders and several daring and desperate Attacks upon Foreigners; diplomatic Servants and other Subjects of Her Majesty having been among the Sufferers from these Acts of Violence:

7. That the Government of the Tycoon has professed the strongest Desire to prevent the Commission of these Crimes and to punish their Perpetrators, but has declared itself unable to do so; nor does there appear to be any Reason to doubt the Truth of these Declarations, since Two Tycoons and a Regent of Japan have themselves been murdered, and One of the principal Ministers narrowly escaped the same Fate, owing to the Hostility they bad incurred from being supposed to favour an increased Intercourse with Foreigners:

8. That in order to enforce a Demand made by Her Majesty's Government of Redress for the Murder of a British Subject it was found necessary to undertake hostile Operations against One of the Daimios, in the Course of which considerable Loss was experienced by Her Majesty's Ships and a large and flourishing Japanese Town was burnt to the Ground:

9. That this Experience of what has already taken place leaves little Hope for the future of its being possible to avert fresh Collisions between Her Majesty's Subjects and the Japanese if the existing Arrangements for regulating the Intercourse between them are maintained unaltered; and if such Collisions should occur they must sooner or later lead to a War which would necessarily cost many Lives and much Money both to this Country and to Japan, and would probably bring upon the latter the heavy Calamities of general Anarchy and Confusion from the Destruction of its existing Government, while there would be no Means of creating any other Authority to replace it:

10. That, apart from all higher Considerations, the true Interests of this Country, and especially its permanent Commercial Interests, require that such calamitous Results should not be risked by maintaining the existing Treaty with Japan unaltered, and that it is desirable that the Provisions of this Treaty should be so modified as to place the future Intercourse of the Two Nations on a better Footing for the future:

11. That it would therefore be advisable that Her Majesty's Servants should without Delay enter into friendly Communication with the Government of Japan and with the Governments of other Nations having Treaties with Japan similar to our own, for the Purpose of determining what Changes it would be expedient to make in the Provisions of these Treaties:

12. That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty to lay before Her Majesty the Substance of the foregoing Resolutions, and humbly to pray that Her Majesty will be graciously pleased to take the same into Her serious Consideration, with the view of adopting such Measures as may be found best calculated to avert War between this Country and Japan, and to promote an Increase of Trade and friendly Intercourse between the Two Nations to their mutual Advantage.

EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, after the long and able speech which my noble Friend has made, I am, I confess, somewhat disappointed to find that he should have sat down without having thrown any light on what I thought was the main purpose of my noble Friend in addressing you—our relations with Japan might be amended. He thinks it desirable that there should be an increase of trade between the two nations, and I had hoped he was about to point out the means whereby this object might be obtained: but although he was profuse in his censures on the existing state of things, yet as to the manner in which that intercourse might be improved my noble Friend was very nearly silent. My noble Friend began his speech by finding fault with the manner in which our intercourse with Japan was begun. And here I must remark that, both on this subject and on the subject of what our policy should be, he aimed at subverting our policy, not only in that country but in China, and with regard to all Eastern nations. My noble Friend says that our treaty with Japan was obtained by force and intimidation. In the case of China, no doubt the treaty of Tien-tsin was brought about by our entering the Peiho with a considerable force; but my noble Friend is hardly correct in the assertion which he made in reference to Japan. Lord Elgin went to Japan with one steam frigate and, I believe, two gunboats, which is hardly such a force as could be fairly said to have so intimidated the Japanese Government and to have forced the treaty upon them. There were, I may add, other treaties made before that time. There was one entered into between Japan and America on the occasion when Commodore Perry went to that country with a considerable force; and I cannot see that Lord Elgin was so much to blame because he went with a frigate and two gunboats to make a similar treaty. Other nations, says my noble Friend, have followed the same policy of intimidation. Now, one of those Powers which have intimidated Japan is Switzerland, which my noble Friend will, I think, hardly contend is a Power calculated to inspire the Japanese with such fear as to force them to conclude a treaty of commerce. That being so, the foundation of my noble Friend's argument falls to the ground, for it appears that it was not by intimidation that we obtained the treaty, and that, even if it was obtained by force on our part, greater
592
force had been employed on the part of other countries. But what, let me ask, have been the fruits of these treaties? One would have thought that if the origin of these treaties had been so objectionable, as my noble Friend describes, the fruits of the treaties would have been of a kind equally undesirable; but the results have been that, in the course of a few years, there is a commercial intercourse of foreign nations with Japan to the value of £7,000,000. What, let me ask, is that but the intercourse of friendship—an intercourse whereby the Japanese obtain what they want from foreigners, and foreigners what they want from them, to the mutual benefit of both. Is that the friendly intercourse which my noble Friend wishes to stop? Why, he declares himself that he wishes to increase the trade with Japan. But then, he says that the Japanese having been induced to make the treaty through fear, we entered into a stipulation that British subjects should be entitled to obtain admission to certain portions of the territory of Japan without being under the jurisdiction of the Japanese authorities, but that they should be amenable for any offences they might commit only to our own authorities. He complains of the law called the "extraterritorial law." But what, I would ask, has been the whole course of our intercourse with Eastern nations? What is the history of our intercourse with China and with Turkey? Have we not entered into arrangements with China of this very, character? Would we be justified, then, in adopting an entirely new plan in regard to Japan, saying that the Japanese laws should be allowed to prevail in the case of any British subject who might be accused of having committed an offence against them? Your Lordships must bear in mind that the Japanese laws are most sanguinary. What should we say if we heard in England that a young English merchant had been brought before the Japanese tribunals subjected to torture, put to death, being disembowelled, and, in short, suffering all the horrid tortures which the code of the country inflicts? And what would be said if we were to admit the application of the Japanese law to British offenders, that all the relations of the criminal should be put to death for his offence? Is it desirable, under those circumstances, that we should abandon a plan which has now been acted upon for three centuries, in accordance with which, when we enter Oriental na-

593
tions, we carry with us our own tribunals and our own notions of justice? When Japanese subjects commit an offence against the English we ask them to punish their own criminals; but when an Englishman commits an offence we do not surrender him up to be dealt with by the Japanese laws. In that respect we can, I think, make no alteration without incurring great danger; and I believe that the very danger which my noble Friend pointed out—that of getting into repeated disputes with the Chinese and Japanese authorities—would be promoted and not prevented by our taking the position which my noble Friend suggested in reference to our merchants in those parts, I cannot say, therefore, that in this respect the suggestion of my noble Friend would bring about any advantages; whilst, however, fully convinced of the advantages arising from our trade with China and Japan, I am obliged to admit with sorrow that that trade is undoubtedly accompanied by great abuses on the part of Englishmen themselves. Their manner and demeanour when living in those Eastern countries is not always what it ought to be, I this very morning received a letter from Sir Frederick Bruce, written in the same admirable tone and temper as so many others, in which he laments the insolence and disregard of Chinese customs, the want of courtesy, and the improper behaviour in many respects towards an inferior race, which characterizes some of our countrymen, and which he says is a disgrace to several who go apparently for the purposes of trade to China. The same thing, I am sorry to think, may be said in the case of Japan; nor is it confined to these two among Eastern nations. I hope that in time to come these persons will be influenced by more civilized views, and more regard to the customs of the persons among whom they live. All that we can under the circumstances do is that which men like Sir Rutherford Alcock are disposed to do—that is, to refuse to take up the cause of any of these men who may bring trouble on themselves by their own misconduct, and thus show them that it is not because they belong to a powerful nation that they are to be countenanced in their misconduct. I know of no alteration in the treaty, of no particular provisions which could be introduced, which could remedy the present state of things; and we can only hope that while the commercial intercourse itself with Japan is productive of great benefit, the abuses which
594
attend upon it will be in time removed by the exhibition of better conduct on the part of our own countrymen, who have the remedy entirely in their own hands. I would add that the Government of the Tycoon has shown every disposition—being fairly treated on our part—to do all that is necessary on their side to improve the trade between the two countries. But it is not attributable to our policy that there are great dissensions in Japan. There are the Prince of Satsuma, the Prince of Nagato, and many others of the high feudal aristocracy—one of them said to have 200,000 men under his command, and immense revenues—whose privileges and feudal powers were secured to them some two or three centuries ago. There is, besides, the Mikado, a sort of supreme spiritual chief, and there is the Tycoon, who is said by the best authorities to have the treaty-making power. How can we prevent these different authorities from quarrelling among themselves and from being jealous of one another? The Daimios say, and perhaps with truth, that the Tycoon has managed in providing that certain ports shall be the ports at which English ships shall enter, to take the greater part of the profits to himself, and to prevent the ports which belong to these Daimios from being the places of commerce for foreign merchants. If that be so, as it it well known that the profits of this trade are enormous, it is no wonder that these Daimios wish to have some share in it, and that many of them wish, in conjunction with the Mikado, to overpower the authority of the Tycoon. But that is not a matter with which the English are concerned; that is not a result for which British power is responsible. It is a matter that may at any time produce civil war—civil war not brought about by England, but by the dissensions and jealousies of the Japanese themselves. A noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Carnarvon) who brought forward the question of Japan last year, concluded—as, sitting in Opposition, it was perhaps natural for him to conclude—that we were about to do everything that was foolish upon this subject—he said that the Government were going to punish the Tycoon, as the Tycoon was our friend, and that the Daimio, who was our enemy, we intended to leave alone. Now, the fact is that we were quite as wise as the noble Earl opposite. We did say, no doubt, that the Tycoon ought to pay a considerable fine because he had allowed a public road to be the

595
scene of a disgraceful murder on the part of one of the Daimios; but we called upon the Daimio himself to bring the murderers to justice, and pay his share of the fine. We did not, therefore, commit the folly that the noble Earl supposed we should commit. My noble Friend who brought forward this question to-night meant, it seems, to be particularly civil; but he told us that our conduct with respect to the murder of Mr. Richardson was against all principles of international law, against all principles of justice, and against good policy. For a particularly civil person, this, I think, was rather hard upon the Government. But I do not see the matter in that light. Here were three or four English people—one of them a lady—riding upon a road which was assigned by treaty as a road upon which British subjects were able to pass on foot or on horseback when they pleased. Being there when one of these great Daimios passed, they stood on one side of the road, where one of them was murdered, the lady and the others being attacked, and escaping with many bruises and wounds to Yokohama. We thought that was an injury which required some reparation, and we did not think it was contrary to the law of nations to ask for reparation. We said that the murderers ought to be tried; and as the Prince of Satsuma refused any redress, we sent ships to his harbour and took by way of reprisals two of his vessels. The Prince of Satsuma, I must say, behaved in one respect with great humanity, for he sent a notice to his own people that there would probably be some firing, and advised them to leave the town. The batteries of this town fired upon our men-of-war. What were our men-of-war to do? Were they not to return the fire? Were they to go off immediately as fast as they could without returning the fire, and with all the appearance, and, indeed, the reality, of running away from the forces of the Daimio? What would have been the consequence of such conduct? Why, my Lords, how unsafe would have been the life of every Englishman in Japan! The Admiral who was in command of the British squadron ordered fire to be opened. It was opened against those batteries; the batteries were in a great degree silenced; but as a high wind was blowing at the time, and the houses were entirely built of wood and paper, the town caught fire and a great part of it was burnt. Well, I think, though this was a lamentable oc-
596
currence, that a great deal too much horror was expressed at it. In consequence of the notice that had been given hardly any persons were killed except the soldiers in the batteries; there really was not that great mortality which has been so much lamented; the town has been since rebuilt, and people say that it is a handsomer town than it ever was before. I cannot believe, then, that that proceeding was of the character which my noble Friend states; and certainly with regard to the followers of Prince Satsuma, it was a good lesson for them, for they owned that they did not know that the English were so strong; that they should beware how they offended them again; and the Prince of Satsuma himself has shown since that time the most friendly disposition towards us. My noble Friend says that these collisions must lead to war. But is it more likely that war will result by inflicting some punishment upon the murderers of our people, or by allowing those murderers to go unpunished until there shall be a large accumulation of murders and other injuries? My belief is that the taking notice in this way of such an injury as a horrible murder is the way not to lead to future collisions and war, but rather to prevent them. We know very well what has happened with regard to the French. One of the Japanese princes, the Prince Nagato, as a French ship was passing through a narrow strait, fired upon it and inflicted considerable injury. The French Admiral thereupon attacked the battery, the Japanese soldiers ran away, the battery was destroyed, and every gun was made useless for the future. Here, then, according to my noble Friend, would have been the origin of a great war between France and Japan. But Japan thought better of it, and sent an Embassy to beg pardon for the outrage, and a new treaty has been made between the French and Japanese Government. Such was the effect of an order very similar to that for which I am so much blamed in the case of the Prince of Satsuma. I quite agree with my noble Friend that these Japanese are most ingenious people. This Prince of Satsuma himself has more than once been on board our steam-vessels, and has been very curious in making inquiries, and has bought several steam-vessels himself; and I am told—by Colonel Neale I think—that the Japanese would buy a foreign steam-vessel in a port, and that, the European crew being out of it, they would

597
put their own crew on board and steam out of the port at once, with complete command of the machinery, as if they had been taught the use of it from their earliest youth. Nay, more—in another case one of our officers was receiving two Japanese officers of rank, and immediately they came on board they began discussing the merits of the Armstrong and Whitworth guns, showing great knowledge of all the mechanism of those guns. I am in hopes that, so far from leading to the stoppage of further intercourse between us, so far from leading to hostilities, the policy of Her Majesty's Government will lead to the maintenance of friendly relations with the Japanese; that their display of the more than ordinary anxiety found among Eastern nations to profit by European intercourse will establish that intercourse on a footing of mutual advantage; and that, though there may be on the part of some of the Japanese a good deal of murmuring like the rumbling of distant thunder, the advantage of commercial relations between the two countries will gradually be seen in Japan, and will gradually insure a friendly and a peaceful intercommunication. Coming to the last Resolution of my noble Friend, I must say I had expected from him information and instruction as to the way in which we should improve our relations with Japan. Had be pointed out any mode by which we could effect that object, Her Majesty's Government would have gladly availed themselves of my noble Friend's suggestions. But when he came to that part of his speech, after he had thought fit to blame every part of the policy of the Government of this country—not only of the present but of former Governments—he said it belonged to Her Majesty's Government to find out the way in which an improvement could be effected. Now, my Lords, I must say I so far agree with this Resolution as to see much difficulty in the present state of affairs; but I think if we were to say to the Japanese that we should modify our treaty—that we were prepared to make new arrangements—I think the effect would be that which such a course would have upon other Eastern nations—we should only inspire the Japanese with the idea that we were afraid of their hostilities, and that we were ready to conciliate them by needless and unworthy concessions. I do not see, therefore, that we should gain by any measures of that sort. I am not at all reluctant to enter
598
into some friendly relations with the Japanese, though I must remind your Lordships that friendly relations have been going on between the Government in this country and the Government in Japan, and also between our Minister in Japan and the Ministers of the Tycoon. Sir Rutherford Alcock was prepared to do everything that was courteous towards the Tycoon, and he showed himself ready to do anything which our laws enabled him to do in order to punish any young Englishman who went beyond the rights to which British subjects were entitled according to the terms of our treaty. My noble Friend has said that I have lately spoken as if this country was perfectly helpless. I am quite aware that this country can do great hurt to other countries; but I do not let out of sight that other countries may do some hurt to us. I own that I contemplate not only with repugnance, but disgust, such a state of things as boasting of nothing but the injury which we could do to other countries, while they, on the other hand, should be boasting of the injury which they could I do to us. Certainly that is not a pleasant subject of contemplation; but we know we have power—all foreign nations know we have by our naval and military forces power—to inflict great hurt on any nation attacking us. My noble Friend says, that as regards this country and Japan, we are not behaving according to the laws of nations. I am afraid that for a very long time to come it will be necessary to keep a considerable naval force in the seas of Japan. There are, as I have said, various: parties in Japan, and one of them is very likely to say they will not permit foreigners to come there any longer, and that they will drive them from Japan. That, no doubt, might lead to scenes of bloodshed; but I cannot see that we ought to retire from Japan for that reason, or forego those rights which are of great benefit to us and at the same time of great benefit to the Japanese. My belief is, that we should endeavour to behave justly, and on every occasion repair any wrong of which the Japanese may have reason to complain, but at the same time seek redress for any wrong which may be done by them to British subjects. Under existing circumstances, that is all I can say, while, of course, I should be glad that our relations with Japan could be closer and more secure. But we must recollect that this is a new commerce. The treaty only dates from, I think, 1858, and there is much to be

599
smoothed away in regard to our relations with a people who for a long time would not admit foreigners into their country. At the same time, the commerce between the two nations has been in many respects rapid. During the first four years after the Treaty of Nankin our imports of silk from China amounted to 20,000 bales; in the first four years after our treaty with Japan our imports of silk from that country have been 25,000 bales. That shows a considerable willingness on the part of the Japanese to enter into commerce, and to establish those relations with us which may tend to the promotion of trade. It is impossible for us who have such commerce in every part of the world not to see that in Japan, as elsewhere, some misunderstanding may arise; and all the British Government can do is not to modify or alter those treaties which we have with the Japanese—not to say we will give further concessions in addition to those which we have already made. Last year we engaged to put off the opening of two ports, which were to have been opened this year, for seven years more, and we have shown every disposition to agree to any concession which the Japanese could reasonably ask for; but it appears to me that it would be more advantageous for all parties to go on steadily and quietly, but maintaining our rights, rather than to inaugurate a new system and policy, more especially if that new system and policy were in contradiction of all we have ever done in our dealings with Eastern nations from the time when we first had intercourse with them.
THE BISHOP OF OXFORD: My Lords, I feel bound to express my thanks to the noble Earl opposite (Earl Grey) for having brought this subject before your Lordships and the country ns he has done. I watched closely the speech of the noble Earl, and have carefully considered his Resolutions, and it does appear to me that so far as possible he has avoided all unnecessary blame for the past, and has rather directed the attention of your Lordships to the future and its dangers, and the mode in which those dangers might be averted, than indulged in anything like recrimination in regard to events which have already taken place. I waited with great anxiety to hear the answer given by the noble Earl the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, confident that everything that could be said on the other side would be said with that terse and telling eloquence which the noble Earl always uses. I confess I have listened
600
with great disappointment to that answer. So far as it concerns the removing from my mind the apprehension which the speech of the noble Earl (Earl Grey) had excited, I think the answers to the special points made by my noble Friend were not conclusive, The first and main answer, as I understand it, of the noble Earl to the objections taken by the noble Earl opposite (Earl Grey) to the system by which we undertook on our part to exercise our own laws against our own people in that distant country, and to leave the Japanese to exercise their laws against their own people, is that such is the universal custom of this country with regard to Eastern nations, and that the noble Earl who introduced this subject wished to sweep that entirely away. The noble Earl at the head of the Foreign Office then drew a picture of what would be the result if that arrangement was departed from and the Japanese loft to execute their laws on our countrymen. But, my Lords, I distinctly understood the noble Earl (Earl Grey) proposed to guard against any such supposition. I understood him to say that at the principal ports and at the factories where we had our goods—at those places where we were able to enforce on our own people the reasonable obedience to the Japanese laws, that there he would maintain that principle; but that what he complained of was that we undertake what we cannot perform, because we undertake to throw around individual members of this country in all parts of Japan the ægis of the security of a British subject, and thus have led them to ignore in a most reckless manner the laws of Japan; that we have no power of preventing the breach of those laws, and scarcely any power of punishing them. My noble Friend argued—and I have waited to hear the point answered—that these two were correlative obligations; that where we undertake to protect our own people by our own laws we are bound to show we have sufficient power to make the people obey those laws to which by coming into the country they subject themselves, and to punish those who break them. Therefore the answer of the noble Earl the Foreign Secretary is not satisfactory. I see no reason why this country should confer that which the Government themselves have admitted tends to make our people act in a way that will provoke hostility—the power of recklessly asserting their supposed British independence—which is so dangerous an element in the

601
character of our people. Then the noble Earl the Foreign Secretary said that he broadly denied that the treaties with Japan were chiefly brought about by intimidation, and he quoted Sir Rutherford Alcock in support of that position. But, if there is any point on which Sir Rutherford Alcock is more explicit and emphatic than another it is his declaration that these treaties were brought about by intimidation. He says the Americans went there, and appealed to what we were doing in China, alarming the minds of the Japanese by asking them whether they would bring all this upon themselves, they being unprepared. Then came the news of our successes in China, and the appearance of a small flotilla, which the Japanese took for the avant courier of a great fleet, and the treaties they entered into were distinctly in fear of this country. So strongly did Sir Rutherford Alcock feel this, that he says—
"I know it is alleged that there is a party in the country who are in favour of progress and who desire to see the foreigner admitted into the country to trade, but I have never been able to find that it exists."
There are, he says, there, as everywhere else, two parties—one more extravagantly attached than the other to what they consider their own national habits. And he described them as being known in Japan as the toad-in-the-well party and the non toad-in-the well party; but he says that the most liberal he had been able to find were hostile to doing away with restrictions against foreigners coming amongst them, and that feeling has increased everywhere He says that whereas at first foreigners on going there were received in the houses of the poor with something of welcome and hospitality; but he adds, "I dare not say they would meet any where with such a welcome now." Therefore that which originally began in intimidation is continued now, according to Sir Rutherford Alcock's statement, under increasing disgust, only repressed through the terror of our violence. And, again, we were told by the noble Earl (the Foreign Secretary) that the burning of the Prince of Satsuma's town had been productive of good, and had led him to behave courteously and well since. When we know that he, in common with the other Daimios, is concerting a plan by which they hope, as they believe, to deliver their country—when we know that they are purchasing rifled cannon, and making every provision for that blow which they
602
hope to strike—can we not see that the treaties have been granted with reluctance, that they have been extorted by violence, and that this is the preparation for the certain vengeance which is so much more a characteristic of the Japanese than concession? This is really the strength of the statement of my noble Friend (Earl Grey). The perpetual complaint of the more thoughtful Japanese has been that we are hurrying things too fast. "We grant," they say, "that it may be well, as you tell us, that we should become a trading community, that we should increase our wealth by dealing with the nations of the West; but there must be time for such a trade to grow up. At present it is but an injury to us; at every turn you take our vegetable wax, and you do not leave enough for our own people; you have tricked us as to our gold and exported it in masses, though we have treaty obligations to the contrary; you have suffered your people to insult us and you have set up a shadow man to evade the stipulations of our treaty. All this you have done because you will barter to a degree which we as a people cannot bear the introduction of your commerce and your merchandise. Give us time;"—that is a note sounded in their representation that must reach every heart. I What they in reality say is, "If you are to be enriched by this sudden traffic, have you no regard for us? Can you: not feel for our sufferings? Is it just: to force this upon us that you may a little sooner acquire so much more wealth?" My noble Friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs did not attempt to answer, and I think he did not because he felt he could not answer it, the allegation of the exceeding danger we are running of absolutely destroying the internal Government of Japan by the course we I are now taking. Can it be the intention of this country to reduce Japan to the miserable state of an utterly ungoverned anarchy? Yet that must be the effect if you shake the existing power and cannot substitute another. All the injuries that have been brought upon China must come upon Japan, and many of them with tenfold severity, if you succeed in your policy. We have heard to-night of the great jealousies between the different parties in the Government of Japan. I believe, as far as there exists any difference between the Tycoon and Mikado it could be easily removed; but there is a fierce feud amongst

603
the Daimios, and a continuous tendency to resist the power of the Tycoon, when the Tycoon seems to commit the country to what they consider steps fatal to its welfare. It is said that every step of these treaties has been written in the blood of successive Tycoons. Not one of the treaties has been executed that has not been followed by the poisoning or assassination of the Minister who signed it, and the banishment and degradation of all his subordinates. Does this show that the treaties have been gladly entered into by the Japanese? Does it not tend at once to prove that the treaties were forced upon them by acts of intimidation? What must be the result of continuing such measures? First, the breaking down of the wealth and power of the only central controlling authority which tends to keep these different feudal chieftains in any measure of order. Then, to national dissension among themselves and the misery of the whole Native population. And in the midst of that what attitude are we to assume? Are we to occupy the country, to administer its revenues, to administer its justice, to reform its laws—in short, to make it a part or dependency of our own country, or are we to leave it in the midst of its anarchy? What is to become of your trade if you leave it in a state of anarchy? And how, if you took the other course, are you to have a force sufficient in that remote country to operate amidst a hostile people united against you, with every advantage by nature for repelling invasion? How are you to make head against them except at a cost which I believe the people of Great Britain will not knowingly incur, in order that they may a little hasten the growth of commerce in Japan? It is on these points that the speech of the noble Earl opposite (Earl Grey), which I think exhausted the subject, remains unanswered; and I feel with him, that having passed through all these considerations, which I may call considerations of expediency, we come to the still stronger grounds of the natural principles of right. I maintain that we have no right, no authority, in the sight of Him who governs the universe, to force on an independent people by arms a treaty of commerce which they refuse. I maintain that having established that commerce, we have no right whatever to undertake engagements as to our own subjects which we cannot fulfil, and that the treaty, as it is now constructed, does lead this country
604
to undertake to make its subjects do that which it has no power to make them do. The natural instincts of a people stand ready to avenge themselves when they find we cannot make our subjects obey the laws which they were bound to obey and we have undertaken to enforce. When reading Sir Rutherford Alcock's letter and-book I found the greatest efforts were made by the authorities to induce our people to abstain for three days from making use of a certain road where the Daimios were passing, it being contrary to their law that foreigners should meet them. Although every other road was open for the pleasure of our people they refused to comply with the request of the authorities, although the use of that road was not necessary either for business or pleasure. We have no right to undertake for these people what we have not the power to exact; and I, for one, believe that introducing into the commerce of this country such doubtful and, I may say, such unjust principles, is the way not to its final extension, but is the surest way to lead to its ruin. There is an eating canker upon every extension of national prosperity that is founded on injustice, which by a law more certain than the returns of any mercantile adventure, avenges the cause of right and justice upon the people by whom those principles have been violated. It is written, and will be fulfilled—"Woe unto him that buildeth his chamber on unrighteousness and his house upon wrong."
THE DUKE OF SOMERSETsaid, he did not think it was necessary to go back to the origin of the treaty with Japan; but he would remind their Lordships that a treaty was obtained in the first instance by the American Government, and all that we and other nations asked was to be put on the same footing as the Americans. He entirely concurred with the noble Earl opposite (Earl Grey) as to the importance of our showing forbearance and moderation in our dealings with the Japanese, and in regretting the misconduct of many Europeans in that country. No doubt there had been many cases of gross tyranny perpetrated towards the Natives of Japan, not by Englishmen only but by other Europeans; but that was a question quite apart from the treaty. The noble Earl said they should make a new treaty with Japan; but whilst he said that, his Resolutions affirmed that we on the one side and the Tycoon on the other could not enforce the present one. Then of what

605
use would it be our entering into fresh negotiations with them for another treaty? His (the Duke of Somerset's) main objection to the Resolutions was that, if adopted, they would inevitably lead to war; for if we were to depart from our present treaty rights the Japanese would say we had given them a great advantage—that they had obtained a great victory, and that all they had to do was to insist on further concessions. The objection raised by the British and French Admirals to the erection of the batteries at Yokohama was, he thought, very well founded, for those batteries would, as they stated, have placed the lives and the property of foreigners there at the mercy of the Japanese. The House would remember that when Admiral Hope went to the Peiho, batteries were insidiously raised, and his ships being allowed to come in quite close were then suddenly fired into. If we had allowed these batteries to be erected at Yokohama the Europeans would have been in a similar manner entirely at the mercy of the Japanese, and the English and French Admirals felt it their duty to resist their construction. The noble Earl said that Her Majesty's Government protected British subjects wherever they went in Japan. That was not the case. It was an entire mistake. What Her Majesty's Government did was to protect them at Yokohama, and along a road which by treaty they had a right to use.
EARL GREY: For twenty-five miles.
THE DUKE OF SOMERSET: Yes. He had seen a great many persons who had returned from Japan, and they complained that they were kept just to one spot, and that they could only go up and down that one road to get a little exercise. The noble Earl had said that foreigners could go into the interior quietly for the purpose of studying botany; but that was not the case. He sent a gentleman there for that purpose, and when he got to Yokohama he was willing to submit to anything for the love of science; but he was sent back, and the Japanese authorities would not let him go anywhere. The noble Earl also said that the Daimios had a great objection to trade, and looked upon traders with contempt; but there also he was totally wrong. The noble Earl's speech was full of errors from the beginning to the end. The fact was Satsuma was jealous. He did not object to trade, but said the Tycoon was getting all the profit out of the trade, and that he ought to share in it. Here was this
606
proud Daimio, who could not bear trade, longing to share in the profits of it. The noble Earl asked, by his tenth Resolution, that the provisions of the treaty might be so modified as "to place the future intercourse of the two nations on a better footing." But how were Her Majesty's Government to do that when they could not obtain the rights secured to them by the treaty already in existence? In his opinion the best way would be to keep the treaty already made, and by firmness on the one hand and forbearance on the other, its provisions might be fairly carried out. We had certain rights by the treaty in Japan, and the Japanese knew it, and admitted it. Satsuma's people admitted that we had a right to inflict punishment for the murder, and that they were liable for it; and so far from the burning of their town having had an ill effect, it had had a most excellent effect, and when the people came back they were ready to enter into another treaty. As for the burning of the town, the Japanese attached little importance to this loss as it could be rebuilt in a few days. He saw a gentleman a short time ago who came from Yokohama, who informed him that whilst at Yokohama he saw a large establishment used for the education of young Japanese ladies burnt down on the Monday, and to his surprise it was all built up again on the Friday following. That was a specimen of how rapidly these paper and wooden houses were burnt down and rebuilt. He confessed he was sorry to hear the attacks that bad been made upon Admiral Kuper, and he felt certain that however much they might wish to complain of the Government, they ought not to blame an officer who had strictly performed his duty. When Admiral Kuper heard of the attacks that were made upon him in Parliament he forwarded to him a letter, in which be expressed his great regret that such attacks should have been made upon him in his absence, he stated that at the time he deeply regretted that in firing on the batteries he should have destroyed the town, adding, that when he forwarded his despatch to the Government he certainly did not refer to that regret so much as he ought, because two of his officers were killed by his side on the bridge of the steamer, and he wrote the despatch in a hurry immediately after. He, however, did express his regret, and he had frequently since done so, for the sufferings of

607
the Japanese. They were an industrious and amiable people, and if they could be separated from some of the Daimios who were hostile to all foreigners, they would be very fond of trade, for he had been informed by letter that many of the Daimios put the people to death because they traded with Europeans; and notwithstanding the danger they ran they would continually bring down their goods and silks in order to trade with the foreigners; which, so far from showing that they hated trade, proved that they were fond of it. He (the Duke of Somerset) had thought it his duty to justify Admiral Kuper's conduct from the attacks that had been made upon it, feeling that he had only been actuated by a strict regard to his duty, which had compelled him to fire upon the batteries. The noble Earl objected to his firing on the batteries, and thought he should have ran away. [Earl GREY: No, no!] When the Japanese fired on our ships, was our Admiral to return it or not? Was he to run away? Nothing was so injurious as not to deal effectually with these people, and the French had just had a difficulty with the Japanese in consequence of one of their ships having fired upon them. The fact was it was very difficult to deal with the Japanese. We knew but little of their habits and prejudices, and it was not very easy to go on with them amicably. We must have occasional outbreaks and misfortunes of this kind with the Japanese unless we were prepared to leave the country. But how could that be done? The Americans, the French, the Russians, the Prussians, the Swedes, the Dutch, and, in fact, all the European nations, were trading under the same treaty rights, and were we to run all round Europe, and ask the different nations to give up their treaty rights also? Certainly not. It could not be done. If we withdrew from Japan we should leave all the other nations there, and instead of having a hold on Japan we should have none, and they would trade with us under the American flag. Lord Elgin said we required a force in that country as much to keep our own people in order as the Japanese. He believed the best course to pursue was to adhere faithfully to the treaty, and at the same time practise all moderation and forbearance towards the Japanese; and while punishing those who misbehaved themselves, to hold the Japanese Government strictly to the fulfilment of their obligations.
THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, the
608
noble Earl and also the noble Duke had acted somewhat inconsistently, for they had both of them devoted a considerable portion of their speeches to the affair of Kagosima, which his noble Friend (Earl Grey) had distinctly stated he would not then enter into, as it was a very large question, and had already been discussed this Session by their Lordships. The speeches, however, of the noble Earl and the noble Duke had been devoted to disinterring that old question. He fully admitted the great difficulty in which the Government were placed in dealing with the question of the treaty with Japan. The fact was, that during the last few years the class of traders who had gone out to Japan had been of an inferior order. In former years those who traded with China were persons of respectability and influence, connected with large firms—houses of immense wealth and responsibility; but now most of those who went to China and Japan were small traders—lawless and reckless men, who were allured there simply and solely by the enormous profits that were to be made on those coasts. Those were the men who committed outrages in Japan, and in defiance of treaty obligations established settlements for the purposes of contraband and illicit trade. The noble Earl opposite (Earl Russell) said he lamented these outrages, and asked how they could be prevented. He (the Earl of Carnarvon) submitted that it was the bounden duty of Her Majesty's Government to exercise as far as possible a check and a restraint through the Foreign Office; and to show that he was not speaking at random, he would refer to a recent case of a very atrocious description which had taken place in Japan. An outrage was attempted on the person of a young Japanese girl by an Englishman. He was reproved at the time for his conduct, but a few months after he was promoted. That was a case for the interference of the Foreign Office, which might have exercised a wholesome restraint by marking its deep sense of the wrong that had been committed. He was afraid that it was not always the foreign traders who were to blame for such conduct, because the papers which had been laid upon the table with regard to China showed that the Consuls themselves, who were really placed there for the purpose of exercising judicial power, and to maintain fair dealing between man and man, very often acted more like partizans than judges, and were frequently guilty of very high-handed and violent con-

609
duct. The argument of his noble Friend (Earl Grey) went to that complaint, for he would either plaice in the hands of the Consuls greater power, or by some local tribunal enable justice to be dealt out alike in all cases. He concurred in all that had fallen from his noble Friend (Earl Grey) on the question of what was called "extraritoriality," which had already led to great mischiefs in China, and was still going on in that country. The system was mischievous to all concerned. It sapped and undermined the Native authority, and did not establish a complete and satisfactory authority in its stead. Its direct result was the extension of political still more of territorial right, and every morsel of ground annexed involved a fresh body of troops. They were drawing severely on their resources as regards men; and when they calculated their army in India, in the colonies, and in England, he must say he would be a bold man that would say those resources were unlimited and inexhaustible. While acknowledging all the difficulties and abuses that existed in China, and which, indeed, could not be denied, they seemed deliberately involving themselves in precisely the same difficulties in Japan. The state of things was almost identical in the two countries, with this exception, that while in China they had to deal with a nerveless, weak, tame-spirited people, they had in Japan to deal with a military, warlike, and vigorous race, second probably to none in the East except the Sikhs. There was also the same condition of things, the same lawlessness, the same powerlessness of the consuls to restrain outrage, the same difficulty with regard to export and import duties, the same aversion on the part of the Natives to receive us, the same determination on our part to force ourselves upon them by means of treaties extorted from them, which they accepted for the moment, but with the distinct determination to violate their engagements when the first opportunity offered. He remembered reading in one of Sir Frederick Bruce's despatches a statement to this effect, that "the conclusion of a treaty with an Oriental nation was not the termination, but really the beginning of the difficulties with which they bad to deal," and that was the precise truth. They had found this in China, and would find it in Japan; and Sir Frederick Bruce went on to say that "even measures of a beneficial and progressive character, extorted by force against the will of the population in such countries,
610
were of very little avail." Well, the noble Earl said matters after all were improved. Kagosima had been burned down, and the noble Earl seemed to make rather merry over it. It was true that Kagosima had been burnt down, and that for the moment there was peace; but he defied any one who had read the papers upon this subject to say that it was more than a temporary breathing space. All through the Correspondence matters went from bad to worse, fresh murders and fresh acts of incendiarism were committed, the very Legation was in a state of siege, with stockades, guards, and camp fires lighted at night; in fact, the state of things was something between peace and war. The noble Earl did him the honour to allude to some observations which he made last year, and said that be spoke, as might have been expected, from a Member of the Opposition. Now, much as he valued party Government, he regarded this question of Japan as much too grave a one to be treated as a party matter. It was one of the most serious questions that could engage the attention of Parliament, and he thought it unfortunate that the country was not thoroughly alive to its importance. But, unfortunately, while our attention was distracted by other matters nearer home, we had little time to devote to matters which were growing up so many thousand miles away in China and Japan affecting our relations with those two countries. The noble Earl complained of his having said that the Government were putting a pressure upon the Tycoon, who was their friend. It was true that he did say that, and he maintained that that was the real state of the case. The only person whom the Government were touching was the only one in the State who was favourable, and who they acknowledged had, so far as he could, dealt fairly with them. He was at variance with a great many of the Daimios, who were continually attempting to subvert his authority; and thus the Government, by the course which they were taking, were playing the game of their enemies. It was perfectly clear that a great constitutional revolution was going on in Japan. About two centuries and a half ago the constitution was altered. Since that time the power of the Mikado had been in abeyance, the power of the great Daimios had been neutralized by their factions, and consequently the power of the Tycoon had been supreme. Now, for the first time, there was a change. The present Mikado, who was a young

611
and ambitious man, was recovering some of his former power; of the Daimios some were making common cause with him, and others were bitterly and vehemently opposing the Tycoon, who, on account of the favour which he had shown to foreigners, had become probably the most unpopular man in Japan.
From all these causes we were, by interfering, as we had done, in danger of pulling down about our ears the whole fabric of the existing Government in Japan, which, bad or good, was at least a Government, and of having to undertake the responsibility of governing the country ourselves. That was a danger from which the Government had escaped in China owing to circumstances which they could not have anticipated, and for which they have not themselves to thank. He agreed substantially with everything which had fallen from the noble Earl and with all his Resolutions. The only one about which he entertained any doubt was the last but one, which proposed that our Government should enter into friendly communication with the Government of Japan and other Powers for the purpose of revising the treaty. If he thought that that Resolution was intended to compel the Government to take instantaneous action he could not support it; but as he believed that that was not its meaning he had no hesitation in accepting it according to the spirit rather than the letter, and agreeing to it as well as to the others.
EARL GREYsaid, that his noble Friend had rightly interpreted the meaning of his 11th Resolution. Throughout the discussion the Members of the Government had not contested these two facts—that the treaty being reciprocal, we were bound to enforce good conduct on the part of our own subjects in Japan, and that we had utterly failed to do so. That was established both by the statement of Sir Rutherford Alcock and by the despatches of the noble Earl himself. The noble Duke (the Duke of Somerset) charged him with inconsistency, because he asked that as the treaty could not be enforced it should be revised. There was nothing inconsistent in his proposal. There were parts of the treaty which neither the Japanese nor ourselves could enforce, and therefore he proposed that they should be modified. The noble Earl (Earl Russell) had complained that he had suggested nothing for the future, but in another part of his speech he said that he had suggested too much.
On Question, Whether to agree? their Lordships divided—Contents 11; Not-Contents 30: Majority 19.
Resolved in the Negative.

CONTENTS.

Canterbury, Archbp.

Hawarden, V.

Carnarvon, E.

Lincoln, Bp.

Grey. E. [Teller.]

Nelson, E.

Dinevor, L.

Romney, E.

Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway).

Verulam, E.

Wynford, L. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS.

Westbury, L. (L. Chancellor).

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

Somerset, D.

Dartrey, L. (L. Cremorne).

Foley, L. [Teller.]

Ailesbury, M.

Leigh, L.

Monson, L.

Caithness, E.

Overstone, L.

Clarendon, E.

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

Ducie, E.

Granville, E.

Rivers, L.

Russell, E.

Rossie, L. (L. Kinnaird).

Saint Germans, E.

Sydney, V.

Seymour, L. (E. St. Maur).

Torrington, V.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Stratheden, L.

Chichester, Bp.

Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)

Cork, &c. Bp.

Down, &c. Bp.

Talbot de Malahide, L.

Wodehouse, L.

Camoys, L.

House adjourned at a quarter before Nine o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.