Sitting of 12 July 1864

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Report—Kitchen and Refreshment Rooms (House of Commons) (Second Report) (No. 480).
PUBLIC BILLS—Committee—Highways Act Amendment (re-committed) [Bill 177].
Report—Highways Act Amendment (re-committed) [Bill 177]; Portsmouth Dockyard (Acquisition of Lands)* [Bill 152], and re-committed.
The House met at Twelve of the clock.

HIGHWAYS ACT AMENDMENT BILL, [Bill 177.]

  COMMITTEE (on Re-committal).
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Motion, "That the Preamble be postponed,"
  MR. THOMPSONsaid, he had no doubt the measure would be useful as far as it went, but it did not deal with the principal objections to the present management of highways. The large majority of the magistrates in the country had decided in favour of the adoption of the Act of 1862, and he believed that the best change in the law would be to make that Act compulsory. He wished to impress upon the Government the necessity of bringing in an effective Act next Session, dealing also with the turnpikes which were in an expiring condition, and including in its provisions all highways except those in the immediate neighbourhood of town.
  Clauses 1 to 23 were agreed to, with numerous verbal Amendments.
  Clause 24 (Penalty as to Cattle found straying on Highways).
  MR. FENWICK MR. FENWICK moved, in line thirty-four, to leave out the words "without a keeper." The effect of the clause as it at present stood was that any person might send his cattle to graze upon lands or highways, and he would not be liable to any punishment at all provided that there was a keeper with the cattle, Cattle did much injury to the highways, which only ought to be used for travelling, and not pasturing cattle; and he, therefore, moved his Amendment in order to make it illegal for any person at all to pasture their cattle on the highway. He would also propose to restrict the application of the clause to roads not more than thirty feet wide.
  Amendment proposed, in page 8, line 34, to leave out the words "without a keeper."—(Mr. Henry Fenwick.)
  LORD HENLEYtrusted the hon. Member would not press his Amendment, as it would have the effect in many instances of taking away the privileges possessed by the lords of the manors.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that the clause made no alteration in the existing law with regard to the feeding of cattle on the highway. It simply changed thy remedy which could be applied.
  LORD LOVAINEthought the Amendment might be agreed to with the addition of other words excepting the rights of lords of manors.
  MR. BEACHsaid, he would support the Amendment, because the animals created great damage to the fences at the side of the roads.
  SIR BALDWIN LEIGHTONsaid, that if the Amendment were adopted it would do a great injury to many poor persons whom the roadside pasturage enabled to keep a cow or two. This privilege was very valuable to the poor cottagers.
  COLONEL GILPINsaid, he quite agreed with the hon. Baronet as to the inducement which ought to be held out to cottagers, but their cows ought not to be allowed to feed upon the pasturage of other people.
  MR. RICHARD HODGSONobjected to the Amendment because he believed it would have the effect of depriving many poor people of valuable privileges which had been handed down to them from their forefathers. In the parish where he resided
  1374
  the roads were sometimes sixty feet wide, and the cottagers ought not to be deprived of a privilege which was very useful to them and did no harm.
  MR. ADDERLEYregarded highways as roads formed simply for purposes of traffic, and they ought not to be wider than was necessary for that purpose. The preservation of the pasturage on the road side, was not the best way of benefiting the poor cottagers. No land should be used for pasturage that was not properly enclosed. These presumed rights of pasturage were sometimes pressed to an extent as to interfere with the rights of owners of property.
  LORD HOTHAMsaid, he would be glad to see the unnecessary width of many of the public roads reduced, but would at the same time be sorry to see any course pursued by which existing privileges would be disturbed. Any unnecessary width of a road was to that extent a waste of productive land.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 38; Noes 42: Majority 4.
  MR. FENWICKthen proposed the insertion of words confining the operation of the clause to highways not being more than thirty feet wide.
  SIR WILLIAM MILESsaid, that was provided for by the present Highway Act. Where roads were forty or sixty feet wide they had been laid out under special Acts.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that the provisos, if agreed to, would repeal the 74th section of the Highway Act. He did not see any objection to the insertion of a proviso saving existing rights of pasturage by the sides of highways.
  SIR BALDWIN LEIGHTONproposed the insertion of a proviso to that effect.
  SIR WILLIAM MILESthought it would be much better to leave the law as it now stood.
  Proviso agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 25 to 31 agreed to, with Amendments.
  Clause 32 (Mode of defraying Expenses of the Highway Board).
  MR. WALTERsuggested the employment of a better set of forms in the col-

  1375
  lection of the rates. At present the highway rate, the county pate, and the poor's rate were all lumped together, so that the ratepayer had no means of ascertaining the specific sum which he contributed towards each rate. Nothing would tend to introduce so much harmony between the landlord and tenant as an arrangement by which the rates should be paid by the landlord. Under the present system, however, such au arrangement was impossible.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that he quite concurred in the desirability of the plan suggested by the hon. Member. A set of forms of the character described were already employed in London in the collection of the rates.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 33 to 35 agreed to.
  Clause 36 (Appeal against Rate).
  SIR WILLIAM MILESthought that all appeals ought to be brought before the Quarter Sessions, and not before the Special Sessions.
  SIR JOHN SHELLEYconcurred in the opinion expressed by the hon. Baronet. The magistrates of the Special Sessions were already ex officio members of the Highway Board, so that they would virtually be deciding appeals which were made from their own decision.
  MR. COLLINSadvocated the retention of the clause in its original form, as appeals to the Quarter Sessions would be attended with great inconvenience and expense.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 37 to 44 agreed to.
  Clause 45 (Power of Highway Board to make Improvements and Borrow Money).
  MR. LIDDELL MR. LIDDELL moved an Amendment, making the consent of two-thirds in value of the ratepayers of the townships and highway parishes to be benefited by the improvement necessary to the borrowing of money.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 17, line 5, after the word "improvements," to insert the words "Provided always, That the consent of at least two-thirds in value of the ratepayers in vestry assembled of the highway parishes to be benefited by such improvements shall be given."—(Mr. Liddell.)
  MR. GATHORNE HARDYopposed the Amendment, which he believed would have the effect of entirely nullifying the clause.
  LORD LOVAINEthought the danger arising from the clause would be a dis-
  1376
  position on the part of the parishes to borrow money for their improvement, instead of levying rates to defray the expenses.
  SIR GEORGE GREYdid not think the proviso necessary, inasmuch the Highway Board was a representative board.
  SIR JOHN SHELLEYsupported the Amendment, considering it desirable that the ratepayers should have a power of checking any unnecessary or excessive expenditure.
  SIR BALDWIN LEIGHTONsaid, he did not see why Highway Boards should not be placed on the same footing as municipal bodies and various other public boards. At all events, if the Committee should sanction the Amendment, he trusted the words "in vestry assembled" would be inserted.
  MR. LIDDELLsaid, he was quite willing to adopt the suggestion.
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 17; Noes 88: Majority 71.
  MR. COLLINSproposed an Amendment, the object of which was to extend the time of the repayment of any loan from ten to twenty years.
  Amendment agreed to.
  SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFEsaid, he entertained a strong objection to the principle of giving borrowing powers for the first time to Boards of Highway, and moved the omission of the clause.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Remaining Clauses and Schedules were also agreed to.
  SIR WILLIAM MILES SIR WILLIAM MILES moved the insertion of a clause the object of which was to prevent any encroachment on roads not exceeding thirty feet in width.
  SIR GEORGE GREYexpressed his approval of the clause, which, with some verbal Amendments, was agreed to.
  MR. LEVESON GOWER MR. LEVESON GOWER moved the insertion of a clause to enable councils of boroughs by resolution to assume the powers of Highway Boards.
  Clause withdrawn, on an understanding that it should be considered on the Report.
  House resumed: Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

BRAZIL—SLAVE TRADE.

  ADJOURNMENT.
  MR. HARDCASTLEsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Brazilian Government have fulfilled their obligations with regard to the Africans liberated by British Cruisers, as to whom Earl Russell stated in a Despatch of June 6, 1863, that
  "Some thousands of negroes, captured in slave-trading vessels, and decreed many years ago by the Mixed Commission at Rio to be entitled to freedom, are, there is good reason to believe, up to the present time held in bondage, contrary to Law, and in violation of Treaty engagements."
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, I am sorry to be obliged to say that the conduct of the Brazilian Government in regard to the slave trade has invariably been marked by great neglect and violation of treaty engagements. That circumstance, as everybody knows, led first of all to the Act of 1845, and then to the proceedings under that Act in 1852. Their conduct in regard to the emancipados has been ns flagrant as any other part of their conduct in regard to the slave trade. By the Slave Trade Treaty, Mixed Commissions were appointed, one of which, sitting in Brazil, was composed in part of Brazilian Judges, and they were to decree liberty to negroes found in slave-trading vessels which might be condemned as such by the Mixed Court. These captured negroes were entitled to be free; but the Brazilian Government said that they would require preparation for freedom, and it was ordered that they should for fourteen years be subject to education by masters. Some were kept by the Brazilian Government, some were employed by private persons, and we have reason to believe that none of them have obtained that freedom to which they were entitled. This matter has been the subject of frequent representation on the part of the British Government, but these representations have not been attended to. We have asked for lists of those negroes, but we have not succeeded in obtaining them. It has, however, been said that there is a method by which those negroes may obtain their emancipation; and, if the House will permit me, I will state what that method is, and then hon. Members may judge how far it is in accordance with the engagements of the Brazilian Government. In the first place, the negro is to ask from the Chief Clerk of the African Department
  1378
  a positive attestation that the fourteen years of his service have expired; secondly, he is to petition the Government through the Minister of Justice; thirdly, the Minister of Justice refers the petition to the Judge of Orphans; fourthly, the Judge of Orphans gives information and returns the petition to the Minister of Justice; fifthly, the Minister of Justice refers the petition to the Chief of Police; sixthly, the Chief of Police refers the petition to the General Guardian of Negroes (Curador); seventhly, the Guardian gives information and returns the petition to the Chief of Police; eighthly, the Chief of Police refers the petition to the Director of the House of Correction; ninthly, the Director of the House of Correction gives information and sends the petition back to the Chief of Police; tenthly, the Chief of Police gives information and sends back the petition to the office of the Secretary of Justice; eleventhly, the office of the Secretary of Justice makes a précis of the information, which is to be acted upon by the Minister of Justice himself; twelfthly, the Minister of Justice acts and orders letters of freedom to be issued. Well, now, you would think that all was done and the negro free; but far from that; thirteenthly, the petition is returned to the Judge of Orphans fourteenthly, notification of the decision is sent to the Chief of Police; fifteenthly, the Judge of Orphans refers the petition to his own clerk, and orders letters of freedom to be given, but keeps the letters until the person applying for them shall have paid the requisite emoluments—that is to say, all the expenses of those proceedings; sixteenthly, the letters are made over to the Chief of Police; seventeenthly, the Chief of Police communicates with the Director of the House of Correction, and orders the African to appear before him; eighteenthly, the Director sends for the African, and the Chief of Police designates his future place of residence. He is not allowed to go where he likes as a freeman, but his residence is fixed for him; nineteenthly, the Chief of Police at Rio communicates with the Chief of the Provincial Police, under whose charge the place designated is, and hands over the free African, with his letter of freedom to this local chief of police; twentieth, the Provincial Chief of Police hands over the applicant to the authorities of the place approved by the Chief of the Police at Rio as his place of banishment, when the man is declared

  1379
  free, after being removed from the spot where he had been living for fourteen years, and where his connections had been formed. All the efforts we have made to obtain justice for those emancipados have failed, and we have not even been able to obtain a list of them. We know that when they are assigned to an owner he has employed them in conjunction with his slaves, and when a slave died, he put an emancipado in his place, and reported the death of the emancipado, and not the death of the slave.
  MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALDwould like to ask one question of the noble Lord on this subject. The noble Lord recited the twenty steps by which the Brazilian Government proposed that the emancipados could obtain their freedom; and he wished to know whether those steps were stated in any despatch from the Brazilian Government, or whether the Brazilian Government having stated that there were certain steps by which the emancipados could obtain their freedom, the noble Lord had obtained an explanation of those steps from any other source? With respect to what the noble Lord said, that the conduct of the Brazilian Government in respect to the slave trade had been marked by the greatest neglect, he desired to ask whether it was not the case that the Brazilian Government themselves had put down the slave trade in Brazil; and whether Lord Brougham, than whom there was no greater friend of the negro, had not expressed in another place his warmest appreciation of the efforts made by the Brazilian Government in this respect?
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I do not know that this string of proceedings has ever been mentioned in any official communication from Brazil; it was extracted from a Brazilian newspaper, which gave it as an official document, and I believe it is perfectly correct. With regard to the other question which the hon. Gentleman has asked, he must know full well that if the Brazilian Government have of late years—that is since 1852—put an end to the slave trade, it has been by compulsion, and not upon conviction. The Act of 1845, as all know, lay for many years a dead letter, until the beginning of 1852, when through the agency of Sir James Hudson the provisions of that Act were brought into force. After an attempt of the Brazilian Government to evade compliance they were compelled to submit. I am quite ready to admit that when the
  1380
  Brazilian Government had been compelled by force to do what the treaty bound them to do, they have continued to do so, and the Brazilian slave trade is now for the time put an end to. They passed fresh laws, they gave fresh orders to all their officers, and in spite of the temptation which bribery naturally held out to many persons whose duty it was to stop the trade, I do believe that from that time to this the slave trade has ceased. I take great credit to myself for having been instrumental in bringing about that result.
  MR. BRIGHT: Mr. Speaker, I see that you object to my rising, but I was going to protest against the practice of the noble Lord making a speech on a matter of this nature when other Members cannot reply. I shall, therefore, move the adjournment of the House, for the purpose of making one or two observations on the subject. I was not aware that any question was intended to be put on this matter to-night; but on repeated occasions the noble Lord has stated very much what he has stated this evening. Now, I should like to ask the noble Lord, whether he does not know that it was the opinion of Lord Aberdeen, who passed the Brazilian Act, that that Act ought to be repealed, and that the circumstances under which he thought it was justified—though I believe every lawyer thought otherwise—have passed away. Further, I might appeal to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade for his opinion upon this matter; for I think that on one occasion the right hon. Gentleman brought forward a specific Motion in favour of the repeal of that Act. Now, Sir, I have had an opportunity of knowing that that Act was one which gave the greatest offence to the Brazilian Government, the Brazilian Legislature, and people. I might quote the opinion of the late Lord Truro, who was no mean lawyer, that a more unjustifiable Act—an Act more entirely in defiance of International Law—never was passed by any Legislature. If that be so, and if the stale of things upon which the passing of that Act was justified has entirely passed away; and if, as we know, the relations between this country and Brazil have been of the most unpleasant kind from the day that Act was passed until this hour, and, as we know too, that until this Act is repealed the relations between the two countries will have no chance whatsoever of being placed upon a friendly and proper basis, I think the noble Lord might now at least give up this

  1381
  obstinate adherence to what was originally an indefensible law, and which is now deprived even of the defence which the noble Lord made for it. I should think that from the discussions which took place last week, when, if the House did not come to a Vote of Censure, it did unanimously—at least with a general consent which I have never seen approached in any similar case—condemn the irritating and offensive policy of the Foreign Office—I should think the noble Lord might have learned something from that, and might consent now to submit a proposal for the abolition of that Act, so difficult to defend when it was passed, which had no reference to the existing state of circumstances, and was not only calculated but certain to produce, as long as it is on our statute book, unpleasant relations and bickerings between this country and Brazil—a country with which we have extensive commercial relations, and which, I believe, might be much more extended if we only had a Government at all disposed to meet the Government of that country in a friendly spirit. I believe that a proposal of that kind would be sure to meet with the unanimous consent of the House. I also believe that in the observations I have made I have expressed very briefly an opinion which prevails in this House, and which, I believe, is universally held amongst all the commercial classes of this country who have anything to do with Brazil and its people. I therefore beg of the noble Lord to reconsider this matter. It may be too late now to introduce any measure on the subject; but if at the opening of the next Session of Parliament the noble Lord should not be prepared to do so I hope some Member of the House will move for a Committee to examine into the whole question, and I believe that no fairly constituted Committee of this House would bring up a Report in favour of the measure and of the policy of the noble Lord. But between this and the next Session of Parliament no doubt the Brazilian question will come under the notice of the noble Lord and his Colleague at the Foreign Office in connection with transactions which are, I believe, to be referred to the King of Portugal. If that be so, the noble Lord need not wait till the next meeting of Parliament, but he can promise that he will do his best in the matter; and if he does that, I have not the smallest doubt that we may have easily settled every disputed point with Brazil, and the whole of
  1382
  our relations with that country in future time carried on in that amicable manner which is not less to the interest of that small country than it is to the interest of the commercial classes of this powerful nation. I beg to move the adjournment of the House.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Bright.)
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, he would certainly support the appointment of the Committee suggested by the hon. Gentleman; but he thought the inquiry should not be confined to this Brazilian matter, but should also embrace the state of affairs on the coast of Africa, for they had become most serious. At this moment we had 3,000 men dotted about that pestilential coast, and their condition was most appalling. Some 60 per cent had been prostrated by fever and the deadly climate in the horrible Ashantee war. The answer given by the Government in the discussion on this subject was essentially fallacious. The troops were in a state of starvation, for the country was in a state of famine. The policy of maintaining the establishments on the coast was a matter the consideration of which could not long be deferred. There was another question which was connected with this Motion, which seriously reflected on the naval administration. We maintained a squadron on that station at a cost of £600,000 or £700,000 per annum, and of that squadron not one ship excepting the Rattlesnake could go above eight knots. The consequence of that was that the blockade runners carrying slaves had only to turn their head to windward to escape from the British cruisers. Now, if that were the case, how should we be able to protect our vast commerce in case of any emergency? At this moment vessels were being built in this country capable of going fifteen or sixteen knots an hour, carrying cargo, and they were to be engaged in carrying cargo to the Confederate States. He had alluded to this subject in anticipation of the question respecting it which he had on the paper.
  MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALD: Sir, I am glad to take the opportunity of the Motion for adjournment of adding a few words to the question I put to the noble Lord. I desire to endorse what has been said by the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright), and to express the regret which the House must feel that the noble

  1383
  Lord should have availed himself of the opportunity of answering a simple question to make an attack upon a Government with whom for years, and until lately, this country has been in friendly relations. I would point out that the answer of the noble Lord is but an amplification of the last despatch addressed by Earl Russell to the Brazilian Government, and to which, as far as this House is aware, no reply has yet been returned. The noble Lord, therefore, makes a formal indictment against the Brazilian Government, at a time when we do not know whether that Government may not be able to explain satisfactorily the charge made against them. I cordially agree with the hon. Member for Birmingham that never was there a greater violation of every principle of justice and International Law than in the passing of what is commonly called the Aberdeen Act; and although the noble Lord takes credit to himself for putting that Act in force, yet, as I have before stated, I have reason to know that no man doubted the justice and policy of the measure more than the noble Lord with whose name it is associated. I have further to state that Lord Aberdeen expressed a hope that when the Brazilian Government suppressed the slave trade, as they had now done, the earliest opportunity would be taken of repealing the Act. I quite agree in every word that has fallen from the hon. Member for Birmingham upon this subject.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I do not think I am liable to the reproach which has been addressed to me. I did not volunteer a speech—I gave an answer to a question, and that question involved a statement which I know to be true. It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman opposite to deny it—he knows better. [Mr. SEYMOUR FITZGERALD: I do not.] Then I am sorry the hon. Gentleman is so ignorant. All I have said will be found in the papers laid on the table of the House. I have mentioned no facts which cannot be ascertained by any Gentleman who chooses to take the trouble. With regard to what has been said about the Act being a violation of every principle of International Law—[Mr. BRIGHT: I quoted Lord Truro.] I gave the words the hon. Gentleman adopted, at any rate. I can only say that the Act was exactly the counterpart of an Act which it was my duty to propose to the House in regard to Portugal; and these two Acts received the approval of the Law Officers of two different Governments. The
  1384
  justification of these measures is that, though the Portuguese and Brazilian Governments had each made a treaty in 1826, pledging their honour and faith to abolish the slave trade and to make it penal for their subjects to carry it on, and each had for a time consented to a treaty which supplied the means of carrying out that engagement, yet each in the course of time failed in redeeming its engagements. I do not dispute that the measure we adopted was a violent one, but it was thought that the object justified the means, and that we were entitled to use our own power to enforce the treaty which Portugal and Brazil had refused to carry into execution. Everybody knows that at that time the slave trade of Brazil amounted to the landing of 68,000 or 70,000 negroes every year, and that, of course, implied at least three times that number being torn from their home in Africa. This slave trade, or rather slave-piracy, wherever it is carried on, is the cause of the desolation of Africa, of the extinction of all legitimate commerce, and of suffering and misery to hundreds of thousands of Africans. Everybody knows that ever since the year 1815 it has been the object, not only of the English Government, but of the English nation, to put an end to that detestable traffic. Therefore, I repeat, the goodness of the end justified the means; and the expenditure of men and money was deliberately undertaken by the country for the purpose of abolishing the evil. The hon. Member for Birmingham is, I am sure, one of those who think that the actions of nations have, under the dispensation of Providence, some influence on their destinies, and is the last man, I am confident, to wish the country to give encouragement to this infamous trade for the sake of any temporary, pecuniary, or commercial advantage which might accrue. I am convinced—and I believe that every one who has turned his attention to the subject is convinced—that if the Act were repealed the Brazilian slave trade would be revived. It may be said that the opinion of the people of Brazil is altered, and that every respectable man in that country is against the slave trade. But it is not by respectable men that the trade is conducted. It is carried on by the scum of the earth in every country, and the profits are so large that they can afford to bribe the subordinate officers whose duty it is to detect and punish crime. You may depend upon it that where there is the power of evading

  1385
  or violating the law it will be done. Take the case of Spain and Cuba. Spain is bound by treaty to abolish the slave trade. That was the only return we asked from Spain for our assistance in the War of Independence. We said we wanted nothing from her but a slave trade treaty, and we got it. In spite, however, of that treaty the slave trade to Cuba still continues; and so it would be with Brazil if the Act in question were repealed. Portugal, too, has made a treaty to the same effect; but has the slave trade ceased? No. There is a constant exportation of negroes from the Portuguese possessions in Africa; and in this case Portugal has not even the excuse of Spain. The latter imports slaves into Cuba to cultivate the soil; but Portugal exports from Africa the hands which she ought to retain and employ there. In the Portuguese settlements the condition of slavery exists, and so it does in Cuba. France did more, for she abolished not only the trade but the condition of slavery. Yet what happened a few years ago? Under the pretence of exporting from Africa free labourers the slave trade was to all intents and purposes carried on under another name. We had difficulty in persuading the French Government to put an end to that traffic, and they agreed to do so only on condition that permission should be given to French colonists to export coolies from our possessions in India. Although the Act now in question has not been put in force since 1852, and Brazil has, therefore, no practical grievance to complain of, I am aware that it is a thorn in her side. Those who wish to carry on the slave trade find it an impediment in their way; and those who do not participate in the trade look upon it as a reproach. But I attach so much importance to carrying out the determination of the English people to put an end to the slave trade that, much as I value the goodwill and friendship of Brazil, yet if that were put in one scale and the suppression of the slave trade in the other, I should prefer the latter.
  LORD JOHN MANNERS: This is not a question of the horrors of the slave trade, and the noble Lord might have spared us the well-known catalogue of evils and the inefficacy of the measures for their prevention. If, as the noble Lord has told us, the treaty with Spain has proved so useless, and the Act in reference to Brazil and Portugal so efficacious, why does he not propose a Bill with regard to Spain similar to the Aberdeen Act in regard to Brazil?
  1386
  [Viscount PALMERSTON: We have a treaty with Spain.] Yes, you have a treaty, but you say it is inefficacious. The reason why the noble Lord does not seek to legislate as to Spain is not that which he has given, but another. I will tell the House what it is. It is because he dare not. The question concerns the liberty—never approached in this House—which the noble Lord allows himself in answering questions to abuse any independent foreign country whose conduct does not exactly please him. This is not the first time the noble Lord has made an attack on the Government of Brazil. I recollect he did so on a former occasion, a year or two ago. I join with the hon. Member for Birmingham in protesting against language such as the noble Lord, the representative of a great State, has used to-night against a small State. The noble Lord tells us that he has used no language not to be found in the blue-books, and perhaps, if we looked into them, we should find such terms as "flagrant" applied to the conduct of the Brazilian Government. It is rather curious, however, that the noble Lord had just before told us that he derived his information not from blue-books but from a foreign newspaper. Perhaps that was some of the "ribald trash of the foreign press" of which we have lately heard.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: There is the blue-book from which I quoted.
  LORD JOHN MANNERS: The noble Lord simply told us that it was out of a newspaper, and my statement is entirely based upon that of the noble Lord. I do not, however, wish to prolong the discussion, I certainly protest against the language which has been made use of by I the noble Lord towards an independent Power like Brazil, and I see very little prospect of establishing satisfactory relations between that or any other Power, so long as the Prime Minister of this country permits himself to make use of such language.
  SIR JOHN HAY: Before the Motion is withdrawn, I wish to say a few words on the subject of the slave trade on the West Coast of Africa, and the attempts which are being made to put it down. We now maintain a squadron on the coast of Africa of eighteen steam-vessels, and I am informed that there is only one of them—the Rattlesnake—which is capable of going more than 8½ knots an hour. We have, therefore, seventeen vessels employed to put a stop to the slave trade which are in-

  1387
  capable of doing be. We have recently had a striking exemplification of the effects of such an arrangement. A General Order has been issued by the commanding officer, in which it is stated that the speed of the slave steamers now on the coast is so great in comparison with that of our own cruisers that it is useless to attempt to follow them. Her Majesty's cruisers are therefore directed to remain at anchor on any part of the coast where it is likely that slavers will be embarked, and not to pursue a slaver even if they should observe one steaming away. I have no doubt that these vessels are picked for the service, and if it is an example of the kind of ships we are now building for the navy, I think the sooner we have an alteration the better.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGET: I think the account which has been given to the House with regard to the speed of the slave ships and of our cruisers is somewhat exaggerated. I cannot at this moment state what the speed of our vessels is, but I may say that I have received no account of their being employed in chasing steamers, and not being able to do so. I am quite aware it is possible that very fast steamers may be constructed and used as slavers, and if we find that our steamers are unequal to the duties imposed upon them, it will undoubtedly be the duty of the Government to send out faster vessels. It is necessary, however, that the vessels we send to that station should for sanitary purposes be very roomy and airy; and as to their speed, although I do not think that any of our very fast steamers are out there, I am satisfied that the case has been much overstated.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: I cannot help thinking that the noble Lord at the head of Her Majesty's Government has made use of expressions towards an hon. Friend near me which display a remarkable want of courtesy. The noble Lord first said that my hon. Friend must have known the reverse of what he stated, and he followed that up by imputing to my hon. Friend great ignorance if he did not know it. Now, I certainly distinctly heard the noble Lord say in answer to a question from my noble Friend (Lord John Manners) as to what despatch he had derived his information from, that he had learnt it from a newspaper. The noble Lord in answer to my noble Friend, has handed this marked paper across the table, and he says that it is taken from a blue-book. I wish to ask the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary
  1388
  for Foreign Affairs, whether the paper in question has been laid upon the table of the House; and, if so, when?
  MR. LAYARD: I am unable to say when; but, of course, it was laid upon the table.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: We do not take it of course.
  MR. LAYARD: This paper is evidently taken from a blue-book. I believe the statement made by my noble Friend was that it was a Brazilian despatch.
  MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALD: The date is the 30th of June last year.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

COMMUNICATION WITH RAILWA GUARDS.—QUESTION.
MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEsaid, he wished to ask the President of the Board of Trade, Whether, with the view of protecting the public, it would not be possible to compel the Railway Companies to introduce into the carriages some mode of communicating with the guards? On the Continent there was a mode of communicating with the guard, and he thought the same system might be satisfactorily introduced upon the English railways.
MR. MILNER GIBSON,in reply, said, it would no doubt be possible to compel Railway Companies by legislation to introduce into the carriages some mode of communicating with the guards, but he doubted the expediency of doing so. As our railways were constructed, the question was surrounded with considerable practical difficulties. Evidence had been taken upon the subject before a Committee upstairs, and the Inspectors of railways were not by any means unanimous in agreeing with each other as to the expediency of adopting a plan whereby the passengers might be enabled to communicate with the guards. At the same time, they were all agreed that it was desirable that the guards should be able to communicate with the drivers, and the Board of Trade had sent out circulars to all the Railway Companies in order to carry out that object. He was afraid, from the construction of our railways and also of our carriages, that it would not be as practicable as it might appear to be at first sight, to introduce the continental system into this country. At any rate, he did not consider it desirable to bring in a Bill to compel Railway Companies to afford the means of communication.
MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEsaid, he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he does not intend to take any steps to remove the dangers which are consequent upon our present railway system?
MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, the Board of Trade had no Executive power or authority in the matter. He had no intention of introducing a Bill to compel the Railway Companies to provide means of communication.

NAVY—FLAG SHIP FOR THE MEDITERRANEAN.

  QUESTION.
  SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he rose to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, If there is any truth in the rumour that a wooden three-decker is being fitted as the new Flag Ship for the Mediterranean; and whether the Admiralty consider it prudent to employ a ship of that description on so important a duty?
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETstated, in reply, that the Victoria was being fitted to go out to the Mediterranean. It was the intention of the Admiralty to fit some of the large armour ships as flag ships, hut, at present, none had been so fitted. He thought the Victoria was quite capable of performing the duties which would be required of her.

DESPATCHES FROM ST. PETERSBURG.

  QUESTION.
  MR. A. SEYMOURsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If the Foreign Office has any knowledge of a Despatch, headed "Official," dated 10th February, 1864, and purporting to come from Prince Gortschakoff at St. Petersburg to M. d'Oubril at Berlin, which was published in The Morning Post of July 4th; and if the Foreign Office has any knowledge of another Despatch, headed "Private Communication" from Prince Gortschakoff to M. d'Oubril, of the same date, but in a completely opposite spirit?
  MR. LAYARDsaid, in reply, that he had no knowledge of either of the despatches referred to by the hon. Member,

THE MURDER ON THE NORTH LONDON RAILWAY.—QUESTION.
MR. C. S. BUTLERsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home
1390
Department, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to offer a reward for the apprehension of the murderer or murderers of Mr. Thomas Briggs, of Clapton Square, who was murderously assailed, plundered, and thrown from a first-class railway carriage on the North London Railway on Saturday evening last, and if the report is true that the alleged murderers have been apprehended?
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he did not know what reward the railway company had offered, but Sir John Lubbock, Robarts, and Co. had offered yesterday a reward of £100, and the Government had offered a similar sum. He had not heard that the perpetrator of the murder had been apprehended, but he was informed that the chain taken from Mr. Briggs was changed yesterday by a silversmith, who had given a very good description of the person by whom it was presented.

NAVY—THE SQUADRON ON THE WEST COAST OF AFRICA.—QUESTION.
SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, he rose to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, To lay upon the table of the House a list of the Steam Vessels now employed on the West Coast of Africa, with their speed as ascertained at the measured mile?
LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, in reply, that he did not think it would be desirable to enter into any details upon the subject. That was just the sort of information which the owners of the slave-trading vessels would wish to obtain,

OFFICE OF POSTMASTER GENERAL.

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he rose to move—
  "That the practice of appointing a Peer and Privy Councillor exclusively to the office of Postmaster General is one which is not directed or required by law, and does not particularly conduce to the convenience of the distribution of Ministerial appointments, or to the efficiency of the Public Service."
  The hon. Gentleman was addressing the House in support of his Motion, when,
  Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
  House adjourned at a quarter after Seven o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Inland Revenue (Stamp Duties)* (No. 198);Administration of Trusts (Scotland)* (No.199).
Second Reading—Indemnity * (No. 197); Street Music (Metropolis) (No. 196); India Stocks * Transfer Act Amendment * (No. 195); Defence Act Amendment [H.L.]* (No. 193).
Committee—India Office * (No. 191).
Report—Civil Bill Courts (Ireland)* (No. 200); India Office* (No. 191),
Third Reading—Facilities for Divine Service in Collegiate Schools [H.L.] (No. 183); Life Annuities and Life Assurances* (No. 116);Lunacy (Scotland)* (No. 172).

METROPOLITAN RAILWAY SCHEMES.
The Sessional Order of the 21st of April last dispensed with: Then Standing Order No. 179 Sec. 4, considered (according to Order), and dispensed with in respect to any Metropolitan Railway Bill which has been or may be brought from the House of Commons during the present Session.—(The Chairman of Committees)
MASSACRE OF SWEDES AT DUPPEL.

  QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYwished to ask the noble Earl the Foreign Secretary, Whether he had received any further information relative to a statement made by him (the Earl of Shaftesbury), a few days since, that a certain number of Swedes, lying on the ground, were massacred by the Prussians after the battle of Duppel?
  EARL RUSSELLsaid, that since the answer he had given to the noble Earl on a former evening he had received a further account from the Minister for Foreign Affairs in Prussia. His statement was that, as far as could be ascertained, there were not more than seventy Swedes altogether in the Danish army, and that of these all who were known to be engaged at Duppel were five, who were taken prisoners. The total loss of the Danes in that encounter was not more than 400 killed altogether; so that the story in the newspapers respecting the massacre of 400 Swedes was altogether false.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsaid, that on the former occasion he had simply asked a question, but at the time he asked it he expressed an opinion that the story was perfectly true. He had since received a letter in which that opinion was supported, and it really appeared to be true that Swedish soldiers were fired at by the Prussians after the conflict was over. The letter was dated from Admiral Dacres, of Her Majesty's ship Edgar, who, writing to his (the Earl of Shaftesbury's) son, said—
  "H.M.S. Edgar, Spithead, July 11.
  "Dear Mr. Ashley,—I now hasten to give you all the information in my power, which is contained in a note from Lieutenant Nordenfalk, a Swedish lieutenant serving in the Edgar, which details as dastardly conduct as one could well hear of; but the fact of this officer being in Danish uniform will give a colouring to any defence that the Prussian Government might choose to set up that they were indistinguishable from Danish troops; but I have yet to learn that firing on wounded men, whatever colours they may fight under, is justifiable. Lord Shaftesbury may make any use of Lieutenant Nordenfalk's or this note.—Yours, very truly,
  "J. S. DACRES."
  The note referred to in Admiral Dacres' letter was as follows:—
  "My brother, Otto Nordenfalk, aged 21, in the beginning of the year joined the Danish army, and in the present war was volunteering as officer in the 3rd Regiment (2nd company) of a Danish

  1367
  corps. In the forenoon of the 18th, the day when the Duppel forts were taken, he was at the head of a body of soldiers defending the retreat of a part of the retreating army, and having been wounded in his face by a projectile entering on one side, and hurting tongue, jaws, &c., and swooned, he, on recovering his senses, found himself lying on the ground among a crowd of wounded and dead men, and saw Prussian soldiery standing at a few paces distance. He rose now on his elbow, and these men fired at him a volley at this very short distance, after which they left him for dead. Many bullets passed through his cloak and coat, but did not hurt him. He fell down again, and kept quiet until he heard a voice he knew belonged to another Swedish officer in the Danish service, who now assisted him to escape, closely pursued by the advancing troops. Many instances of the cruelty of the Prussian troops against the country people I have heard from my brother, but not so as to relate them in detail.
  "E. NORDENFALK, Royal Swedish Navy."
  He thought, then, he was fully justified in the statement that he made, that a wounded officer lying on the ground, after the conflict, was selected by the Prussian soldiers and fired at. The Moniteur du Soir had registered an order of the day issued by Prince Charles Frederick of Prussia, in virtue of which
  "Any foreigner made prisoner in the Danish ranks, and unable to substantiate his Danish nationality, or to prove that he has been regularly enrolled in the army of Denmark, is to be dealt with as a brigand, brought before court-martial, and on conviction duly shot."
  This showed that the Prussian Government had no desire to mitigate the horrors of war.
  EARL RUSSELLsaid, he had reason to believe that it was not the intention of the Prussian Government to carry that order into effect.

STREET MUSIC (METROPOLIS) BILL.

  (NO. 196.) SECOND READING.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURY,in moving the second reading of this Bill, said it had passed the other House by a considerable majority. He did not desire to stop street music altogether, but he supported the Bill, the object of which was to give to housekeepers the right of protection against the nuisance of music when it unpleasantly interfered with their quietude, by empowering the police to remove the offender. No man, he thought, had a right to ride his hobby, even if he were in the majority, at the expense of other people. The hon. Member who promoted the Bill in the other House (Mr. Bass) had published a book which contained a variety of facts showing how great was the nui-
  1368
  sance occasioned by the music in question. He showed that the nuisance was not confined to what might be called the aristocracy who lived in the large squares and streets of the metropolis, but that the poor who lived in narrow thoroughfares and crowded alleys were equally averse to street music, and they had made strong representations against it. It was a fact that the majority of the poor were more opposed to the nuisance of street music than their Lordships were probably aware of, and therefore it was not true, as had been said, that the Bill was directed against the amusements of the lower orders. A very remarkable petition had been presented against the Bill signed by men connected with literature, science, and art, and among them were the names of Charles Dickens, the Poet Laureate, and Maclise. The First Commissioner of Police said he was unable to satisfactorily work the present Act, and the police magistrates were of the same opinion, and were in favour of this Bill. The vestries in the borough of Marylebone had passed resolutions in favour of the Bill. Under these circumstances, he thought their Lordships would not refuse to pass the Bill.
  Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Friday next.

FACILITIES FOR DIVINE SERVICE IN COLLEGIATE SCHOOLS BILL.

  (No. 183.) THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a"—(The Bishop of Oxford.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he could not allow the Bill to be read a third time without making a few observations which he had intended to make on a former stage of the Bill, and to move an Amendment; but it was not his intention to trouble their Lordships to divide upon the Bill. Their Lordships were aware how largo was the number of grammar schools established in this country, and of the injunction that required that the scholars should attend the parish church. It had been a great object of the Court of Chancery so to arrange matters that these schools should educate the children of Dissenters, for a large number of Dissenters did not object that their children should attend divine worship in the parish church, though they did object that the religious tenets of

  1369
  their children should be interfered with by private religious teaching. The effect of this Bill would be, he contended, to set aside altogether the injunctions of these grammar schools in this respect, and would offer opportunities for the teaching of doctrines at variance with the known and received doctrines of the Church of England. The 71st canon strictly enjoined that no minister should administer the Holy Sacrament in any private house, except in cases of necessity, and not frequently in any chapel, so that families intending to communicate should ordinarily attend the parish church. Now virtually this Bill repealed that canon. In these times it was of special importance that the religious education of youth should be imparted openly, and in such a manner as that its nature should be known to the parents; but this Bill was so framed as to have an entirely opposite effect. He hoped the Bill would not be allowed to pass the other House without serious consideration.
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORDdenied that it was the principle that in all grammar schools the scholars should attend the parish church. So far from that, in a very large number of them it was provided that prayers should be read in the school-room or in some appropriate room. He had received letters from the masters of such grammar schools showing the exceeding difficulty that arose, sometimes owing to the crotchets of a new clergyman interfering with the long-standing arrangements of the schools, and throwing all into disorder. The object of the Bill was not to provide for those populous schools where there was not room for the scholars in the parish church, but to make them more perfect in the matter of religious instruction. Parliament should never forget that the parents of children select the schoolmaster to whom they would commit their children; but they could not use that freedom of choice with regard to the priest in whose parish the school might be situated. It was, therefore, palpable they were carrying out the view of the parents with regard to religious teaching in placing it in the hands of the conductors of those schools. He believed the majority of their Lordships were in favour of the Bill.
  On Question, Resolved in the Affirmative: Bill read 3a accordingly, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

MEMORIAL OF SIR FRANCIS BOND HEAD.—OBSERVATIONS.
THE EARL OF HARDWICKE,who had given notice
"To call the Attention of the House to the Momorial of Sir Francis Bond Head to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, laid upon the Table of the House on the 6th of June last; and to move, That, in the opinion of this House, the great, successful, but heretofore unrequited services rendered by Sir Francis Bond Head, Bart., as Governor of Upper Canada in the years 1836 and 1837, call for the favourable consideration of Her Majesty's Government,"
said, it had been his intention to bring under the notice of the House a document on the table, in which was contained a memorial of Sir Francis Bond Head to the Secretary of State for the Colonies; but in consequence of what appeared to have taken place in the other House last night, he was induced, with the permission of their Lordships, to withdraw his notice. He might be permitted, however, to say a word or two as to the circumstances which induced him to bring forward the question after the lapse of so many years since Sir Francis Head was employed as a public servant. He should not certainly have thought of now reviving the question but for the document referred to, which, if it did not challenge a discussion, at all events left it open for any noble Lord to take notice of the matter. By no man now living, he believed, had the public been better served than by Sir Francis Head, who was Lieutenant Governor of Upper Canada at a period of the greatest difficulty, when that valuable province was in a state of open revolt against the authority of the Crown. At that critical period Sir Francis Head was suddenly sent to administer the province of Upper Canada, and by his promptitude, energy, and courage, saved that colony to the British Crown. From that period to the present, owing to circumstances which it would be needless to mention and difficult to explain, the services of Sir Francis Head had been passed over without the slightest notice. From his modest nature, unpresuming character, from anxiety to retire from public notice, that valued public servant had not pressed the subject, as he might have done, upon Members of the Legislature and the public generally, but he (the Earl of Hardwicke), nevertheless, felt it a great misfortune to himself and to the honour of the country, that his services were not requited with public notice. He

1371
had intended to have troubled the House with a proof of Sir Francis Head's services, but he was led to believe that the Government were prepared to take the subject into consideration, and hoping for an assurance to that effect from the noble Lord who represented the Colonial Department in the House, he begged to withdraw his notice.
VISCOUNT MELVILLEsaid, that whilst he did not wish to detract from the claims of Sir Francis Bond Head, it should be borne in mind that he did not complete his work—that he resigned before the revolt was crushed. Sir George Arthur, his successor, completed the work, and was entitled to a large share of the reward.
LORD LYVEDENthought it much better to leave the distribution of rewards with the Crown, and allow the whole question of Colonial Governors to be considered generally as a question of public policy, instead of bringing forward individual cases. Though he was generally in favour of the payment by the colonies of the expenses of their government, still he thought that the pensions of Governors who were sent to the colonies by the mother country should form an exception and should be paid by the mother country. He thought that the mother country should provide for an official whom they forced upon the colony, whether they would or no.
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, he quite agreed with the noble Lord. He hoped that the position of the Colonial Governors as a body, would be taken into consideration. They were in the receipt of very moderate salaries, the whole of which they generally spent at their posts; they frequently received honours for the services rendered by them; and then they returned home as poor as when they commenced life. This was a state of things which ought not to continue, and he hoped that the Government would consider the question in a liberal spirit.
EARL GRANVILLEwas understood to promise that the whole subject should undergo consideration.
THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEsaid, he considered that Sir Francis Head had preserved Canada to this country in a dangerous crisis, when there was every danger of a war with the United States, and that it was to his energy that Canada owed that she was not involved in the miserable condition of the country adjoining her. Sir Francis was not supported as he ought to have been at home during
1372
the rebellion; but in the instructions given to Sir George Arthur, who was appointed Governor of Canada when he resigned, the energy and the success of his career were especially alluded to, and his example was held up for imitation. Sir Francis Head resigned his office because he refused to promote and reward men who had been openly and boastfully disloyal. In his present advanced age a pecuniary reward would form but a slight burden on the country, while it would be some consolation to Sir Francis Head to feel that his services were appreciated.
House adjourned at half past Six o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.