Sitting of 18 March 1864

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE — On Schools of Art, Mr. Salt added
Report — Railway Companies' Powers, Report* (No. 141).
SUPPLY—considered in Committee*—Committee— R.P.
Resolution [March 17] reported*.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Costs Security* [Bill 58].
Second Reading—Fish Teinds (Scotland)* [Bill 45]; Union Relief Aid Acts Continuance* [Bill 50].
SELECT COMMITTEE — Cattle, &c., Importation [Bill 28], and Cattle Diseases Prevention [Bill 27] nominated.
Committee—Government Annuities* [Bill 11], Debate [March 17] resumed and further adjourned; Collection of Taxes* [Bill 57].
Report—Collection of Taxes* [Bill 57], and recommitted.

THE FACTORY ACT—SCUTCH MILLS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether Scutch Mills came

  301
  within the definition of a "Factory;" whether the Law Officers of the Crown have given any opinion on that point; and, if so, whether that opinion supports the conclusion at which the Factory Inspectors have arrived on that point?
  SIR GEORGE GREYreplied, that he did not understand that any opinion on the subject had been given by the Law Officers of the Crown, but the question arose some years ago, and it was held by the Inspectors that ordinary Scutch Mills did not come within the Factory Act; but that other Scutch Mills, with a particular sort of machinery attached, did come within the Act.

HUDSON'S BAY COMPANY'S TERRITORT.—QUESTION.
SIR EDWARD GROGANsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the Hudson's Bay Company had any ownership in the soil or any right, except that of taking wild animals, to the district of country lying between Lake Superior and British Columbia, comprising the only prairie and some of the most fertile land in British America; and, if the Company had no right, whether the said district should not be opened for settlement under the Crown, and thus invite the emigrants who now leave this country for the United States to settle in our own Colony?
MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, in reply, that the Hudson's Bay Company had always claimed and still claimed territorial as well as trading and hunting rights over the country referred to in the question of the hon. Baronet, and those claims had been twice submitted to the Law Officers of the Crown under two different Governments, and pronounced by them to be valid. Under these circumstances, and considering the length of time —200 years—during which the claims of the Hudson's Bay Company had been unquestioned, his noble Friend the Duke of Newcastle did not think it his duty, except in the ease of most extreme necessity, to question those claims. With respect to opening out the country to settlement, he must say that he did not think that the country had hitherto been closed against settlement by the fact of its being in the hands of the Hudson's Bay Company. He believed that it was its situation, and the natural difficulties of that region which separated the territory in question from Canada, together with its distance beyond the settled territory of the United
302
States, that had constituted the real reasons why population had not made its way and was not likely to make its way there in considerable numbers until the more desirable prairie land of the United States was opened out. Still, the period was approaching when it would be desirable to remove every obstacle to the settlement of the district in question, and his noble Friend was in communication with the authorities of the Hudson's Bay Company in the hope of arriving at some agreement by which the territory might be transferred from the Company to the Crown.

THE SUEZ CANAL.—QUESTION.
MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Sultan has authorized the Pacha of Egypt to submit the questions at issue relative to the Suez Canal to the arbitration of the Emperor of the French; and, whether, among such questions considered to be at issue, the requirement of the supply of forced labour for the execution of the works of the Canal is presumed to be included?
VISCODNT PALMERSTONsaid, in reply, that all that the Government knew about the matter to which the hon. Member referred was that which was contained in the Moniteur, where it was announced that a Commission had been appointed by the Emperor of France, at the request or with the consent of the Pacha of Egypt, to arbitrate between the Lesseps Company and the Pacha. The Government had no official information on the matter, and therefore he could not say on what points the arbitration was to take place.

THE "AG1NCOURT"—CHAIN CABLES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. LAIRDsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether it is correct that the 5½-inch rolled iron armour-plate manufactured by the Mersey Steel and Iron Company for the Agincourt was only classed "A 4;" and if he has had any applications from Chain Cable and Anchor Manufacturers, whose private certificates are received by Lloyd's until the 1st of July, 1864, requesting the Transport Department of the Admiralty to place them on the same footing as Messrs. Brown, Lennox, and Co. were placed by the advertisement of the 19th of Janu-

  303
  ary last; and, if such applications have been made, whether the Admiralty are prepared to agree to their request by issuing a similar advertisement to that of the 19th January?
  LORD CLARENCE PAGET, in reply to the first question, said, that it was not n correct statement that the armour-plate referred to was only classed A 4, It was classed A 1. With regard to the second question, several applications had been made by Chain Cable and Anchor Manufacturers to the effect alluded to by the hon. Members, and the Admiralty had referred the question to the Committee of Lloyd's. It was the desire of the Admiralty that all the principal Anchor Manufacturers should be put on the same footing. If the hon. Member would repeat his question after Easter, perhaps he would be enabled to give him a more definite answer.

BANKRUPTCY COURT, DUBLIN.

  QUESTION.
  MR. VANCEsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, If any arrangements are in progress to give better accommodation for the transaction of public business in the Bankruptcy Court in Dublin?
  MR. PEEL, in reply, said, attention had been directed to the object of giving better accommodation in the Bankruptcy Court by means of an improved building, and in the Civil Service Estimates a Vote would be asked for in order to make provision for a commencement of the work.

DENMARK—ORDER OF SUCCESSION IN HOLSTEIN AND SCHLESWIG.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BERNAL OSBORNEsaid, he rose to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether Her Majesty's Government has grounds for believing that the order of succession in Holstein and Schleswig, which was contemplated by the Treaty of London, will be consented to by the Assemblies of Estates in those Duchies?
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON, in reply, stated that, in the first place, the Government had no certain knowledge that the Estates of those Duchies were to be assembled. He was aware that there existed a wish that they should be assembled on the part of some portion of Germany. [Mr. BERNAL OSBORNE: The whole of Germany.] But if there were any legal or competent au-
  304
  thority to assemble them, he confessed he could not see what they were likely to do when assembled.
  MR. BERNAL OSBORNEsaid, he wished to know, whether he was to understand that it was the noble Lord's opinion that those Duchies were not entitled to any assembly of the Estates.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he did not quite understand the question. The Duchies had Estates which were liable to be summoned by a competent authority. He believed, however, there was a doubt whether there existed any competent authority at present.
  MR. BERNAL OSBORNE: In consequence of the Treaty of 1852.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: The Treaty 1852 had nothing to do with the matter. Holstein and Schleswig were now occupied by Foreign Powers. The authority of the Sovereign of the Duchies had been suspended by those Foreign Powers, and it was doubted whether there was any authority competent to summon the Estates.
  SIR HARRY VERNEYsaid, he wished to know, Whether it is to be understood that no steps would be taken with regard to Holstein and Schleswig without obtaining the opinion of the inhabitants of those Duchies in some way that would be deemed legal and constitutional?
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, that was a question of policy which he really could not undertake to answer.
  SIR HARRY VERNEYsaid, he would beg to ask, Whether the noble Lord was not aware that by the Constitution of Denmark the Duchies of Schleswig and Holstein were placed on the same constitutional footing as the Estates of Denmark; and whether he was not aware that the consent of the Rigsraad having been asked to the new Constitution, it was not competent to ask the same assent from the Estates of Holstein and Schleswig?
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONwas understood to say that he supposed his hon. Friend referred to the Treaty of 1852, and that that treaty was confirmed by the Powers of Europe.

IRISH CONSTABULARY.

  QUESTION.
  SIR HERVEY BRUCEsaid, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether he considers the omission of the words "by night" after the words "by day," in second line of sixth paragraph of

  305
  the instructions issued to the Constabulary in May, 1860, which words occur in the second line of the fifth paragraph of the instructions issued to the same force in October, 1837, relieves them from the properly watching of the towns in Ireland by night, or, if he did not consider it relieves, why they do not perform that duty as they formerly did?
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, in reply, that the words used in the last set of instrnctions were almost a literal repetition of those used in the former one, and that there was no substantial alteration.
  LORD NAASsaid, he wished to know if it is the intention of the Government to issue any fresh instructions as to watching towns in Ireland?
  SIR ROBERT PEELreplied, that; after the discussion which took place the other night, he would endeavour to meet as far as he could the wishes of hon. Gentlemen as expressed on that occasion.

GOVERNMENT ANNUITIES BILL—MR. H. B. SHERIDAN.—PRIVILEGE.
SIR JOHN HAY, who had given notice of a Motion—
"That this House sees with regret that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not considered it his duty, after the explanation given last night, to withdraw the imputations which he has cast upon the hon. Member for Dudley"—
said, I rise for the purpose of bringing before the House a question of Privilege. It will be in the recollection of the House that a challenge was given very recently, in reference to certain allegations made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer against the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. H. B, Sheridan). The right hon. Gentleman said that if the allegations he had made were not sustained, not only was an apology due from him to the hon. Member for Dudley, but that he should deserve the censure of the House. "Upon that issue," added the right hon. Gentleman, "I intend to stand or fall." Now I am anxious to bring under the consideration of the House the circumstances which led to that challenge. Certainly I owe an apology to the House for intruding upon them on this matter; but I venture to think—
MR. SPEAKER: The question of Privilege having been raised, that must be decided before the hon. and gallant Member can proceed to address the House.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I wish, as the person mainly concerned, to make only one observation, I
306
do not set myself up as an authority on the rules of the House, but I may perhaps be permitted to say, that it would be most acceptable to me if the hon. Baronet could be allowed to proceed with his Motion, and that every facility should be afforded for its discussion.
MR. SPEAKER: I think the House will be of opinion, that it would not be a convenient course to extend the area of privilege without due consideration: as regards the occurrence being a recent one, so far the hon. Member is in order. But I should say, on looking at the terms of his Motion, that what has occurred in the House does not fulfil other conditions as regards privilege. In my opinion, it does not distinctly concern the privileges of the House, or call for the present interposition of the House. At the same time, I should be sorry to give any opinion to the House which is not perfectly fair and candid; and I must admit that the challenge referred to on the part of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer does materially complicate this question. After what has been stated, if it should be the general desire of the House to pursue this discussion, I would venture to recommend that the area of privilege should not be extended; and I would suggest that it would be a more convenient course, if the House deems this a matter which it would be proper at once to entertain, if the noble Lord will consent, not to deal with it as a question of privilege, but to postpone the other Orders until after the Motion of the hon. Member has been disposed of.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, in accordance with the recommendation you have just given, I beg to move that the Orders be postponed till the Motion of the hon. Baronet the Member for Wakefield has been disposed of.
MR. E. P. BOUVERIE: Sir, there are two points of order which I would respectfully submit for your consideration. I understand that the intention of the hon. Baronet the Member for Wakefield, is to submit to the House a Resolution of which he has given notice. As I read his Resolution, it seems to me to be a vote of censure on a Member of the House for words spoken in a past debate. Now, there are two rules of the House which I have always understood were strictly observed. One is, that we have no right in this House to refer to a past debate in the same Session. The other rule is still more important and absolute, and is necessary for the

307
protection of Members of the House and for the freedom of debate. It is that no Member is to be called upon to answer for words spoken in this House unless it be immediately moved that the words used be taken down by the clerk at the table. Therefore I want to know, Sir, whether the House can now be called on to pass a vote of censure on a Member of this House for statements made by him, and "imputations conveyed," to quote the phrase of the Resolution, in the course of a speech spoken by him nearly a fortnight ago? [A MEMBER: Only last night.] I understood that the "imputations conveyed" were those originally made in a speech on Monday week—nearly a fortnight ago. I can only say that if the House comes to a vote of censure on a Member for words used at that distance of time, no matter what these words may have been or how open they were to censure at the time, it will be distinctly contravening what has been the universal rule and order of the House in such a case. This is a matter not of mere form, but of substance. It is a practice essential to the protection of the liberty of debate in this House, and if it be broken through, any Member may be liable to be censured and ill-treated for words which were never really spoken by him, at the will of a majority of the House. As far as I can judge, it seems to me that the House would be committing a breach of our most respected orders if it were to go into a debate on words spoken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on a previous occasion.
MR. ROEBUCK: I think, Sir, the object of the hon. Baronet is not to find fault with any particular expression used by the right hon. Gentleman, and therefore the words could not be taken down. That to which he wishes to draw attention is the whole tone and spirit and temper and behaviour of the right hon. Gentleman in the discussion to which he refers.
MR. SPEAKER: It appears to me that the view taken by the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield is the correct one. This is not a question of words liable to objection used in debate. If it had been, the words, no doubt, ought to have been taken down at the moment. The House will, however, remember that last night the time of the House was occupied for nearly two hours by a matter of personal explanation, extending far beyond the ordinary limits of such explanations; and a series of statements and facts were
308
brought under discussion. My understanding is that it is on these statements that the challenge was offered, and the challenge has been accepted. At the same time, I think the House has been judicious in not considering the question as one affecting the established rules of privilege.
MR. H. BAILLIE: I think the view taken by the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie) is the correct one — namely, that if we are to have a discussion at all, it must be upon words recorded by the Clerk at the table, and not upon the mere tone of a speech. Holding that opinion, I shall take the sense of the House upon any Motion for postponing the Orders of the Day.
MR. NEWDEGATE: I think it must be perfectly apparent to common sense, that when the House is asked to act judicially, the exact substance of the indictment upon which we are invited to give a judgment should be laid before us, and after notice, unless the words to which exception is taken have just been spoken, and are quite fresh in the memory of the House. I am sure the hon. Member for Wakefield (Sir John Hay) would not wish to induce the House to enter upon an inquiry to discover what were the objectionable passages in a speech which is not before us. It seems to me that we are asked to pass an opinion upon the temper manifested by a Member of this House in debate, without having any evidence of the temper of which the hon. Baronet complains. I do not see, therefore, how the House can, in the present state of circumstances, without having any distinct issue before us, express an opinion creditable to itself.
COLONEL FRENCH: I hope it will not be forgotten that a challenge has been given to the House by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The complaint, as I understand it, is not that any particular words have been spoken, but that certain words have not been spoken. Let us hope that, under the circumstances, the right hon. Gentleman will relieve the House from the necessity of going into this debate, by withdrawing the imputations upon the hon. Member for Dudley.
LORD STANLEY: I think the House is in danger of getting into great difficulty if it proceeds further in this matter. The question is not merely of form, but of substance also. There seems to be great weight in the observations of the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock

309
(Mr. Bouverie), and it certainly would not be worth while—I say so with all respect to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the other party concerned—for the sake of bringing this particular question to a satisfactory issue to establish a precedent that might become in times more troubled than these a source of considerable inconvenience. There is another point that I would recommend to the consideration of the House. I confess I do not see how we are to come to a satisfactory solution of the points in dispute—if they are still in dispute—between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the hon. Member for Dudley. If we are to be called upon to adjudicate upon these matters, we cannot do so merely upon an ex parte statement from either side. I, for one, utterly disclaim the responsibility of undertaking to decide who is right and who is wrong in such matters as those which were the subject of discussion yesterday upon a mere ex parte statement on each side, with no evidence, no witnesses to examine, no means of satisfying ourselves upon the points on which we might desire further information. I do not think there could be any satisfactory issue to this discussion if it were to take place, and I am persuaded it would be better that the matter should be allowed to remain where it is.
LORD ROBERT CECIL: If the House should refuse to go into this discussion tonight, it must follow that hereafter, when a Minister of the Crown or any other Member, having uttered words affecting the reputation of another Member, challenges the judgment of this House, that challenge must be held to be a mere idle and futile flourish. The Chancellor of the Exchequer closed the debate last night by distinctly challenging the judgment of the House. Are we now to say, by allowing the matter to end here, that the judgment so challenged shall not be given? There is another point. The reputation of a private Member of this House has been, in the opinion of many of us, cruelly dealt with. For that great wrong, if it be a wrong, there is, if you refuse to go into this matter to-night, absolutely no redress. Protected by the privileges of this House, the Chancellor of the Exchequer cannot be sued before the ordinary courts of the land for having, as it is assumed, slandered and calumniated another Member. I do not say that he has actually slandered and calumniated any man, but I do say that if he has done so he cannot be subjected to
310
those processes of law to which every person has a right, in ordinary cases, to resort when he feels his reputation has been wrongfully and foully injured. It appears to me that if we maintain this privilege of protecting Members of this House from all actions at law—and we must maintain it— and if we do that by the side of the fact that words spoken here are published over the length and breadth of the land, and are soon known to the whole world, we must make up our minds, when imputations affecting the character of a Member are made in this House, and are denied, and when the judgment of the House is challenged, not to refuse to pass the judgment so demanded.
LORD ROBERT MONTAGU: I think the noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn (Lord Stanley) has shown a great deal more wisdom than the noble Lord who has just spoken. If it were intended to raise a discussion upon certain words which had been uttered in this House, those words, as the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock has said, ought to have been taken down at the time by the clerk, so that there should be no doubt as to the words which had been actually used. If, on the contrary, certain allegations of fact were to be called in question, and we were to invite the Chancellor of the Exchequer to withdraw imputations if we decided that they were unfounded, then it would be necessary that at the outset we should come to a solemn judgment as to whether those imputations are true or false. Has any one Member in this House compared the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer with the reply of the hon. Member for Dudley? Has any one Member set the imputations against the answer which had been given to them? If not, then not a single Member of the House is in a position to give judgment in the matter. But, even supposing that hon. Members had compared the speeches in question, item with item, and statement with reply, then they must, moreover, take some evidence to prove whether the imputations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or the answers of the hon. Member for Dudley are true or false. Both the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the hon. Member for Dudley, I have no doubt, have stated and would always state what they believed to be true. Yet either the one or the other may be mistaken, and, therefore, we cannot give judgment upon their statements alone. For these reasons I entirely agree with the noble Lord the

311
Member for King's Lynn, and I shall vote against the Motion of the noble Viscount at the head of the Government.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I rise, Sir, in the hope that in the fewest possible words I may be able to assist the House in what undoubtedly appears to be a serious dilemma. I do not feel very confident upon that subject, but I think it my duty to offer the few remarks which I have to make. They may, at any rate, help the House to a conclusion on the question whether they would proceed to the consideration of this matter in full detail —which would be the course most agreeable to myself—or whether they should take some other step in conformity with the general rules which regulate our proceedings. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Roscommon (Colonel French) appealed to me to relieve the House by withdrawing what he called my "imputations." I think the House will feel that no man being a Member of this House, not to say a Minister of the Crown, can, except in vague and general terms, deny what is only vaguely and generally imputed. The hon. Baronet the Member for Wakefield (Sir John Hay) is met with this difficulty—that he did not cause the words to be taken down at the time they were spoken. My sincere object is to help the hon. Baronet out of that difficulty, and, at the same time, to avoid saying what is offensive to anybody. I shall endeavour to avoid repeating anything that would give pain, but I shall also endeavour to define, as far as I can, the state of the case. Let me distinguish between what was said of a certain company or institution and what was said of the hon. Member for Dudley. I have never shrunk from avowing, I have never attempted to conceal, I thought it part of my duty to make manifest, that I described in my speech a certain company or institution, which need not now be named, as a company of a certain character. [An hon. MEMBER: Fraudulent.] My object at present is to state the case without using offensive expressions, or allowing a syllable to pass my lips calculated to give offence. I showed that the company or institution was of a certain character by a series of allegations of facts, and, with the exception of a verbal matter, I am not able to recede from any one of those allegations. I shall not now enter into any detail, but I may say that I am perfectly prepared with conclusive documentary evidence to re-establish any one of my
312
allegations impugned in the statement which followed mine last night. That is my position. Two questions, I think, arise—are the allegations true; in other words, was the character attempted to be fastened upon the company or institution just? Or is the House prepared to affirm that the allegations are untrue and the character unjust? Upon the first question I cannot promise to do more than I have done, because, in my opinion, the allegations have been sustained; but I may point out to the noble Lord the Member for Stamford (Lord Robert Cecil) that if he thinks they have not been sustained, and if he desires to make them the subject of inquiry, it is competent to him or any other Member to move words of instruction to a Committee of this House which would completely open up the question of the truth or falsehood of the allegations. Or, if the noble Lord prefers a shorter course to his object, and thinks fit to move a Resolution that the company described by me was a company which, although perhaps unfortunate, did nothing to forfeit moral confidence and respect, it is open to him to move such a Resolution; and although I could not vote for it, yet, if it were the sense of the majority of the House, I should at once express my regret for having been so unfortunate originally as to form an opinion at variance with that of the high authority of the House, and should promise that thereafter my mouth would be for ever closed on that subject. So much, therefore, as far as the vindication of the company is concerned. Now I come to what concerns the hon. Member; and if I have been apparently prolix upon what concerns the company, it was that I might cut off and clearly separate that portion of my remarks from what concerns the hon. Member. Well, no one has given me any assistance by referring to any words or terms used by me respecting the hon. Member for Dudley; and, therefore, in the sincere attempt which I wish to make to facilitate the proceedings of the House, I have no course open to me but to state my own view—which, I grant, is totally without authority — of the bearing of the description given by me of the company upon the hon. Member. I am sure the House will receive it with indulgence. I found a company that bore in my mind a certain character. I deemed it, whether erroneously or not, a part of my duty to open up, by a single specimen at any rate, the charac-

313
ter of a certain portion of these companies. I found in the advertisements of that company a name, as auditor, which appeared to be the name of a Member of this House, although, of course, I was not absolutely justified in concluding that it was the name of that hon. Gentleman; but I adverted to it as probably being the name of a Member of this House; and I stated, in terms for which I claim no praise at all, but terms such as decency required, that I had no doubt he was in a situation to make a satisfactory explanation to the House upon the subject. It may be asked of me what did I mean to convey by that reference to the hon. Gentleman. That is a perfectly fair question, and I will give to it, not, only a sincere answer, but the clearest answer that I can offer. But, observe, that everything except the reference to the hon. Member was part of the res gestœ from which I sought to prove the character of the company—another portion of this question, although I do not say that he will not be justified in raising that also before the House if he thinks it to be his duty to do so; because I hold that those who are outside of this House are as much entitled, though perhaps, not in the same form, to our protection, as those who sit within its walls. Now, my view of the ease in its bearing on the hon. Member I left at the time to be inferred simply from the words which I used; but I think it was this— that when the name of an hon. Gentleman is found bearing a responsible office in a company which appears to be of the character to which I have referred, the effect is twofold. In the first place there arises against him a certain amount of adverse presumption that he is implicated in the transactions of that company; and in the second place there arises this patent and important fact, that his name as connected with these offices in the company has gone out to the world, and has presumably served in the eye of the public as a guarantee of the soundness and respectability of that company. Now, Sir, that is precisely what I intended to convey with regard to the hon. Member. I should be ashamed to say that I do not think my words are calculated to establish against him a certain amount of adverse presumption. I should also be ashamed to say that I do not think it is most unfortunate that many gentlemen are in the habit of permitting their names unhappily to become guarantees to the public on behalf of institutions of which they do not, perhaps,
314
know the real character in many cases— which they may in many cases believe, and which they do in many cases believe, to be thoroughly respectable and solvent, but which, at the same time, may be quite otherwise. And I do not deny that I think a certain amount of blame is to be attached to any one who, as an officer or trustee of a company such as I believe that company was, whether he has direct cognizance of its transactions or not, allows his name to be held out as a guarantee. I hope that that is an explicit statement of what I conceive to be the effect of my speech. With respect to a name given on behalf of a company that is bad, if the House thinks that the company is good, and chooses to say so by its vote, of course the charge entirely disappears, and I have already stated the course which I should take in that case. With regard to the adverse presumption against a Member of this House, of course it is obvious that it is for him to rise and purge himself by his denial of any knowledge or any complicity in any transaction connected with that company which is not according to the laws of honourable commercial enterprize. Now, I did not understand the hon. I Member—but I submit myself to the judgment of this House if I am wrong—I did not understand the hon. Gentleman in the course he took on Thursday night to adopt the method of purgation which I have described. The hon. Member questioned my allegations, stated that they were utterly untrue, touched many of them in detail, and said nothing, as far as I could gather, with respect to the admission even that there was anything whatever to blame in the proceedings of this company; and, of course, if that be so, he did not require to disclaim—
MR. H. B. SHERIDAN: I rise to Order. I distinctly stated, when the right hon. Gentleman made his first speech, that —[Cries of "Order! and "Chair!"] Sir, I cannot allow the right hon. Gentleman to make a statement to the House which is not founded on fact. ["Order!"]
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member will have an opportunity of explaining.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I really had no intention to misstate what the hon. Gentleman said. I am speaking of what he said on Thursday. I thought I was only stating what was patent and obvious to all. Perhaps, when the hon. Member is perfectly cool he will see that my remark does not in any way call

315
for either that or any other interruption. Undoubtedly, to state it moderately, the main staple of the hon. Gentleman's explanation was his objection to the truth of the allegations of fact which I had made. On that my statement was, that what I felt was that if I had made allegations not founded on fact I had committed a grave offence and deserved the severest censure of the House. I am still of that opinion, and I do not mean to interpose any obstacle, if it depends upon me, to the trial of that question, if it is to he tried. And now I come to the purely personal part of the matter. If the hon. Member has made the denial to which I have referred, declaring—without committing himself, if he pleases, about this company—that he knew nothing of, and that he had no share in, any transactions except such as were legitimate, I can only say that I have not been fortunate enough to hear that declaration. But, if that declaration was made, my duty is plain, and I cannot hesitate to perform it. I heard him say that the duties of an auditor were of a definite character, and that he had given his name as trustee in various instances. I will not attempt to quote, because I do not recollect precisely the effect of what he stated; but I did not hear from his mouth that distinct declaration applicable to the whole state of the case. If he could, indeed, entirely or generally disprove the allegations of fact which I made, I do not say that it would be necessary for him to make such a declaration; but if he did make such a declaration, I would not for one moment hesitate to admit that so far as I am concerned that declaration made in this House and accepted by this House is absolute and conclusive, and entirely disposes of whatever adverse presumption might have arisen out of the facts stated by me—whether they be true or not true —as far as regards the hon. Gentleman. Can I say more than that? If the hon. Gentleman has made that declaration, I must say that I did not fully apprehend its purport and meaning, and I make an apology for not having done so. If he makes that declaration now I will abide by my word, and that declaration shall be final and conclusive upon me; and if accepted by the House it disposes of whatever adverse presumption there might have been against him, and leaves him, as far as my statement is involved, exactly as if that statement had never been made. Perhaps, if hon. Members should think that there is
316
more which I ought to state in this matter ["No!''], and should suggest it to me in debate, I am sure the House, in its kindness, will not prevent me, on the ground of form, from rising again to make good any deficiency in my present remarks. I have endeavoured to give the bearing of the case in the clearest light, to separate effectually what I think are the two distinct parts of it, to explain my position in relation to it, to vindicate myself and the statements of fact which I made, and at the same time to do justice to the hon. Member.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I should hope, after the explanation of my right hon. Friend, that it will be unnecessary for the hon. Gentleman opposite to make the Motion which has been suggested. I am sure the House will all concur in regretting a discussion which has given pain to the hon. Member for Dudley — pain which I am certain that my right hon. Friend must, like myself, regret should have been given, and which arose out of the statements which he deemed it his duty to make. But I should really trust, that after the statement which my right hon. Friend has just made, and the frank and handsome manner in which he has accepted the declaration of the hon. Member for Dudley, it will not be thought necessary for the House to go on with this Motion.
MR. H. B. SHERIDAN: Sir, I have been challenged by the right hon. Gentleman to say whether or not in the course of the debate raised by him I denied certain allegations which he made. I never heard any allegations made of the nature to which he evidently alludes; hut immediately after the speech to which this discussion refers I did rise and state that I had acted as an auditor of the company many years ago; that the position of the company was then of such a character that the business was both sound and profitable; that I knew of no transaction of the company that deserved any censure; that I ceased to hold office immediately after 1856 that I was in entire ignorance of any of the other incidents by which he characterized the company; that I was not responsible for any of the conditions which attached to its management; and that neither then nor last night could I understand how or why my name was brought forward in connection with the company.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The hon. Gentleman has made

317
the declaration to which I referred, and has stated explicitly that he knew of no transaction of the company deserving censure. If he did the game thing on a former evening, I regret that I did not gather its effect. The House will, I am sure, forgive me if it should prove that I have been misled on a particular point. He stated that he ceased to hold office in the company in 1856. I quoted his name as trustee, I think, in 1859. But it was from what purported to be an advertisement of the company itself. However that may be, accepting the declaration of the hon. Gentleman, and accepting it also as made on the first night of the debate, I must add my sincere regret if he has suffered pain owing to my failure to perceive the effect of his statement on that occasion.
SIR JOHN HAY: I think, Sir, after the very satisfactory explanation which has just fallen from the right hon. Gentleman, it would be very unfair indeed to proceed further with this matter. I had not the acquaintance of the hon. Member for Dudley, and my only object was to obtain what appeared to be necessary, in the first assembly of gentlemen in Europe, from the right hon. Gentleman, whom we all respect for his talents and eloquence. I myself felt, and others felt, that after the explanation I understood to be made by the hon. Member for Dudley there was something cruel, as it were, in the right hon. Gentleman not rising in his place and accepting it freely and frankly in the manner he has done to-day. The House, I am sure, will forgive me for the intrusion; but I feel I have done a service to it by placing this matter on a proper footing.

THE EASTER RECESS.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON moved, "That the House at its rising do adjourn till Monday, 4th April."
DOE PARK &c. RESERVOIRS, BRADFORD.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. FERRANDsaid, he rose to call attention to the dangerous state of the Doe Park and other reservoirs, belonging to the Bradford Corporation Waterworks. This was a question of great importance to a large number of people residing in his own immediate neighbourhood. He put a Question the other evening to the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the
  318
  Home Department, in respect to the dangerous state of those reservoirs; and the right hon. Gentleman replied by saying that be would communicate on the subject with the Mayor of Bradford. On a subsequent evening the right hon. Baronet informed him (Mr. Ferrand) that he had made the communication referred to, and that he had received a letter from the Mayor of Bradford, informing him that his (Mr. Ferrand's) statement in regard to the Doe Park Reservoir, was exaggerated. Instead of that being the case, he now asked the indulgence of the House while he endeavoured to prove that, so far from his statement being exaggerated, it was considerably within the mark. The Bradford Corporation had expended nearly£750,000 on those waterworks, a large item of which money was expended in repairing leaking and dangerous reservoirs. The engineer of the Bradford Corporation Waterworks held his appointment under an Act of Parliament, and received 5 per cent of all the money expended on those waterworks. The corporation had no power of dismissing him, therefore he was a paramount master over the corporation and over the waterworks. In his (Mr. Ferrand's) immediate neighbourhood there were three reservoirs belonging to those waterworks. The highest of these is, he believed, in a perfectly safe state. The second, called the Doe Park Reservoir, which, when full, contained 110,000,000 gallons of water, was completed about two years ago. Soon after it was filled the immense volume of water forced its way through the embankment, and there was every probability of the embankment giving way, and the water in such case would have burst down the valley, carrying death and desolation wherever it spread. A messenger arrived at his house one evening, informing him of this alarming state of things. He (Mr. Ferrand) immediately dispatched a messenger on horseback to Bradford to inform the Mayor, and at the same time he addressed a letter to the Home Secretary on the subject. The Waterworks Committee happened to be sitting at the time, and by great exertions they were enabled to stop the leak. Since that period this reservoir had been frequently repaired, and the embankment lad been repuddled seven different times. About a month ago he himself visited the reservoir, and he found the water within a few feet of the top of it. In the centre of the embankment a large number of men

  319
  were employed driving a shaft twenty yards long from the summit to the bottom for the purpose of stopping the leakage. Another shaft was being driven outside the embankment for the purpose of discovering the leakage, where a large body of water flowed out sufficient to turn a good-sized mill. During the last two years, when this reservoir was full of water, the corporation employed men during the night to watch it and to report to the inhabitants when there was danger of the embankment giving way. The contractor gave up repairing it some months ago and threw it upon the hands of the corporation, who, for a considerable time, had been endeavouring to stop the leaks. It was under these circumstances that he had called the attention of the Home Secretary to the dangerous state of this reservoir. The Mayor had stated that the reservoir had been run dry, and at present there was no further danger. Below this reservoir there was another which held 11,000,000 cubic feet of water. If the higher reservoir broke down upon the second, both embankments would go, and the water would rush through the valley and would probably occasion as much destruction as the Sheffield reservoir had recently done. If the catastrophe occurred during the night, the probability was that every person residing in the valley would perish. Last Monday week the water of the second reservoir, notwithstanding the by wash and the perpendicular culvert, rose five feet above the culvert and by wash, and if it had only risen a few feet more, it would have overflowed the embankment, and the most disastrous consequences would have ensued. In the valley there were five or six mills. There were seven or eight tenants will their families, on his own property besides about 300 people residing in the valley. A short distance below this valley the railway crossed the river Aire with a wooden bridge upon a high embankment, and the Leeds and Liverpool Canal was carried across it by an aqueduct. If the embankment gave way the manufacturing town of Shipley would be a scene of ruin—in fact, there was a danger of the waters rushing even as far as Leeds itself, where the damage would be frightful. There was another reservoir in the valley of the Aire—the Silsden Reservoir—to which also he wished to draw attention; this had also been in a dangerous state, and the embankment would have given way on one evening but for the timely warning
  320
  given by a person who discovered the leakage. At the time, there were 2,000 or 3,000 persons residing in its immediate vicinity. In that case the embankment was taken down and a new one constructed. There was another reservoir in a neighbouring valley also in a dangerous state, and notwithstanding that the engineer of the waterworks had a few months ago certified on oath that it was in a secure state, he (Mr. Ferrand) was informed that that reservoir had since given way. He thought he had now made out a strong case to justify the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary in sending down a good engineer. He would now ask leave to read the following letters from a gentleman at Bradford, for the purpose of showing that he had not made an exaggerated statement, as he had been charged with having done:—
  "Bradford, Yorkshire, March 16, 1864.
  "Sir,—I see by the paper this morning that Sir George Grey stated last night in the House of Commons, in reply to your question about the Doe Park Reservoir, that he had written to the mayor of Bradford for information on the subject of its alleged insecurity.
  "Without at all wishing to cast any reflection on our worthy mayor, it may be important to you to know that any statement he may make, if even affirming its safety, will not have the slightest effect in re-assuring the minds of a large portion of the public hereabouts. The present mayor has always been in the corporation the most prominent and assiduous promoter of the corporation waterworks schemes; and it is almost unnecessary that I should tell you that in every respect the public have reason to complain of the whole management of these matters. Not only have the original estimates of cost been very far exceeded, but wholly unlocked for delays in the completion of the works have taken place, and it is well known in the town and neighbourhood of Bradford that these delays have mainly arisen from the defective character of the workmanship in the various stages of construction, and especially so in the reservoirs. I am not at present a resident of Bradford, having removed from the borough about four months ago, and it might, perhaps, be said that I meddle with what does not now concern me; but as the safety of human life concerns every man, I do not hesitate to say that any reply the mayor of Bradford may send to Sir George Grey will not be deemed sufficiently reliable by thousands of the inhabitants and ratepayers of Bradford; not that the mayor would willingly state any untruth, but because he has been so often identified with waterworks mistakes."
  "W. Ferrand, Esq., M.P.
  He had also received the following telegram from a merchant of Bradford, residing in the valley below the Doe Park embankment: —
  "March 17.—The Doe Park embankment since it was made has been repuddled in seven different

  321
  places, and is still leaking. Hughenden reservoir which must receive the water from Doe Park, rose five feet last Monday week, notwithstanding the by wash and culvert being in full play. The arch under the Hughenden embankment is considerably out of… I say these reservoirs are unsafe. The Silsden culvert is three feet out of perpendicular."
  What he desired to know was, whether a Government Inspector would be sent down to places where danger was apprehended?
  SIR GEORGE GREYthought it would have been more convenient if the hon. Gentleman had brought the facts he had just mentioned under the notice of the Government in a different manner. If the hon. Gentleman would be good enough to place upon paper the facts which he had now mentioned and communicate with him (Sir George Grey), he would consider whether they were sufficient to require that a Government Inspector should be sent down to the place in question. He did not dispute the facts stated by the hon. Gentleman, because he only now heard them for the first time, and therefore could not say that the reservoirs referred to were not in a dangerous state; but certainly no previous communication to that effect had been made to him.

COLLECTION OF TAXES BILL.

  QUESTION.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYinquired of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it was intended to proceed that evening with the Collection of Taxes Bill?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the course he proposed to take would, he thought, be convenient and satisfactory to the House. He proposed to go into Committee pro formâ that evening, with a view to introduce a number of Amendments. These Amendments would relate to the meetings of the Commissioners, to granting to present collectors fair considerations for their vested interests, to compensations to collectors whose services would not be continued, and also to a mode of enabling persons resident in country districts to pay their taxes by means of money orders instead of being required to visit the market town. In order that those Amendments might be intelligible it would be necessary to reprint the Bill. That course he proposed to take, and to fix the Committee for a distant day, say about the middle of April.

M. MAZZINI—THE GRECO CONSPIRACY —POSITION OF MR. STANSFELD.

  QUESTION.
  LORD ELCHO: Sir, I wish to put a question to my noble Friend at the head of the Government, of which I have privately given him notice. It is a question which I think naturally follows from the very painful discussions which we have had in this House, arising out of the unfortunate friendship which exists between the hon. Member for Halifax and M. Mazzini—a friendship which is, I think, unfortunate in its consequences as regards the hon. Member for himself, for the Government of which he is a Member, and for this House. I do not wish to revive the painful discussion of last evening, nor to express any opinion upon the course which has been taken by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax since the question was first bro ught before the House by the hon. Member for Pinsbury. I do not say whether it would have been better if the hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax had at once expressed his regret for what had occurred, instead of attempting to defend a man who I consider is, in many respects, incapable of being defended. All I wish to say is this: looking calmly and dispassionately at the whole question, it appears to me that the hon. Gentleman has been guilty, to say the least, of a grave indiscretion—an indiscretion which amounts to a public scandal. The indiscretion of the hon. Gentleman is this — that he, a Member of Her Majesty's Government, allowed, and has allowed up to a very recent time, his name to be used as a cover for the secret correspondence of M. Mazzini. Now, I say, that is a grave indiscretion, amounting to a great public scandal—a scandal affecting not only the character of the hon. Gentleman, but of the Government of which he is a Member, the character of this House, and of this country—one which is calculated to cause a bad understanding and bad feeling, even if such have not already been created, between this country and a friendly foreign country. That being so, it appears to me that the division of last night, so far from placing the House in a better position, has rather put us in a worse position, because a question which was not in itself a party question, was by the issue made to depend upon it by the hon. Member made a party question. I voted with the minority last night, but I say I did not vote as a party

  323
  man for a party move, but as the only means presented to me as a Member of this House, as one to whom the honour of this House and the country is dear—the only means of expressing my opinion that a great public scandal had taken place; and whether the explanation of the hon. Gentleman might or might not have been deemed satisfactory, still something appears to be wanting beyond what has already been said or done upon this subject. Any further Resolution upon this subject would unquestionably be made the subject of a party division—such a colour would be given to it on this side of the House. But when the last division is said to have been a party division, I may say that I have heard many men on either side of the House express their regret that they found themselves obliged to vote one way or the other upon this question. I am confident that I express the public opinion out of doors and the opinion of Members in this House when I say, that I and most if not all the Members of this House most bitterly regret the position in which we are placed. But if that division cannot place the House in a right position there is one course which, if it had been taken at the very outset, would have placed the Members of this House right with the country and with a Foreign Power. That is, if the hon. Member for Halifax at once, when he saw the position in which his indiscretion, his culpable indiscretion I must call it, had placed this House and this country, and the Government of which he is a Member, had immediately tendered his resignation as a Member of the Government. Now, the question which I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury is this, whether the hon. Member for Halifax has at any time since this subject was first brought under the notice of the House by the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Cox) formally tendered his resignation to Her Majesty's Government, and, if so, whether the resignation has been refused. Since I came down to the House this evening I have been privately informed that the hon. Gentleman has done so. When I first thought it desirable to ask this question I was in utter ignorance that any such offer had been made. But the fact was there was an almost universal opinion last night in the House, that the only course for the hon. Gentleman to take was to tender his resignation, and that opinion was not confined to hon. Gentlemen opposite, for the friends of the hon. Member himself ex-
  324
  pressed themselves to that effect. With reference to the refusal of the Government to accept the resignation I do not wish at present to express any opinion. What I wish to do now is to ask my noble Friend, Whether, at any time since the question has been discussed, the hon. Member for Halifax has tendered his formal resignation?
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I cannot but regret that my noble Friend, in asking the question which he might have put simply, has thought fit to revive the discussion of last night, which I certainly hoped had been concluded. I shall, how-over, abstain from following my noble Friend's example, and will simply answer the question which he has put. The noble Lord asks whether my hon. Friend has at any time subsequent to the introduction of the subject by the hon. Member for Finsbury, tendered the resignation of his office. My hon. Friend immediately after the question was brought forward made a communication to me through a common friend, that he placed his office entirely at the disposal of the Crown, and that at the slightest intimation from me he would formally tender his resignation of that office. My answer was I did not wish him to take that step, that I wished him not to take it—and if there is any responsibility attaching to that decision I am perfectly willing to take that responsibility upon myself.
  MR. W. E. DUNCOMBE: After hearing the statement made by the noble Lord at the head of the Government, I must express my surprise at the decision at which he has arrived. I confess I think it is unworthy the position of Her Majesty's Government that a Member of this House who has committed so grave an indiscretion as that charged against the hon. Member for Halifax should be allowed to retain his position in that Government. I think Her Majesty's Government stand in a very unenviable position in permitting a gentleman to remain a Minister of the Crown who has been for seventeen years the intimate friend of Mazzini— a man who has not the courage to carry out his diabolical schemes, but who skulks under that protection which this free country affords to political refugees and exiles, to abuse that hospitality and conspire against the crowned heads of Europe and the established Governments of Europe, to send forth his emissaries into every capital to produce anarchy, and, if possible, to

  325
  overthrow Governments with which we are in alliance. Is it, I again ask, worthy of the position of Her Majesty's Government that they should have as a Colleague, sitting on that bench, one who admits that he has been for many years the intimate friend of Mazzini—a man who has been excluded from France and other countries —and who, I believe, dare not show his face in Italy, because he is known to be the plotter and a conspirator of Europe, and a disgrace to his nation; and who, I must say, does bring down on every person who has any dealings with him, directly or indirectly, a portion of that disgrace.
  MR. ALDERMAN ROSE: It will, I think, be heard with some surprise, not only throughout this country but on the Continent, that the Government have thought proper to endorse, if I may use the expression, the conduct of the hon. Member for Halifax. I have this afternoon seen a letter from a person of some eminence at Paris, and judging from the description which he gave, the effect of this discovery will not be laid at rest quite as soon as Ministers appear to think it will. Such a feeling has been created in France that I believe the First Minister of the Crown will have cause very much to regret that he has thought fit to adopt the conduct of his Colleague in this matter, and not to accept his resignation. For what is the state of the case? Here is a man whose business has been for years to conspire against all constituted Governments and authorities in other countries, and who has, through the instrumentality of a Minister of the Crown, been carrying on a secret correspondence which he could not have done under the auspices of a less important personage. I think, therefore, that Her Majesty's Government, in not accepting the resignation of the hon. Gentleman, do, to a very great extent, adopt the responsibility of his conduct; and when they come to know the effect of that conduct throughout France, they will very much regret that they did not accept his resignation.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I regret that this subject has been again renewed; but it now certainly stands on a much more tangible ground than on last evening. Last evening we were asked whether we thought that the remarks of the Procureur Général deserved our serious consideration, so far as they regarded the hon. Member for Halifax. We decided that they did not. This evening my noble Friend the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho) in ask-
  326
  ing the noble Lord at the head of the Government whether the hon. Member for Halifax has tendered his resignation, says that he considers that what he has done is a public scandal. He is followed by an hon. Member opposite, who says that the fact of my hon. Friend having been the friend of M. Mazzini for many years is a reason why he should not be a Member of the Administration. I trust that that Motion will be brought definitely before us, and that we shall be asked to decide, whether the fact that a man has been the friend of such a person as M. Mazzini does make it improper that he should be a Member of the Government. I do not agree with M. Mazzini in his views. I disagree with almost all the views I believe he now holds on foreign matters. I believe that he has done harm as well as good not only to the cause of order, but also to the cause of liberty throughout Europe; but I am not ashamed to say, whatever may be the feeling of some Members of this House, that I believe him to be a most earnest and sincere man, and a devoted patriot; and I say, moreover, that I believe that one of the great reasons for the hostility shown to him, and through him to my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax is, that whatever may have been his faults he has been one of the great instruments in effecting the resurrection of Italy. There may be a difference of opinion about that, but this I do say— and I do not think that any Member of the House, when he calmly considers the matter, will doubt it—that though we may not agree with M. Mazzini in his views, we may have a high opinion of his character. Then comes this question—my hon. Friend having had a personal friendship for M. Mazzini, and also an agreement with him in opinion that Italy should be a nation, and a prosperous nation, ought he to have disowned and rejected his friendship with him because he became a Member of the Administration? I should not be ashamed of being the friend of M. Mazzini. I am not ashamed of being his acquaintance, but I should have been ashamed of my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax if, when he was appointed a Member of the Government, he had said to M. Mazzini, "I will have nothing more to do with you, and I disown the friendship of past years." I now come to what the noble Lord said about a public scandal. What is this public scandal? Does any Member suppose that my hon. Friend is implicated in this plot, or so-called plot, which has been, I

  327
  will not say discovered, but lately tried in Paris? Almost every Member who has spoken has acknowledged that he does not believe he was implicated. Does any one suppose that he was unconsciously concerned in it, or made use of in any way for the purpose of this conspiracy? I have not heard any hon. Gentleman say so. What, then, does all this excitement arise from? It arises from this—that among the papers of Greco were the few words, "Mr. Flower, 35, Thurloe Square." There was no proof nor allegation that Greco ever wrote a letter to that address. My hon. Friend states candidly and acknowledges with regret that M. Mazzini, being unable to receive letters from the Continent in his own name, he allowed his letters to be directed to his house, as they were to the houses of other of M. Mazzini's friends; but my hon. Friend does not know that M. Mazzini ever gave the name of Mr. Flower, and does not suppose he ever did. Now, the whole of this scandal comes to this. My hon. Friend says he has been acquainted with M. Mazzini for many years, that he did not refuse him access to his house, and that not having refused him access to his house, he did not tell him he should get no letters there, and that it was possible that letters may have been intended to be sent by some one to his house in the name of Flower. I quite grant that my hon. Friend did commit an indiscretion in allowing M. Mazzini's letters to be continued to be addressed to his house. He has expressed his regret for that. Is the House prepared to say that they think this ought to prevent my hon. Friend from continuing in the Administration, of which he is a credit and an ornament—that he ought no longer to remain a Member of the Government because he has the friendship of Mazzini, and has committed this indiscretion, which he now regrets? That is the simple question; and the noble Viscount, with that courage and generosity which makes him so popular in this House and the country, has declared that he will not be the instrument of driving my hon. Friend away from office because he has committed that indiscretion. I am persuaded that that is also the feeling of this House; and that, although the House may not agree with my hon. Friend in his opinion of Mazzini, it will assent to no proposal intended to drive my hon. Friend from office because he is a friend of Mazzini, because he owns his friendship, and because he has com-
  328
  mitted what, after all, is a very pardonable offence. And in this, I feel sure, that the opinion of the country will support the opinion of the House.
  SIR JOHN WALSH: Sir, it appears to me that the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down (Mr. W. E. Forster), has scarcely stated the case with perfect correctness as regards the hon. Member for Halifax. And it appears to me there is a great difference between the hon. Gentleman being a friend of Mazzini for a great many years and his having given him facilities for carrying on a clandestine correspondence by permitting him to have letters addressed in a false name to his address. It appears to me there is the widest possible distinction between the two cases. I think it is most unfortunate that any gentleman holding a conspicuous office in the Administration should have been so long connected with a person like Mazzini, who has been implicated in such grave conspiracies against all the States of Europe. At the same time, I think the hon. Member, by his admission that he permitted Mazzini to have letters addressed to him in a false name to his house, and that he was so much implicated in Mazzini's conspiracy on a former occasion as to permit his name to be printed at the foot of a kind of bank-note which Mazzini circulated, greatly aggravates his false position. Hon. Members opposite have thought it necessary to pronounce very great eulogies on Mazzini's character. I have no wish to go into that question further than to say that Mazzini has been known to be a conspirator all his life. We have had proof of it on severa occasions, and that he has encouraged as sassination on several occasions. His was the head that plotted if his was not the hand which tried to execute these abominable plots; and it does appear to me that the very circumstance that he was the head to plot, though not the hand to execute, is in itself a very grave aggravation of the charges that are made against him. With regard to the noble Lord at the head of the Government, I have always observed that one of his noblest characteristics is, that he never deserts a friend in a strait, however great it may be; and however much the noble Lord in his mind feels that he is making a personal and political sacrifice in sustaining a friend, that one of his principal characteristics is to always sustain a friend and pull a Colleague through the mire if he can. I really think

  329
  the noble Lord has been guided on this occasion more by that chivalrous feeling than by any deliberate approval of the conduct of the hon. Member for Halifax; for the noble Lord must know, as every hon. Member must feel convinced, that it is a great blow to his Administration, And I feel certain that in this House, with the, country, and on the Continent, it will place; Her Majesty's Government in a very embarrassing and unfortunate position. Now, I do not think the noble Lord has given a perfectly distinct answer to the question put to him by my noble Friend the Member for Haddingtonshire, which was, whether, the hon. Member for Halifax had I thought fit, since this unfortunate question arose, to tender his resignation? The reply of the noble Lord at the head of the Government I understand to be, that the hon. Member for Halifax did not tender formally his resignation, but that through a third party— a mutual friend — he privately conveyed to the noble Lord an intimation that he was ready to resign if the noble Lord requested him to do so. That appears to me to be the substance of the reply. But, Sir, I think circumstances are now in some degree changed, and the hon. Member for Halifax does not now stand exactly in the same position as he did, The very small majority — which, if my noble Friend's explanation of their motives be taken as a correct one, was rather an equivocal one—has to a certain degree reestablished or whitewashed the hon. Member for Halifax; and I, therefore, ask him whether, considering the position in which he is placed with reference to this House, and the position in which he has placed the Government, whether it does not occur to him as a gentleman and a man of honour, that it would be a proper and becoming course for him to adopt — not to intimate through a third party—not merely to suggest that he was ready to resign his place if the noble Lord asked him, but to tender in a frank, manly, and direct manner his resignation positively and absolutely to the noble Lord at the head of the Government.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: What I intended was that my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax, through a common friend, placed himself and his office entirely in my hands.
  MR. HALIBURTON: Perhaps the noble Lord will favour the House with his reasons for not accepting the hon. Gentleman's resignation—the reasons which operated with him when he declined to accept
  330
  it. Now, I think the matter was debated last night on either side in a spirit which was not altogether becoming. On one side many of the remarks which were made with respect to Mazzini were received with a levity which I think unbecoming, and on the other side of the House a warmth of passion was exhibited which was very much out of place. As a public body, sitting in a quami-judicial capacity, we have a great duty to perform, both towards the people of this country and the Emperor of the French, This is not the first time we have been charged with permitting conspiracy to be hatched for the purpose of taking the life of a monarch with whom we are in friendly alliance. Now, I think I am not saying too much when I state there is not a man in Europe whose life is so valuable to Europe at large, and—with the exception of our own gracious Sovereign—so valuable to us as that of the Emperor of the French. We owe to him and to his philosophic mind—to the calmness and clearness with which he considers the politics of the world—the repression of those rivalries, jealousies, and animosities which for ages past have existed in France against England. We know that in 1858, when that abominable conspiracy was hatched in this country by Orsini, such were the feelings of the French nation, and the French army in particular, that certain French Colonels addressed His Majesty, and besought him to lead them forth to drag the assassins from London, a place that harboured the villains of the world. Nor is the feeling less intense at the present moment, particularly connected with a man of Mazzini's character. We are told that this is only an indiscretion on the part of the hon. Member for Halifax. Indiscretion! It appears to me that there have been a succession of blunders. I do not think that any man possessing proper feelings ought to have gone into an Administration carrying with him the friendship of a man like Mazzini. Nor do I think that the noble Lord at the head of the Government should have invited a friend of Mazziui—not a secret friend, but a man who avows and glories in his friendship as one of the greatest philanthropists and patriots of the day—to take part in his Administration. Lord Russell, when he was a Member of this House, in discussing the Conspiracy Bill, spoke of him as "the assassin Mazzini," and he told a story to illustrate the character of that person. The noble Lord said—

  331
  "I will relate another instance, which became known last year. Mazzini, who is one of the persons who, they say, preach assassination, stated that a person holding a high station in the Pied-montese army came to him when a young man, and proposed to him to assassinate Charles Albert, the King of Sardinia. Mazzini told him he was hardly worthy to commit such an action; but he gave him instructions, sent him to Turin, and gave him his own dagger wherewith to commit the crime."—[3 Hansard, cxlviii. 1041.]
  Talk of the hon. Gentleman's indiscretion! Did he hear that speech; did he ever read that speech; did he ever hear of it? It is something more than an indiscretion to have the friendship of a felon of that kind. It is well known in this country that he is the father of assassins—that he is a man who sends assassins out with poisoned daggers. For men to claim him, as two hon. Gentlemen have done here, with pride, as a glorious man of fine intellect, as a noble character above the ordinary prejudices of the world, is that a mere indiscretion? Is it an act of indiscretion to make his house a post office for the receipt of treasonable letters sent from different parts of the Continent to the great arch-agitator of the world? Is that an indiscretion? It is something more than an indiscretion; it would form in an indictment a very strong feature in evidence. The hon. Baronet the Member for Yarmouth (Sir Henry Stracey) read last night extracts from Mazzini's own writings, in which he teaches the doctrine of assassination. Did the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stansfeld) know that before or during his long friendship with Mazzini? If he did it was his duty to cast him off. Talk of indiscretion! There was another act of something more than indiscretion. When the noble Viscount the First Lord of the Treasury, on account of the hon. Gentleman's talents and abilities, tendered him a seat in the Cabinet—I mean in the Government — the hon. Gentleman should have explained to the noble Lord that by his complicity, or through his friendship, with Mazziui he would bring disgrace on the Administration; or he should have said to Mazzini, "I am now in connection with Her Majesty's Government, and I cannot cover your treasonable correspondence. I will not bring discredit on an honourable Administration. I cannot continue the association without bringing into the Government contamination from the company I keep." Talk of a friendship with Mazzini! A man certainly might by a strong effort of moral courage manage to associate with Calcraft. I shall not de-
  332
  tain the House longer. Every man has made up his mind on this matter. I believe that in respect of the transaction the mind of the public runs all one way. Indeed, I might go further and say that the private opinion of every Member of the Cabinet is in the same direction. We find the hon. Member the particular and intimate acquaintance of Mazzini, the man who advances him money, who endorses his name on the back of Mazzini's bank-notes to give them currency abroad; and I believe the miserable majority of ten against the Motion of the hon. Baronet last night is in reality a condemnation of what the friends of the hon. Member call "an indiscretion." I now want to know whether the noble Lord will state the reasons why he retains the hon. Gentleman in his Government, knowing as he does how very offensive to the people of the Continent has been the fact of his favouring and harbouring that most wretched man, Mazzini. I ask the noble Lord whether he will state to the House the reasons which induce him to keep the hon. Member in his Government, contrary to the hon. Gentleman's own wishes.
  LORD HOTHAM: Before the business is finally disposed of, I am anxious to ask a question of the noble Lord at the head of the Government. It is, what business the House will be called upon to proceed with on the first meeting of Parliament after the recess whether it is the intention to go into Committee of Supply, and, if so, whether the Army Estimates will be taken?
  MR. HENLEY: I should not have taken any part in these discussions, because painful they must be to every one who hears them, whatever his opinion of the particular transaction, if the statement made by the noble Viscount had not placed the matter, if possible, in a more painful and disagreeable position than it stood in before: because, if there be one thing more than another in the feeling of the country, it is to the mode and manner in which this question was treated and answered in this House—first, when the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Cox) made an inquiry of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax, and, next, when the affair was made the subject of a debate arising out of an inquiry put by the hon. Baronet (Sir Lawrence Palk) to the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs. I am one of those who think that the noble Viscount, who, it appears, was then cognizant of the

  333
  whole of the facts, should have caused a different course to be adopted. If the hon. Member for Halifax, when the question was first asked of him, had made that avowal which he did not make voluntarily, but which I must say has been dragged out of him by a protracted inquiry—if he had said it was true that he had given M. Mazzini leave to have his letters sent to his house, and had added, "I am sorry for it; I was not aware how the privilege might be used "—if the question had been frankly answered in that way this matter would have stood in a very different light, But, if I may use the phrase, the facts were studiously kept from the knowledge of the House. No man could guess from the reply of the hon. Member for Halifax to the first inquiry, and still less from the answer of the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs to the second, that it was perfectly plain and true that the house of the hon. Member for Halifax had been at the disposal of a man, whose character has been sufficiently designated in the course of these debates, to serve as a receptacle for his correspondence. After what has taken place one might be tempted to ask, whether the bags of the Foreign Office are not at the service of M. Mazzini? One might be disposed to ask the question, because both the hon. Gentlemen stood up for M. Mazzini. [Mr. LAYARD dissented.] The hon. Member for Southwark shakes his head. I am only saying the question might be asked, because both hon. Gentlemen entertain similar opinions respecting the man whose correspondence was covered by the hon. Member for Halifax. [Mr. LAYARD: No!] It now appears clear that the house of the hon. Member for Halifax was at the disposal of M. Mazzini for letters coming to him. Now, that was just the question raised in the first instance. No one pretended to believe for a moment that the hon. Member for Halifax was mixed up with any conspiracy to murder. To make that the issue was only to throw dust in the eyes of the House and the country. The question was whether the hon. Member had subjected himself to the imputation of allowing letters, which he knew nothing about, and which probably he took care to know nothing about, to pass through his house. If that had been frankly avowed when the matter was first brought under the notice of this House—if there had not been an attempt to keep it back—the matter would have
  334
  been on a different footing, and, in my opinion, the noble Viscount would have stood in a much higher position—because he seems to me to have been a party to keeping it back. It appears that at the time of the hon. Member for Finsbury asking his question, the noble Viscount had had the whole matter brought to his knowledge; and I regret that in his usual frank manner he did not at once make the statement we have since heard from him—there should have been a disclaimer to the country and the world, and it should have been acknowledged that an indiscretion had been committed, and I believe that if the hon. Member for Halifax had at first made a frank avowal of the indiscretion with which he had acted, the whole affair would have passed away. If a man commits an indiscretion and frankly owns it, no one in the country is disposed to go further than to say, "You have been a foolish fellow," and the matter is at an end; but if he gets up and talks of character, and raises all sorts of false issues and dodges, and has not the manliness to acknowledge that he has committed a fault, no one in the world will feel sure that there is not something behind that you have not got hold of, and you cannot trust the man for a statement of the whole transaction from beginning to end.
  MR. LAYARD: I do not wish to prolong this discussion, but as reference has been made to a previous conversation which took place in this House, and the nature of it has been misrepresented by the right hon. Gentleman and others, I must say a few words with respect to it. The question, then, put to me the other evening by the hon. Baronet the Member for Devonshire (Sir Lawrence Palk) had nothing whatever to do with Mazzini or with letters sent to my hon. Friend's house, and I did not answer, as I could not, whether letters had been sent or not. Next, it is said that I made use of terms with respect to Mazzini the same as those used by the hon. Member for Halifax. I distinctly and utterly deny that anything of the kind took place. What did take place was this:—The hon. Baronet got up and asked me whether, in consequence of the statement made by the public prosecutor in France, on such evidence as he thought might have justified the assertion, that a Member of the Government had been implicated in a plot to assassinate the Emperor of the French, Her Majesty's

  335
  Government had thought fit to make a representation to the French Government on the subject; and my answer was nothing but this—that I thought it not consistent with the dignity of Her Majesty's Government to make a representation founded on a statement made by the public prosecutor of France in a court of justice in the course of a trial. That is my opinion still, and I believe it is the opinion of this country. I said nothing with respect to Mazzini'a opinions. I said that the French Government had made no communication to this country, and that it was for the French Government to make a communication, if they wished for an explanation; but that I was convinced that the French Emperor, who is well acquainted with this country, felt the accusation so monstrous, whether made against a Member of the Government, or a Member of this House, or against any English gentleman, that he had not thought fit to make a representation on the subject, and it was not for us to make a representation in the sense indicated by the hon. Member for Devonshire.
  MAJOR STUART KNOX: I wish to ask the hon. Member for Halifax, whether it is true that his name appears in the majority of 10, who voted last night; and whether it is not contrary to the practice of the House that he should have taken part in the division?
  MR. BERNAL OSBORNE: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley) commenced the few remarks he made by saying that this was a very painful subject. Well, it is a painful subject; but, somehow or other, I recollect noticing, in the course of my Parliamentary experience, that there is nothing in which this House so much delights, nothing which will attract such a numerous attendance of Members, as a purely personal and painful subject. I think that my noble Friend the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho), when he addressed himself with so much unction to-night to this painful subject, might have reflected that the painful subject is somewhat assuming the aspect of a painful persecution, for no two lads recently escaped for the holidays from school could have presided over the impalement of a cockchafer with greater glee than the civic dignitary the hon. Member for Southampton (Alderman Rose) and the hon. and gallant Member for Dungannon (Major Knox) have shown in the attack upon the hon. Member for
  336
  Halifax. The civic dignitary on a late occasion, not satisfied with hunting Mazzini through every gyration, put the question whether Mazzini had ever lived at the house of the hon. Member for Halifax, and made an inquiry after his washing. To-night the hon. Member for Dungannon (Major Knox) rises and persecutes the hon. Member for Halifax, asking whether he voted in the majority last night. Why should he not have voted in the majority? I have no sympathy whatever with the views of the hon. Member, but I beg leave to correct the statement just made on the other side of the House, that the noble Lord at the head of the Government has given him a seat in the Cabinet. He only fills a very humble seat in the Admiralty barge; and what I say is, that, after all, you are only persecuting a clever young man who holds a minor office in the Admiralty. It would seem from the discussion last night that there is so little to do in the way of real business, that we make it a business to debate personal questions, and to get up with hypocritical faces and declare that these are "painful subjects." Why you all delight in them, and next to roasting a Bishop possibly nothing is so agreeable to the House as baiting a Member of the Administration. I have no particular confidence in Her Majesty's Government, or in the Members of the Administration, but I should be ashamed to pitch upon one of its Members, and that a very humble Member, who has made his way without any aristocratic connections, and has made his position solely by his own abilities, and hunt him, and use opprobrious expressions towards him, I do lament the indiscretion he committed. I know nothing of Mazzini, and, as far as I have heard of his views, I do not much like them; nor am I anxious to meet him at dinner or to defend him in this House. But let it be recollected that Mazzini has not yet been put on his trial. He has yet to undergo a trial in Paris on this very business that we are debating. If we were —what we are not—a judicial assembly, for we are perfectly incapable of acting in a judicial spirit in consequence of our passions, and we incline, therefore, to these painful subjects—but if we were a judicial assembly we would not condemn a man unheard, and without having the facts of the case before us. With regard to this indiscretion of the hon. Member for Halifax, I would ask the House, in sober sadness, are we not carrying this matter

  337
  too far? We have had this question debated, and the Baronets have come out upon it very strong. First of all, there was the hon. Baronet the Member for Devonshire (Sir Lawrence Palk), and after him last evening another came out, and I never heard a melodramatic part played so well as that of the "Dagger and the Bowl" by the hon. Baronet the Member for Yarmouth (Sir Henry Stracey), who not only spoke but looked the character to perfection. We had an animated debate last night; and came to a division. I voted in the majority, not approving altogether of the conduct of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax; but I felt bound to take the denial he gave, which I think explicit, and not to take a dirty advantage by wreaking vengeance on a small member of Her Majesty's Government. An hon. Gentleman on the other side of the House— Member for some place in Cornwall—(Mr. Haliburton) referred to that legal functionary Mr. Calcraft, why or wherefore I cannot understand. All I can say is, that if every indiscretion of hon. Members in their youth is to be visited on them, would hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House escape? I think that the course we are pursuing is unworthy the character of English Members of Parliament. With regard to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax, I think that the position he holds in the Ministry is unworthy of his talents, and if I were in his position I would at once resign. If I were the hon. Gentleman, I would not consent; to hold my seat on the Treasury bench with any imputation hanging over me. If he were to resign, he must return to office again, and in a better place; and sure I am that it is unworthy of us as Members of Parliament, and such conduct will not he responded to by the great public out of doors, to go on baiting, night after night, a junior Lord of the Admiralty.
  MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALD: Sir, I have taken no part in this discussion. The right hon. Gentleman behind me (Mr. Henley) has said what I am sure everybody has felt—that this is a very painful subject; but when the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down says that it is a painful question, I would remind him that it is a serious question also, seeing that he has addressed a speech to the House in which he seeks to turn the ease into ridicule. In one sentence which he uttered I cordially agree—that we are not fulfilling our duties as Members of Parliament.
  338
  Now, Sir, I must confess that the answer given to the Question of the noble Lord (Lord Elcho) has somewhat altered the condition of affairs; and I am glad rather to put aside the personal matter, as regards the hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax, because the answer of the noble Lord puts this Question in a much more serious position, and brings it before us upon the deliberate judgment of the Prime Minister of England. I do not, of course, impute to the hon. Member for Halifax any complicity with this plot. When the Question was first mooted, the hon. Gentleman met it with an indignant denial. But he did more—at the very moment when Mazzini is accused of attempting the life of our ally, the Emperor of the French, he passes the most studied eulogium on him, and then sits down side by side with the Prime Minister of England. It is that which has made the question serious. But it is doubly serious when we know that the hon. Member for Halifax has expressed his readiness to tender his resignation to the noble Lord, and that the noble Lord not only said he did not desire it, but that if offered, he would refuse to accept it. The present state of affairs is serious to this House. It compromises the Government, it compromises the character of the country; it compromises our relations with our allies. The position we stand in is this: that when a Member of the Government has passed a studied eulogium upon the person who is accused of having conspired against the life of a Sovereign ally, that Member is not only not called upon to resign, but receives the approval of the noble Lord at the head of the Government, and an avowal that if he tendered his resignation he Would not receive it. We are told that we are hunting—to use a phrase of the lion. Member opposite (Mr. Bernal Osborne)—a subordinate Member of the Government. That is not now the question. We have now to deal with a much more serious question— not with the position of a subordinate Member of the Government, but with the position which the head of the Government has chosen to assume in sanctioning the eulogium which the hon. Gentleman passed upon Mazzini, and in not doing that which I think he was bound to do—doing his best to remove the imputations under which, as the results of the first night's debate, his Administration rests.
  MR. NEWDEGATE: I regret that the debates during the last few nights should have assumed a personal character, origina-

  339
  ting on this side of the House to an extent positively painful. What, Sir, has passed this evening? There has been a futile attempt to pass a censure upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer—and on what ground? Because, in pursuance of his duty, he has thought fit to use strong terms of reprobation with regard to a company, which, I must say, appears to deserve the term of fraudulent. An hon. Member's name is connected with that company, and the House has been occupied night after night in raking up an expression used by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which after all might have been indiscreet as regards the individual towards whom it was employed, but just towards the company with which it was connected. What is the second part of these proceedings? A great part of two nights have been spent in attacking a Member of the Government, because he had the indiscretion to consort in former years with a person who has been charged with instigating assassination; but who, he says, abominates assassination. My opinion of M. Mazzini's course and character must be the same as that of every right-minded person. But I would ask hon. Members on this side of the House, who are so very zealous in condemning the hon. Member for Halifax, whether hon. Members on this side of the House can really pretend to be so very nice? whether, if a similar course were pursued towards them, imputations quite as grave might not be brought against some who sit on their own side. Have we not heard, Session after Session, from Members of the Opposition, the defence of the brigands of Italy — men who have burnt their prisoners, men who gouge, men who rape, men who have committed every atrocity? Have we not heard Members on their side proclaim these men patriots? It seems as though they were so accustomed to such laudation on crime as to have become insensible to it when proceeding from one side of the House; they might, I think, show a little more forbearance when they find that some of the associates of hon. Members opposite are fit to be placed at the bar with the brigands of Italy. I hope the House will forbear from such personalities. I do not understand that it is the duty of the Opposition to spend the time of the House in such matters, to the interruption of the useful business of the country.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHwished to
  340
  draw attention to a rather singular incident in connection with the very small majority in favour of the Government on the previous evening. He had always understood that when a Member was personally interested in any question before the House he ought to abstain from voting. He would not express an opinion as to whether the peculiar nature of the debate last night justified the hon. Member for Halifax in continuing present after he had made his statement, but he must own he was very much surprised to observe the name of the hon. Gentleman in the division list as forming one of the small majority. He was afraid that this might be made a precedent on some future occasion, and begged leave to ask the Speaker whether such a proceeding was in accordance with the usages of the House.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, that no doubt the rule was that no Member could vote on a question in which he was peculiarly interested; and, also, there were occasions when it was becoming for a Member to leave the House before the division, although there was no positive charge against him. The vote of the previous evening, however, was whether or not certain matters did not require the serious consideration of the House, and it could not be said, on any interpretation of the rules of the House, that the hon. Member for Halifax ought not to have voted on that question.
  MR. DENMANsaid, he believed it to be the opinion of that side of the House, that when the hon. Member for Halifax was first questioned on this subject he would have done better if he had replied categorically, and not allowed his feelings to lead him into an eulogium on M. Mazzini. He must, however, remind the House, that when the hon. Gentleman on that occasion showed a desire to give more detailed information on the subject, he was met with cries of "No," which prevented him from continuing his explanation. These cries, in which he (Mr. Denman) joined, he interpreted as the expression of an apprehension, that if the House were to force on these explanations, it would be playing into the hands of the French police, by eliciting information for the purpose of compromising all the correspondents of Mazzini. He doubted whether it was reasonable or desirable that after such a matter as this had been discussed as it was last night, they should be again deliberating upon it, again casting imputations upon the hon. Member for

  341
  Halifax, again questioning the purity of his motives and the honesty of his statements. The sole scrap of evidence against him was a piece of paper found upon a man in France, not dated, which might have been left in his pocket for years, which was thoroughly accounted for by the fact that the hon. Member had once, indiscreetly if you will, allowed his name to be placed upon notes issued to raise money for certain patriots abroad. That paper contained the address of Flower, at the house of the hon. Member for Halifax. The answer of the hon. Member was, that he never, until now, knew that the name of "Flower" was used on letters intended to reach Signer Mazzini. There was absolutely nothing in the evidence at the trial, or in the statements of the Procureur Général, to show when or under what circumstances that scrap of paper came into the hands of Greco, how it was used by him, or whether he used it at all or not. For his own part, he did not pretend to know what the doctrines of Mazzini were, but this he did know, that on the Continent, when a man evinced a passionate desire for liberty, however pure his patriotism might be, and however he might abhor assassination, one of the ordinary practices of despotic Governments was to brand him with opprobrious epithets, and to say that he was a conspirator and an assassin. It was said that Earl Russell once spoke of Mazzini as "that assassin Mazzini;" but there was nothing, except the current statement abroad, to prove that Mazzini approved assassination. The hon. Member for Halifax had declared that Mazzini abhorred assassination as much as any Gentleman in that House, and that being his belief, he would have shown himself a coward, unworthy of his position, if he had cast off his friend for fear of compromising himself. Moreover, the hon. Gentleman had stated that his house would not be used again as it had been; and so the only importance of the charge against him fell to the ground. He had done right in tendering his resignation when his conduct was made the subject of discussion and inquiry, and the noble Lord at the head of the Government had also done right in refusing to accept it, because it would have been wrong to turn out an innocent man in order to please his political enemies and the Procureur Général of a foreign Power. It would have been contrary to the dignity of the House if the Government had taken that course, and hon. Gentlemen opposite
  342
  would have been the first to fly at their throats if they had done so. A miserable scrap of paper and a miserable bit of a charge of indiscretion on the part of the hon. Member for Halifax had been used to get up a serious, grave, and, as the hon. Member for Liskeard had called it, "painful" allegation of conspiracy. Hon. Members opposite thought to weaken the Government, but he believed the attack made upon the hon. Member for Halifax would greatly strengthen the Government when it was known that they had the fortitude to disregard the speech of the Procureur Général, and to refuse to discard a useful public servant on such evidence.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid, that the discussion was in one sense important, and that it ought not to terminate in the issue attempted to be raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman. The hon. and learned Member and his Friends might regard this as a question of slight importance, but in no other country in Europe would such an opinion be entertained. He had talked of a miserable scrap of paper, but the scrap of paper bore the address of a Lord of the Admiralty, which was found sewn in the clothes of a person on the eve of the committal of a horrible outrage, and the matter had been referred to by the representative of the French Government in a proceeding of the greatest gravity. The hon. Member for Halifax was then asked a question upon the subject in that House, but he did not at once own all that was elicited last night. The hon. and learned Gentleman had talked of the want of evidence, as if the importance of this question depended on the amount of evidence and not upon the seriousness of the imputation. It came out by close questioning and from other sources, that the hon. Member had placed his House at the disposal of Mazzini, and had permitted a correspondence to go on under false names—names that were not always known to M. Mazzini himself, and with respect to which the hon. Gentleman had never asked any questions. It was now owned that the name upon this alleged miserable scrap of paper was one of those by which Mazzini was known in this country. [Mr. STANSFELD: A translation of a name.] If an hon. Member thought proper to have such intimate relations with a man who philosophized on the theory of the dagger, the Members of the House would not conceive themselves entitled to interfere. It was only when a Member who had accepted an office under the

  343
  Crown was accused of being the medium between the authors of the moral and immoral theory of the dagger that the House, with a dissatisfaction approaching to disgust, saw the hon. Gentleman sitting beside the First Lord of the Treasury.
  Motion agreed to.
  House at rising to adjourn till Monday, 4th April.

GOVERNMENT ANNUITIES BILL.

  QUESTION.
  SIR MINTO FARQUHARasked, What course the Government intended to pursue in regard to this Bill? Many hon. Members were under the impression that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had consented to adjourn the debate until that day, with a view of fixing some day after Easter for the resumption of the debate.
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, that his right hon. Friend was under the impression that an understanding had been come to in regard to referring this Bill to a Select Committee. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was prepared to agree to a Select Committee upon the clauses of the Bill, but not a Committee to hear evidence on the whole subject. He thought that after what had passed there was an agreement to refer the Bill to a Select Committee after Easter on its clauses.
  MR. HUNTwished to know, whether it was intended to refer the financial calculations of the Bill to a Select Committee?
  MR. MILNER GIBSON: No; it will be referred to the Select Committee as it stands.

SUPPLY.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
THE IONIAN ISLANDS.

  PAPERS MOVED FOR.
  MR. GREGORYin rising, pursuant to notice, to call attention to the demolition of the fortress of Corfu and the neutralization of the Ionian Islands, said, he should despair of obtaining the attention of the very few Members now present in the House, were it not that the proceedings to which he was about to refer were attended with injustice, violence, and bad faith. It was because the nation in question was weak and unprotected that he
  344
  appealed to the House of Commons to assist him in obtaining justice for it. He was convinced that what the Chancellor of the Exchequer had, a few minutes previously, called "an adverse presumption" against the foreign policy of the Government existed, and that public opinion was not in favour of a system under which a kind of balance-sheet was maintained, exhibiting on one side concessions to the strong and on the other violence towards the weak. If they turned their eyes upon the map of the whole world now they would hardly find a spot where the name of England was regarded with friendly feeling—a state of things which was almost entirely owing to the manner in which foreign countries had been treated by our Foreign Office—yet there was one spot where the name of England was cherished and revered only a few months ago, and that was Greece and the Ionian Islands. Now, however, owing to circumstances to which he was about to refer, all that was changed; and he believed there were few parts of the world where this country was viewed with greater distrust and dislike. It was recently remarked in the French Legislative Assembly by Monsieur Thiers, that France never interfered with Greece after her revolution, and was honoured and liked in that country now; whereas England, which had professed herself to be the friend and patron of Greece from the commencement, was now regarded with peculiar aversion. He taxed the Foreign Office with illegality, with violence, and with bad faith upon this question; and, although the papers which, in his opinion, ought to have been produced were refused by that Department, he believed he had in his possession sufficient information to bring home that charge. Had the Ionian Islands belonged to us, had they been a colony with which we were about to part company, as some day we might have to part company from Canada, it would have been bad taste and bad policy to destroy their fortifications and to devastate their country before bidding them farewell; but we are actually now blowing up and laying waste property over which we have not, and never had, the smallest right, and against the destruction of which the owners protest. We addressed strong language to Austria and Prussia about the "outrage and injustice" of which they had been guilty towards the weak and unprotected Denmark, whilst we ourselves had been equally guilty towards a weaker Power. The impression which

  345
  prevailed that those Islands formed part of the possessions of England was utterly unfounded. From the time when the French were driven out in 1800, and they were erected into a republic with the Sultan for their suzerain, their rights as an independent State had been recognized in I successive treaties; and when England took possession of them in 1809 the official despatches and proclamations declared that we went "not as conquerors, but as allies," and recognized "the independent Government of the Septinsular Republic." The 6th article of the Treaty of Vienna was to I this effect—
  "His Britannic Majesty contends that a convention with the Government of the Ionian Islands should regulate all matters in relation to the maintenance of the fortresses and as regards the keep and pay of the troops."
  It contained a distinct recognition of the right of the lonians to the fortresses, which clearly revived as soon as the Protectorate of England came to an end. Even in those high-handed days His Britannic Majesty consented that a convention with the Government of the Ionian Islands should regulate everything relating to the maintenance of fortresses and to the keep and pay of British garrisons. Yet now the Ministers of the Queen proceeded to demolish those fortresses not only without the consent but against the protest of the people of that country. But has this independence ever been denied? Some years ago a Lord High Commissioner stated in a memorable despatch, that the population was so hostile to the English Protectorate, that it would be better to hand over the whole of them to Greece with the exception of Corfu. In replying to that suggestion, the noble Lord now at the head of the Foreign Office said, "it would be a breach of good faith to a State under our protection to take any portion and make it an element of our strength." If we could not retain any portion of the country without breach of faith, whence comes the right to destroy any portion of the country without equal breach of faith. He was present at a debate in the House of Lords on the 16th of April last, when Lord Malmesbury, in speaking of the cession of the Ionian Islands to Greece, gave it as his opinion that it was desirable the fortresses should be destroyed and that the Islands should be neutralized; and he recollected the tartness which Lord Russell infused into his reply. Lord Russell said that, although, no doubt, Lord Malmesbury
  346
  understood the subject on which he had spoken, yet from what had fallen from him one might imagine quite the reverse; that the noble Earl had referred to Corfu as if it were one of Her Majesty's colonial possessions which it was proposed to cede; that, on the contrary, the Ionian Islands were a free and independent republic, under a British protectorate, and that they were in no sense a possession belonging to Her Majesty. Then Lord Russell used these important words:— "If the people of the Ionian Islands were united to Greece, it would be for them to decide whether the fortress of Corfu should be maintained." After that the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State could hardly, without something like sheer blasphemy towards his Chief, deny the illegality of the acts we were committing. It might be said that we had spent considerable sums of money on these fortifications; but so also the Ionians had done. On the 19th of March, 1825, the Lord High Commissioner, in an address to the Ionian Legislature, represented to them the ruinous condition of these fortresses, and specially of Vido; whereupon they voted £164,000 to restore and complete them. In 1833 the Ionian Parliament voted £15,000 more for the same purpose. In 1836 their regular contribution for the maintenance of the fortresses and the support of the garrisons was fixed at £35,000, which was afterwards diminished to £25,000. It was said that the Ionians had not paid up their contributions. He admitted that it was so; but if it was an argument in this case it ought to have been brought forward against the Ionians before they were called upon to vote "aye" or "no" to the annexation. Instead of that these people were told by the Lord High Commissioner at the time the annexation was proposed, that they would receive a full acquittance for all the arrears then due from them to Her Majesty. But even if we had spent millions, and the Ionians had not spent one farthing on these fortifications, still, when we gave up the protectorate we were in the position of outgoing tenants, who had no right to create rack and ruin on the property they were about to leave. He maintained then from these facts, that in this matter our Government had been guilty of violence and illegality towards these people. Moreover, he accused the Government of bad faith in its dealings with the Ionian Islands. It was not till

  347
  November, 1863, that the Ionians knew anything of the treaty by Which their fortresses were to be demolished and the Islands neutralized; and it was not till the same period that the young King George, having made the cession of these Islands a sine quâ non to his acceptance of the throne of Greece, heard one word about these conditions so calculated to make him unpopular at the very outset with his new subjects. At the Conference held in London on the 14th November, 1863, everybody had representatives but Greece and the Ionian Islands. True, Greece was invited to send a plenipotentiary; but when he arrived the whole affair was over and the first treaty signed, leaving the four Powers afterwards to make a distinct treaty with Greece and thereby imposing on her King the humiliation of accepting a treaty with conditions so galling to his future subjects the islanders. Our Government had thus dealt with the interests of Greece, without Greece, and against Greece. They had sedulously concealed from the Ionians what the conditions were that would be attached to the annexation, and they had also concealed from the young King of Greece conditions the execution of which had excited a painful feeling against His Majesty among his people. The despatch from Lord Russell to Lord Bloomfield, of June, 1863, had not one word about the neutralization of these Islands or the demolition of their fortresses, neither was there such a word in the treaty of August, on the faith of which the young Danish Prince was induced to accept the throne of Greece. By the terms of that instrument the young Prince accepted the throne on the express condition that the Ionian Islands were to be "effectively united" with the Hellenic kingdom. Was the neutralization now spoken of the way to make the union with Greece "effective?" But on the 3rd of October, little more than a month before the treaty of November last was promulgated, when the Lord High Commissioner put it to the Ionian Legislature to say "aye" or "no" whether they would be annexed to Greece, His Excellency told them that they were then fully cognizant of all the conditions attached to the proposed annexation; and as if to show that there were to be no after-claps, he specified certain conditions, among which was a Vote of £10,000 for the King of Greece's Civil List, and a stipulation that all previous contracts were to be observed, and that
  348
  the English cemeteries should be protected. The last act in that disreputable drama was the treaty of the 14th of November last. By it the King of Greece and the Ionians were informed of the decision of the great Powers. No wonder the new King of Greece was astonished and deeply pained when he heard of it. He might quote to the House the letter of the 9th of December, 1863, from Count Sponneck, the Greek Minister for Foreign Affairs, to the President of the Ionian Parliament. In this letter the Count stated that His Majesty had heard of the dismantlement of the fortress with profound grief, and that the Government had taken steps to obtain a modification of the Resolutions come to by the five Powers in London on the 14th of November. Of course, the King had heard of the measure with grief. Our Government had induced him to accept a throne which they had made ridiculous by hawking it round Europe; and now they made him unpopular in the eyes of the Ionians and odious to his own subjects for accepting terms which they thought derogatory to the dignity of the Crown and of their country. And what had been the result? Already the words "traitor" and "treason" were being applied to the person and the conduct of the King; pamphlets were being published recommending him not to tolerate this disgraceful and perfidious treatment, but to abdicate the throne and return to Denmark; and if another revolution broke out in Greece and a catastrophe occurred, it would be all in consequence of this disreputable proceeding. He would now say a few words about the Articles of the treaty. By the second Article, inserted, he believed, to meet the requisitions of Austria and some English partisans of Turkey, these Islands were to be neutralized; but he now understood that that measure was to be confined to Corfu and Paxo. What advantages would Europe in general and Turkey in particular gain from that neutralization? It was said that Corfu was neutralized because it was so near the mainland of Turkey—but in that case why were not the provinces of Phthiotis and Acarnania dealt with in the same manner? He did not know what was the exact meaning of the word "neutralization." It was explained by the treaty to some extent, because the second article said, "consequently no armed force, either naval or military, shall at any time be as-

  349
  sembled or stationed upon the territory or in the waters of those Islands. "What would be the effect of the condition if Greece were involved in war? Are not Greek vessels to take refuge in Corfu? Are they forbidden to enter Corfute ports? Or have they only the same right of entry and departure as the enemy's vessels? It was clear, at all events, that it was not a measure which rendered necessary the destruction of the fortresses, because, although Belgium was neutralized in the year 1831, the fortress of Antwerp was not destroyed, and Belgium now had a large army, and might, if she pleased, have a fleet. If the whole country was neutralized he could understand it, but he could not understand the neutralization of one limb, leaving the rest in a different position. The real object of all these conditions seems to have been to prevent the consolidation of this new people, and to afford a pretext for the interference of the protecting Powers. How clearly this was the case was shown by the proposal of Russia, in connection with the fourth Article, that the Greeks and Ionians should have separate flags. The fifth Article, stipulating for the tolerance of different religions, was most insulting to the sovereignty of the King and utterly unnecessary, because it was notorious that in no country in the world was there greater toleration for all religious opinions than there was in Greece, and that not merely a legal tolerance but a tolerance arising from the feeling and sentiment of the people. The third Article provided for the destruction of the fortresses; and this, he understood, was attributable to the fears and jealousy of Austria, who was afraid lest these fortresses should be taken by a coup de main by the Italians, and become the bases of hostile operations in the Adriatic. Never was argument more illogical. In this country we were erecting fortifications at Portsmouth, Chatham, and elsewhere, to avoid a coup de main, and in the Ionian Islands, to avoid the same thing, we were destroying them. And to put the climax to the absurdity and stupidity of this treaty, it was notorious that, as soon as our troops marched out, the Ionians might, if they could get the money, restore all those fortifications. He thought he had now shown that Her Majesty's Government had been guilty of illegality, violence, and bad faith towards the Ionians. The treaty was offensive to the Ionians themselves, lower-
  350
  ing to the dignity of their King, whom we had inveigled into accepting the throne; dangerous, because of the pretext it would give for foreign interference; and a notable specimen of bad policy. He was ready to admit, for the sake of argument, that, unless these fortresses had been destroyed, Austria would not have consented to the abandonment of the protectorate. But, if that was so, let Austria take all the discredit of this proceeding, which was stigmatized in every part of Europe in language much stronger than any which he had employed. Why should we allow our name to be execrated, our good faith impugned, and our influence impaired wherever the Greek tongue is spoken, in order to satisfy Austrian apprehensions and jealousies. Was the oppressor of Venetia and the invader of the Danish duchies so dear to England, that we ought to take all this odium upon ourselves in order to please her. It was at this moment of great importance that the name of England should stand high among the Christian populations of the East. They were restless and discontented, and it was most desirable that we should be able to press upon them counsels of peace and moderation. A little while ago we had that power. When, on the 10th of December, the Acroceraunian mountains opposite Corfu were lit up with fire, fires of joy, in answer to the illuminations in that island, they were as the lighting up of hope in the breasts of the oppressed at the deliverance of their brethren, and the people of the East believed in the generosity and disinterestedness of England, and would have obeyed her councils. Now the feeling was exactly the reverse. We had lost all hold on the popular mind in Greece, and that was a great misfortune with reference to the future settlement of that country. Yet how easily all this might have been prevented. If the Lord High Commissioner had gone before the Legislative Assembly at Corfu before the Vote for annexation had been taken, if he had said, "My Government has all along been willing to abide by the clear understanding which it had with you, but Austria is afraid of the dangers which may arise to Europe by the existence of your fortifications, and she insists on their destruction, and the neutralization of your islands. It is for you to decide whether you are willing to accept annexation on these terms, and, if so, be your own executioners, for we are not prepared to devastate your Islands to gratify Aus-

  351
  tria;" that would have spared us all the odium which had been heaped on our heads. He had been recently on the Continent, and he must say that no transaction among all our numerous failures that had lately occurred had created so strong a feeling in Italy and France as this. If an Englishman wishes to be comfortable abroad, he must divest himself of the very senses which God has given him. If he goes into the streets, he must shut his eyes to avoid the caricatures which flaunted in every window representing this country as debasing herself before the strong and indemnifying herself by bullying weak Ionia and weak Brazil, and receiving with complacency the retributive castigations of Prince Menschikoff and Secretary Seward. If he goes into a club he must close his ears, or he will hear on every side comments on his country as painful as they are unjust. He knew that our wish was to be honest and courteous in all our dealings —to act as gentlemen; but the impression that prevailed abroad, since Lord Russell had been at the head of the Foreign Department, was, that we were acting in a very different manner. He asked his hon. Friend to give him the papers up to November 14, 1863. He had refused them before on the ground that negotiations were pending, but he (Mr. Gregory) asked them now only to the date of the treaty which had been signed. It was by our willingness to become the instruments of carrying out that treaty that we had brought upon ourselves the stigma of violence without law, and of diplomacy without faith; and he wanted to ascertain from the papers what on earth could have been the pressure that could induce Lord Russell thus to have dirtied the character of his country. The hon. Member concluded by moving for papers connected with the demolition of the fortresses of Corfu and the neutralization of the Ionian Islands.
  CAPTAIN JERVISseconded 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, that She will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House, Copy of any Correspondence up to the Treaty of the 14th day of November, 1863, on the subject of the annexation of the Ionian Islands to Greece, between the Foreign Office and the Governments of Austria, Prussia, Russia, France, and Greece,"—(Mr. Gregory,)
  —instead thereof,
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. SMOLLETTsaid, he was not one of those who thought the renunciation of the protectorate of the Ionian Islands by Great Britain was a matter to be much lamented. It had existed for nearly fifty years, and had been exercised with such singular incapacity, that our withdrawal would not leave fifty persons in the Islands who were friendly to British rule. Yet primâ facie it did not seem a difficult matter for a maritime Power like Great Britain to manage successfully seven small islands with a population of 160,000 souls, and yet the Government had signally failed. Our withdrawal, however, was justifiable on two grounds. In the first place, our Governments had been odious to the people, and none more so than since Colonel Storks had become Lord High Commissioner; secondly, we were right in withdrawing, because our protectorate had always been a source of expense to this country. That fact, however, although true, was most discreditable to us. The Treaty of Paris provided that the Islands should defray the expenses of their civil administration, and they had done so. By the treaty it was also provided that a garrison of 3,000 men should be maintained—a force that was more than sufficient for the occupation of the Islands. In 1824 the revenue of the Islands amounted to £140,000, which was sufficient to defray all the civil charges and the military expenses if we had only acted with common sense; but owing to our own extravagance, the protectorate had come to be a considerable charge upon the British Exchequer. The Islands contained a population hardly exceeding that of a London parish, and yet this little dependency was provided with a Senate, a House of Representatives, a Speaker, and all the paraphernalia of representative governments, and they paid these persons salaries for creating mischief. Large sums were spent upon palaces, more was wasted upon fortifications that were useless. A Lord High Commissioner was maintained with a salary equal to that of the President of the United States, and the office was bestowed not upon men with colonial experience, but upon decayed politicians. He did not include the Chancellor of the Exchequer among decayed politicians, but he had been Commissioner and

  353
  a bad one for a short time. The office was jobbed away to parties to whom a good palace and a residence in a fine climate, with £6,000 a year, was a godsend. Now thirty years ago Sir Charles Napier had pointed out how these Islands should be governed. He recommended the appointment of a governor with a salary of £2,000 or £3,000, to reside at Cephalonia, that all the pomp and paraphernalia of the House of Representatives should be suppressed, and that a small body of ten or twelve representatives of the people should be appointed to assist the governor. If the semi-regal Court of Corfu, the Senate, and the House of Representatives had been got rid of, and the waste of money upon fortifications stopped, we might have had a Government respected and respectable. But as such a wise arrangement could not be expected after fifty years of folly, he was rejoiced that we were ridding ourselves of the responsibility; his only wonder was that the Protectorate had continued so long. For the last fifteen or twenty years the Islanders had been clamouring for annexation to Greece, as they, like King Otho, had a notion of some future great Greek kingdom; in the Levant. Emissaries were sent into the Islands to foment discontent, in which they were successful; but King Otho was unfortunate in his endeavours to extend his dominions, having been unlucky enough to incur the antipathy of the noble Viscount at the head of the Government, The House would remember how the late King Otho was snubbed by the noble Lord, and a British fleet was sent to the Piraeus, not for the protection of English citizens, but to enforce the preposterous claims of a Maltese Jew named Don Pacifico. That was, he believed, a monstrous swindle. A national quarrel, too, was nearly being forced upon King Otho, because he claimed a small island called Sapienza, lying off the coast of Greece. That island was about the size of Palace Yard, and was quite uninhabited. The House, too, would remember the odium which was incurred by King Otho during the Crimean war, because he wished to enlarge his dominions at the expense of Turkey, then apparently on the eve of dissolution. The Greeks were a quick-witted people, and when they saw that King Otho was an obstacle in the way of the accomplishment of their cherished objects, they intimated to him that "it was no longer" — to use the expression of the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary—"expedient that he should reign over them."
  354
  No sooner had King Otho taken his departure from Greece, than the noble Earl (Earl Russell) intimated to the Provisional Government at Athens, through Mr. Elliott, the fact that England was perfectly ready to relinquish the Protectorate of the Ionian Islands in favour of Greece, on condition—first, that its government should be monarchial; secondly, that the new King should rule constitutionally; thirdly—and the condition was a very hard one—that he should be a person omni exceptions major, a person to whom no exception could be taken; and lastly, that he should not seek to extend his territories or entertain insidious designs against his neighbours the Turks. The Greeks were perfectly delighted with the proposal. Their revolution had been perfectly successful, and from the fact that the offer to which he referred was made so soon after the departure of Otho it would seem as if that revolution had been brought about by English intrigue. In the enthusiasm of the moment the vacant throne was offered to a scion of the Royal House of England, who was at the time a young gentleman serving on board one of Her Majesty's ships. This offer, which did not savour altogether of absolute wisdom, was, however, graciously declined; and then overtures were, with the concurrence of the English Government, made to the male scions of almost every petty Court in Germany; but not even one of that hungry lot would accept the throne on any conditions whatever. In the extremity of their distress, however, the present King of Denmark accepted the throne for his second son, William Christian, but only on certain conditions, the first being that the cession of the Ionian Islands to Greece should be made pari passu with the accession of the new King; the second, that pocket-money to the extent of £12,000 a year should be provided for the young gentleman by the great Powers of Europe. It took some months to obtain the assent of the protecting Powers to those conditions; but they were finally agreed to, and then — and not till then—the Prince, who was now called George, proceeded to Athens, where he was introduced to his constituents and thanked them for his election, but told them what Members of that House never told their constituents—that he had come among them without the slightest capacity and without any experience. It was folly to contend that a young gentleman, then seventeen and now eighteen, who accepted

  355
  the throne under these conditions was a constitutional monarch. He would ask whether, under these circumstances, the conditions which Earl Russell had in contemplation when he made the offer to cede the Ionian Islands had been in any way complied with. We were, he supposed, under the impression that we had been governing those Islands constitutionally, though our rule there was a perfect despotism; but so far from its being his opinion that the King of the Greeks was a person to whom no exception could be taken, he must confess he knew very little which could be said in his favour. He believed, indeed, that any Gentleman selected by lot from the benches opposite—any Philhellene—for instance, the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Gregory), if he came under that category—would fill the throne of Greece much more ably, and keep under control much more effectually than the present King the most licentious and intriguing population in Europe. Be that, however, as it might, he felt perfectly assured that if we expected that that young Prince would settle down quietly in Athens, drawing £12,000 a year, giving dinners and fattening on his pay, without entertaining any desire to extend his dominions, or any insidious designs against the territories of his neighbours, we should find ourselves much mistaken. If he were to do so, his Government would become contemptible in the eyes of his subjects; the treaty which placed him on the throne of Greece, accompanied, as it was, with a mass of diplomatic rubbish, would not last so long as that which placed his father on the throne of Denmark, and which was now violated by two of the parties to it, and was not thought worth defending by the remainder. With respect to the fortifications, he must say that he was very glad that they were to be destroyed. He had heard it said that a great deal of Ionian money had been expended on them; but he did not believe it. They were in ruins when we took them, and Sir Thomas Maitland who was one of the first Lord High Commissioners, and who was one of the very few persons who held that office who knew his business, never expended a shilling on them. He went by the name of "King Tom," and was a very excellent ruler. During his sway from 1816 to 1824, when he died, a sum of £87,000 a year was upon the average spent upon the civil administration of these Islands, but this sum did not include the expenses of
  356
  3,000 men, which they ought to maintain. Sir Thomas Maitland left behind him at his death in the treasury of Corfu a largo sum of money; and when his successor, Sir Frederick Adam, came into office, an arrangement was entered into with the English Government to the effect, that if the Greeks would vote the amount in the Treasury, £160,000, for the repair of the fortresses, then entirely neglected, the Government would ask for no further sum for the maintenance of troops due up to that date. The arrangement proved to be satisfactory to the Parliament of the Ionian Islands, then entirely subservient to the Lord High Commissioner, and they at one sitting, he believed, voted the whole amount to be spent on fortifications. The sum so spent was, however, really and truly British money, which should have been paid into the British Treasury in part payment for keeping up 3,000 men. That statement he made on the authority of Sir Charles Napier, and he never heard of the Greeks having spent any other money on those fortifications, while we had expended something like half a million sterling. If they were to be kept up they would be a source of great expense; but if they were to fall into other hands—and could they insure the throne of Greece to the young King who now occupied it for two years, even in one of the Government offices—then they would be a menace to Turkey, the maintenance of which country in its present integrity many statesmen deemed to be essential to the preservation of the peace of Europe. Under all these circumstances, he was very glad that the Ionian Islands were made over to Greece—whether to a monarchial or a Republican Government he did not care, hut he was heartily glad that we had got rid of them.
  MR. LAYARDsaid, his hon. Friend the Member for Galway (Mr. Gregory) seemed to have made himself the mouthpiece of all the discontent and disaffection which existed in the East. He did not, certainly, mean to imply, that he in any way supported or countenanced the intrigues which there prevailed; there was, however, a kind of sweet simplicity about his hon. Friend which made him take for gospel almost everything which was told him; and, as he was not a man to do anything by halves, he did not hesitate to accept every kind of exaggeration as truth, and every report which happened to reach him as a fact. It was no matter of surprise

  357
  that there should be persons in the East who had an object in making it appear that the act of generosity—if so he might be allowed to call it—performed by Her Majesty's Government had in it some deep design; he was not surprised that there should toe persons in the East, jealous of the influence and good name of England, who endeavoured to counteract the effect likely to be produced by the surrender of the Ionian Islands, because, as his hon. Friend ought to know, there was in the East a host of petty intriguers, who were constantly attempting to make political capital out of every event which happened in that quarter. But he was surprised that a man like his hon. Friend, an English Gentleman and a Member of the English Parliament, should come forward to support those views, and to make Europe believe that we were not actuated by an honest policy and by the most sincere desire to promote the interests of Greece, but by some unworthy and underhand motives which we did not dare avow. Our surrender of those Islands was an act of generosity unprecedented in history. We had voluntarily surrendered a territory, and that surrender was made in good faith and with the utmost loyalty. [Mr. GREGORY said, he did not deny it.] Yet the hon. Gentleman accused the Government of pursuing towards Greece a policy of "injustice, violence, and bad faith." His hon. Friend had argued, although disclaiming the intention of doing so, as if the Ionian Islands were a possession or colony of this country. But the Ionian Islands were placed under the protection of Great Britain by a solemn treaty made with the concurrence of the great Powers, and especially of Austria, and we held them upon certain conditions to which those Powers were parties. When we undertook the Protectorate, we were bound to govern the Islands as a separate State, in a liberal and constitutional manner. In the early times of our connection with them he was ready to admit that we did not carry out all our promises, for after the termination of the great war an order of ideas reigned in Europe not very favourable to liberal government. The hon. Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. Smollet) had alluded to Sir Thomas Maitland, more generally known as "King Tom," who certainly ruled somewhat despotically, but who, nevertheless, did a great deal of good for the Islands. In his time roads were made, other public works were carried on, and
  358
  the Islands attained to a great state of prosperity. After some time public opinion began to make itself felt, and a liberal constitution was granted to the Islands— a more liberal one it would be difficult to conceive. These concessions, instead of having promoted a good understanding between the Ionian people and the protecting Power, had increased disaffection. The liberal institutions granted to the Islands were made use of by local intriguers, who in a short time got up movements not only in the Islands, but in Greece, At that time the question of nationalities began to be much agitated in Europe, The claims of the Islands to be united to Greece, on the ground of a common nationality, were put forward; but the singular thing was that those who were at the head of the party which put forward these claims were not Greeks at all. There was scarcely one who had not an Italian name, and who was not descended from the Venetian settlers in the Islands. The town of Corfu and a considerable part of the Islands was not inhabited by people of the Greek race. Over and over again the Ionian Parliament voted annexation to Greece; but, of course, this country could not consent to an annexation, and the Parliament was prorogued or dissolved. At that time it was nearly impossible to give the Islands to Greece. Greece was then almost verging on bankruptcy [An hon. MEMBER: She is still]; brigandage prevailed, and the country was in a state of complete disorganization. A fixed policy of the Greeks too, at this time, was aggression on Turkey, which had put against them the great Powers of Europe. It would have been most unfair, therefore, to hand over the Islands to Greece. What we had always foreseen happened at last, and the Greek people, exasperated by bad government, compelled the King to leave. What took place in Greece ought to be a warning to his hon. Friend. For a long time we had been held up to odium in the East as the chief obstacle to the prosperity of Greece, and Sir Thomas Wyse, our representative at Athens, a Philhellene in the truest sense of the word, had incurred great disfavour by constantly warning the Greek Government of what would take place, exhorting them to abstain from aggression upon their neighbours, and to devote their attention to developing the resources of the country. The King fell; and then, notwithstanding the bad name which accord-

  359
  ing to some we had earned for ourselves in Greece, the Greeks united as one man to offer their throne to an English Prince, thus showing their belief that our policy had always been directed to promoting their true interests. It was not considered expedient that the throne should he accepted for an English Prince; but after the tribute which had been paid to this country we felt under a moral obligation to assist the Greeks in finding a Prince competent to fill the throne. At that time Mr. Elliot was sent to Athens to explain to the Greek Government the reasons why their offer of the crown to Prince Alfred could not be accepted; and at the same time he was instructed to advise them to retain a monarchial and constitutional form of Government, to give up aggressive designs upon Turkey, and to develop the resources of the country. If the Government would pledge themselves to this policy, he was instructed to promise that England, with the assent of the great Powers, would give up the Protectorate of the Ionian Islands in favour of Greece. It was true that from various circumstances it was not easy to obtain a person eligible in every way to fill the throne. The three great protecting Powers had determined that it should not be filled by any member of their Royal families, and that of course limited the number of eligible persons. At length the throne was offered to Prince William of Denmark, and accepted, on his behalf, by his guardian, and the choice was subsequently ratified by all the great Powers. To carry out the change, of dynasty, it was necessary first of all that a treaty should be concluded between the three Powers who had made Greece what she was and had guaranteed her independence. Her Majesty's Government succeeded in obtaining the consent of Russia and of France to the change of dynasty, and in placing Prince William on the throne as King George. In the treaty it was agreed that the Ionian Islands should be surrendered to Greece, and it was further agreed that the three Powers should each give up £4,000 a year of interest due to them upon the Greek debt, and that £10,000 a year should be appropriated to the civil list of the King from the revenue of the Islands. The next step was to obtain the assent of the parties to the Treaty of 1815 to a new treaty which gave up the Protectorate of the Ionian Islands, confided by the great Powers to this coun-
  360
  try. His hon. Friend said that the conditions contained in that treaty were unknown to the new King of Greece and to Count Sponneck, and to the people of the Ionian Islands, and of Greece, until after October. This was an extraordinary statement, for the fact that the fortifications were to be destroyed and the Islands neutralized was a matter of common notoriety all over the East. Moreover, he held in his hand despatches which showed that in August the matter was discussed at Copenhagen long before the King left that city; and both His Majesty and Count Sponneck were well aware of what was proposed to be done, Count Sponneck in the middle of the summer not only acceding to the proposal, but suggested that the whole of Greece should be declared a neutral State. On the 30th of June his noble Friend (Earl Russell), speaking in another place, spoke of the probable destruction of part of the fortifications, because Greece maintained a very small army, and therefore large fortifications would be only a temptation to a foreign Power to take them. Our Minister at Copenhagen had had a conversation with Count Sponneck upon this very question, so that he was perfectly justified in saying that it was well known both to the King and his Minister, that the demolition of the fortifications was one of the conditions of the cession of the Islands. His hon. Friend said that Her Majesty's Government were doing the dirty work of Austria in this matter. But his hon. Friend forgot that Austria had a perfect right to a voice respecting the conditions on which the Islands should be surrendered, for she was a party to the original treaty which gave England the Protectorate, and we were bound to consult her. Austria said, "You are going to give a very strong place to a country which we believe to be incapable of defending it. These Islands will be exposed to a coup de main, and if taken by a strong Power at enmity with us, our possessions in the Adriatic might be endangered. They may also be a great source of danger to Turkey; and on all these grounds we think it dangerous to the peace of Europe that these fortifications should remain as they are." She had a perfect right to start these objections. His hon. Friend said that if Austria did not assent to the conditions of the treaty she might have been left out. But Her Majesty's Government had reason to know that the views of Austria were shared by both Russia and Prus-

  361
  sia, both of which would have refused to accede to the treaty if Austria had declined to do so. France also entirely approved the views of Austria. Would it have been an advantageous arrangement for Greece to have left Austria and the other Powers, or even Austria alone, out of the treaty? Suppose Prussia, Russia, and Austria had said, "We decline to have anything to do with the treaty, we decline to accept the responsibility of handing these Islands over to Greece, we shall reserve our rights, and when the time comes shall take care to vindicate them." If the Islands had been conceded under these conditions the gift would have been a fatal one to Greece and a source of constant anxiety to Europe. Another point submitted by Austria was that the Islands should be declared neutral, which in some respects might have been an advantage to Greece and to the Islands themselves, and was not altogether an unreasonable proposal, although its value may be doubtful. Another condition was that the conventions of Austria as to commerce and trade with the Ionian Islands should not be affected by the annexation to Greece. To this condition Austria was entitled, because there was a clause in the Treaty of 1815 which guaranteed these rights to her. She was the only Power in the east of Europe which had extensive commercial relations with the Ionian Islands. The Austrian Lloyds' boats touched at Corfu, and the other Islands. The trade was to a certain extent a coasting trade, and had no reservations been introduced in favour of Austria, great injury might have been done to an important commercial company. Well, then, there was the clause as to religious toleration. It was well known that the Greek was not the most tolerant of religions. The great antagonism in the East was between the Roman Catholics and Greeks, and as the French Government had obtained certain rights in favour of Roman Catholics in the Ionian Islands, there was a natural wish on its part that those rights should be guaranteed by treaty. His hon. Friend (Mr. Gregory) said, it was a most unexampled thing to declare the independence of a country and destroy part of its fortifications, and he quoted the case of Belgium. But he could not have quoted a more unlucky instance, because the treaty which gave independence to Belgium provided for the destruction of five fortified places. Then his hon. Friend said they ought to have delayed the signa-
  362
  ture of the treaty until the people of the Ionian Islands had agreed to the conditions. But the people had really no voice in the question. It was their duty to say "aye" or "no," whether or not they assented to the union with Greece. They had no right to go further and interfere in European arrangement arising out of a European treaty. It was, therefore, not necessary to lay the conditions of the treaty before the Ionian Parliament. Her Majesty's Government thought it best, for the interests of the Islands and of Greece, to put a stop to the state of uncertainty-then existing, and to have the treaty signed as soon as possible. It was true that the Greek Government objected to the terms of the treaty; and the English Government had steadily, faithfully, and loyally endeavoured to serve Greece by inducing the Powers to make the modifications which she desired, and render the stipulations of the treaty as little onerous to her as possible. Accordingly, many modifications had been effected. In the first place, instead of the whole of the Islands being neutralized, the neutralization was confined to Corfu and another. Again, Her Majesty's Government had succeeded in inducing Austria to give up altogether her demand, that only a certain number of troops should be maintained in the Islands, and now there was to be no limit to the number of troops. The original agreement was that all the fortifications should be destroyed; but we represented to Austria that this was not necessary, and that in the work of destruction and dismantling no more need be done than would remove the danger to which the Islands would be exposed if the present fortifications were maintained. Accordingly, the old fortifications would remain untouched. Only two forts would be destroyed and another dismantled. With regard to Fort Neuf, he might observe that for several years there had been an agitation to get the British Government to destroy that fort, in order that a certain road uniting the town and a suburb might be made; and now the agitators in the Island made its destruction a grievance. As to the question between the Ionian Islands and Austria, with regard to a separate flag under which the Ionian commerce was to be carried on, we had explained to Austria the objections to carrying out what she wished for, and that when the Ionian Islands came to be united to Greece, a distinction could not be made with respect to flags, but that the Ionian

  363
  should be merged in the Grecian flag. It had been at length agreed that Austria should enjoy her commercial privileges for a limited period, and that when that period expired other arrangements should be made. Next, as to the £10,000 which was to have been paid annually out of the revenue of Corfu to the civil list of the Islands, that proposal had been modified by allowing the Greek Government to make that sum chargeable upon the whole revenue of the kingdom. He contended that the destruction of the fortifications would be no loss to Greece. The fortifications of Corfu, if defended properly, would take about 10,000 men. Would it be desirable to call upon a young Power like Greece to incur such an expenditure as that force would involve? If, on the other hand, the fortifications were not defended, at any moment a lawless hand might take possession of them, and hold the Island against the Greeks themselves. It had been said, in the course of this debate, that the destruction of the fortifications was a violation of the 4th, 5th, and 9th Articles of the treaty; but it was not so, for the fourth Article of the treaty referred to recited that the cession of the Islands to Greece should take place with the concurrence of Austria, France, Russia, and Prussia; and the destruction of the fortifications was to take place in fulfilment of one of the conditions on which that concurrence had been obtained. The destruction of the fortifications was, therefore, a literal fulfilment of the 4th Article; and it was no violation whatever of either the 5th Article or the 9th. The hon. Member would have the House believe that all this was a trick on the part of the British Government, and that we had no intention of benefiting Greece by giving up these Islands. But if the British Government was not acting in good faith in this matter, we might have taken advantage of the objections made to the conditions as a ground for backing out of our proposal; but, on the contrary, we had acted most loyally to Greece throughout in carrying out our intentions.
  MR. GREGORY: What right had you -to destroy the fortifications?
  MR. LAYARD: There was no article in the Treaty of 1815 about giving up the fortifications, either in the condition we received them or in any other condition, and the spirit of the Treaty of 1815 required that they should be destroyed. Among
  364
  the many complaints that were now brought forward against us, one was that we were removing the historical Venetian guns from Corfu. But that was not true—the guns we were removing were guns we had put there; and he did not think we were called upon to make a present of those guns to Greece in addition to giving up arrears amounting to £90,000. The hon. Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. Smollett) had characterized the Government of England in the Ionian Islands as one of odious oppression, and the only Government he lauded was that of "King Tom." [Mr. SMOLLETT: He acted constitutionally and with the Senate.] He did not think that was the character generally given of "King Tom's" rule; but, be that as it might, the hon. Gentleman had gone on to speak of our having employed none but decayed politicians as Lord High Commissioners. Now, Sir Henry Storks was not a decayed politician. [Mr. SMOLLETT: His government is most odious to the people.] He had known the gallant gentleman for a very long time, and he could assure the House that he did not know whether Sir Henry Storks was a Liberal or a Conservative. All he knew was, that he had been employed in most important public services, and had well deserved the rewards which his country had bestowed upon him. The hon. Member said Sir Henry Storks was the worst governor the Islands had ever been ruled by; but the government of Sir Henry Storks did not deserve the character which the hon. Gentleman had given it. In a time of great difficulty, and in the face of great opposition, he performed his duties in a manner that deserved the gratitude of the country; and his memory would be cherished in the Islands themselves when the names of the intriguers who found mouthpieces in this House were forgotten. It had been said that there were not twenty persons in the Islands who would regret the departure of the English. His impression was quite otherwise. He believed their departure would be deeply regretted. There might be persons who lived by agitation who would not regret it; but the great bulk of the people would regret it, for his belief was, they would never be so prosperous and happy as they had been under English rule. His acquaintance with the Islands taught him that there was no people on the face of the earth who might have been more happy, prosperous, and truly free than the people of the Ionian

  365
  Islands under our Protectorate, had they not been misled by designing and unprincipled men. He only trusted the time might not come when they would deeply regret that they had ever acceded to the wishes of a few persons to withdraw from our protection. His hon. Friend had spoken of the noble Lord at the head of Foreign Affairs in terms which be ought to have blushed to use, for he said that Lord Russell had "dirtied the character of England." He (Mr. Layard) believed the noble Lord had raised the character of this country. He had had some opportunity of judging of the policy and opinions of his noble Friend, and he believed there was no man in this country who had more truly liberal opinions and was more anxious to promote them, while, at the same time, maintaining due respect for treaties. It seemed to him (Mr. Layard) that liberalism in these days was supposed to consist in an entire disregard for international obligations and international treaties. But let hon. Members look at the career of the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Office. While promoting to the best of his power all over Europe liberal opinions and constitutional government, he had endeavoured to maintain treaties in perfect good faith. What his hon. Friend charged the noble Lord with was this—that, instead of violating treaties, he bad acted in accordance with them in consulting Austria, Russia, and Prussia about the cession of the Ionian Islands. He would say, as regarded Greece herself, they had done the best for her interests. They had her interests only at heart; they desired that she should have a constitutional Government, that would develop her resources, and contribute to the welfare and liberty of her people. They deprecated aggression upon other States, and they took only a wise and just course when they made it one of the conditions of the cession of the Islands to Greece, that she should renounce all attempts at aggression upon her neighbours. Those Islands, inhabited by an industrious and intelligent population, might add much to the strength of Greece; but if Corfu were to be made a nest of intrigue, and to become the basis for carrying on aggressions on neighbouring countries, then the cession could only tend to make her position worse, and to embroil her with the nations of Europe. With respect to the papers, he thought it would be advisable to give them to the end of November, and he hoped after Easter that the treaty would be signed, and that
  366
  be should be able to give the rest of them.
  CAPTAIN JERVISsaid, he had heard with surprise the admission of the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, that this country had handed over, at the instigation of a few individuals, a happy and contented people to a country that was in a state of bankruptcy and anarchy. He had always protested against handing over these Islands to Greece; but he had done the Foreign Office the justice of supposing that they believed that, by so doing, they were about to add to the happiness of these Islands and not to their misery. They had been under our rule for the last forty-five years, and they had enjoyed a state of contentment and civilization, which was unknown to the rest of Europe; but now it seems they had been handed over to a country which was in a state of anarchy and bankruptcy, overrun with brigands, and in so turbulent and disorderly a condition, that the foreign Ambassadors had three times threatened to leave the country. But having agreed to hand these Islands over to Greece, Her Majesty's Government ought to have acted in a straightforward and honourable manner. They had no right to enter into a treaty with a young prince, stating that those Islands were to form an integral portion of his dominions, and then emasculate them as they were about to do. If the Islands were to form part of a constitutional and independent State, as would appear from Article 3, what was meant by laying it down that an army or navy was not to be kept on the Islands? He had looked into the various treaties and protocols that bore upon the question of our Protectorate, and he had been unable to discover any authority which would entitle us to insist upon such a condition. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Layard) had said, that the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Office, had distinctly stated in the House of Lords that the fortifications were to be destroyed. It was true he had stated that it was doubtful whether some of them should not be destroyed, because Greece had but a small army, and it would be a temptation to some foreign Power to seize upon the fortifications if they were allowed to stand. But the noble Lord had stated quite the contrary of what the hon. Gentleman had alleged. It was true there were fortifications, such as those of St. George, in Cephalonia, and fortifications in Zante and Cerigo, which might be demolished, but these were to remain untouched.

  367
  It had been said that having paid for the fortifications at Corfu, we had a right to destroy them; but he held in his hand a Return made by the Board of Ordnance in 1848, from which it appeared that, of the total expenditure from 1815 to 1848 of £456,000, the sum of £307,000 had actually been contributed by the Islands themselves. It was all very well to say that a part of the money expended ought to have gone to the payment of the troops; but by the Treaty of 1815 we were bound to see the fortresses maintained in a state of efficiency, and with regard to the men themselves, by whom the Ionian Islands were to be protected, they might have been much better protected by a small body of police. Was it right, because we had required a strong force in these Islands for our own purposes, that the people there should be called upon to pay for them when they did not require a single man for their own protection? He should like to ask what precautions had been taken for the protection of the English officials in these Islands and the retention of their pensions? He believed that not a single measure had been taken for this purpose, but that we had done our best to crush the interests of the people. We had not taken a single step to protect the claims of those who had served us for years; and he should like to know, what was the real state of Greece and of these Islands as to fortifications, and also as to the interests of those personally concerned, when we handed them over to Greece?
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, he could relieve the mind of the hon. and gallant Member with regard to security of pensions and compensations when the Protectorate should cease. The British Government had made provision in the treaty for those pensions with great care; but, with reference to meeting present payments when quarter-day should arrive, representations on the subject had been made at the Colonial Office, and the answer was that we were in communication with the Lord High Commissioner upon that point, and though at this moment of great political change the finances of the Ionian Islands were temporarily affected and diminished, yet Sir Henry Storks was using every exertion to provide for the salaries and pensions, and there was every reason to believe that they would be punctually paid. With respect to the future pensions and compensations of British subjects who
  368
  would lose their offices in consequence of the cession, he explained fully to the House not long ago the course that had been taken. He stated that the Greek Government would be bound by the treaty to pay those pensions and compensations regularly in the case of the former to the British Consul at Corfu, and in the case of the latter to the British Minister at Athens. The greater part of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's remarks had been answered by anticipation by his hon. Friend (Mr. Layard). The hon. and gallant Gentleman took it for granted that everything in the treaty between the Great Powers was to be carried out literally. But his hon. Friend had explained that by the friendly exertions of the British Government many of the restrictions which were at first sought to be imposed on Greece had been relaxed, and that the conditions that were now being actually carried into effect were of a much less stringent character. Without debarring the Crown of Greece from sending soldiers and ships to the Ionian Islands, and keeping them there, provision was made for their general neutrality, and that was a much greater advantage to a weak Power than it could be to any other. His hon. Friend the Member for Galway (Mr. Gregory) was a warm and sincere friend of the Greek people, and it was well known that they had proved their sense of his friendship by electing him a vice-president of a society for the union between the Islands and Greece. His hon. Friend, however, might have employed that exceptional position much more usefully than he had done by acting rather as a mediator between the parties concerned than as the advocate of one. His hon. Friend might have pointed out to the Ionians that when they made up their minds to demand a great change of this sort and had at last attained their wishes, they could not expect everything to be couleur de rose. He might have pointed out the difficulty of a great Power carrying out a thing unexampled in history—the voluntary cession of a territory in its own hands—when there were other Powers whose consent was necessary, and various conflicting interests to be reconciled. He might have told them that they had after all but a trifling price to pay for that condition of national life which they had been so long demanding, and their agitation for which had made all useful British rule in the Islands impossible. He (Mr. C. Fortescue) must remind his hon. Friend that this was

  369
  a critical moment in the history of the Ionian Islands. It could not but happen that so great and serious a political change must greatly affect the interest of many persons in the Islands. It affected for the time being the credit of the country; it diminished its commerce and revenue, and no doubt had a prejudicial influence on the livelihood of many in Corfu who had long been dependent upon the Protectorate and the garrisons; it spoilt the trade of the political agitator, who found himself "cursed by a granted prayer," and led to a temper on the part of the Ionians which rendered them not very easy to please, and made them ready to find fault with those conditions which England had found necessary in order to carry out, the cession. Under these circumstances, it would have been satisfactory if his hon. Friend had shown a temper more English and less Ionian in this matter. His hon. Friend seemed disposed to treat the pecuniary part of the question as of little or no importance; but the fact was that the amount of Ionian or British money expended on the fortifications was an element of considerable importance in the equitable question between the two Governments, He spoke, of course, of the modern works, and not of that venerable structure the citadel of Corfu, which it was not intended to touch. In annual instalments spread over many years, the Ionian Government had spent on the fortifications of Corfu some £250,000. [Captain JERVIS: £300,000 up to 1848.] The hon. and gallant Member was mistaken. The amount he mentioned included other military expenses besides the cost of fortifications. [Captain JERVIS: It is for fortifications alone.] He believed the hon. and gallant Gentleman was under a mistake. The amount of Ionian money expended on the fortifications could not have exceeded £250,000, while the amount of English money expended for the same purpose was much larger. The fact was, that the British Government had not enforced the rights they enjoyed under the Treaty of Paris to the full extent, and had, on the whole, been extremely moderate in their demands for military expenses. Taking the whole period of the Protectorate, the British Government had not obtained from the Ionian Islands above £25,000 a year, upon the average, for their military purposes of every kind, fortifications included, while they had expended three or four times as
  370
  much. He would now say a word as to the administration of these Islands by the Colonial Office, and the position in which they parted company with them. He was far from saying that that administration had been free from errors and blots, or that in all respects it would bear a strict and rigid scrutiny. Judging it fairly, however, and comparing it with the conduct of other Governments under similar circumstances, there was no reason why it should be condemned by Parliament, or by the Ionians themselves in their calmer moments. The difficulties under which England undertook the management of these Islands should be remembered. We found the people corrupted by centuries of misgovernment and a long period of anarchy life and property were insecure; agriculture and commerce were almost in abeyance, and there was scarcely anything resembling law and order in the country. For some time our Government was, no doubt, despotic enough, but it was firm, efficient, and on the whole unselfish. The object of the British Government had always been to promote the welfare of the Ionians, and Ionian interests had seldom, if ever, been sacrificed to those of the protecting Power. At length, in consequence of a desire manifested by the Ionians themselves, a constitution of an ultra-Liberal character was conferred on them. It was an anomalous form of Government, but the intention was good. The first use that the islanders made of the new system was to turn it against the protecting Power. After some experience of the operation of this state of things, Her Majesty's Government, then under the guidance of Lord Derby, sent the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gladstone) to visit the Ionian Islands, and through him proposals were made for an amended constitution to the Ionians; but they refused to accept it, with the view of hastening that consummation which had at length arrived. Under that state of things what was left for the British Government to do? We had very little, if any, active power. The position of the representative of the British Crown was passive rather than active. He could only try faithfully and loyally to carry out the constitution, and endure with as much patience as he could muster, the irritations and provocations to which he was constantly subjected. Such had been the behaviour of Lords High Com-

  371
  missioners for some years past, and especially of his gallant friend Sir Henry Storks. He did not know whether hon. Members had read an interesting account which was to be found in one of our Parliamentary papers written by a leading member of the Greek Assembly, who had visited Cephalonia at a time when a general election was going on. He says that he found some of the candidates bitterly hostile to the protecting Power. He expresses his astonishment to find that the protecting Power, which was all powerful if it chose to exert its strength, was absolutely impartial between the contending parties. He found that the voters voted as they pleased, and that the Returns were honestly made. He gays that this state of things would have been utterly impossible in his own country under the late régime. He expressed his astonishment and admiration at a state of things he never saw before — the excellent roads — the good order of the villages—the happy smiling appearance of the country — and he contrasts with this, as he says with tears in his eyes, the condition of his own country. That was an instance of the kind of testimony that might be produced, of what, with all its shortcomings, was the well meant and unselfish efforts of the British Government to carry out the Protectorate of the Ionian Islands. Well, the time had now come when the British Government had seized a favourable opportunity of granting the prayers which had been so long urged upon them. No doubt the Ionian people would have to make some sacrifice of ease, comfort, and security for the sake of obtaining the object of their patriotic wishes—wishes which, though stimulated by political agitators for their own purposes, were, he had no doubt, sincerely felt both by many enlightened Ionians, and by the simple and well-disposed peasantry of the Islands in general. Her Majesty's Government hoped and believed that the Ionians would soon pass through their crisis of trial, and that by union with a kindred race they would be developed into a prosperous and well governed people. It was their hope also that the irritation attending the change, and caused by the conditions which the British Government had been compelled to impose would pass away, and that the Ionians would look back with good and kindly feelings to the Power which had so long ruled them, and at last had granted them that which they so warmly desired. It was to be hoped that they would
  372
  forget those invectives against England which they still heard from certain parties in the Islands, and from some to-night in that House. His advice to the Ionian people was that they would put out of their minds those eloquent incentives to ill-feeling towards this country which they had heard that night from his hon. Friend the Vice President of the Union Society.
  MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALD: Sir, I regret very much that a question of so much importance should have been discussed to-night in so thin a House. The question is one of importance not only to this country — not only as regards our relations with foreign Powers, but of particular importance to the country of which the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has spoken, and which—fatally, I think, to its own prosperity—the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Office had taken under his own special protection. We are now discussing this question probably for the last time, and therefore I am unwilling to allow this opportunity to pass without some observations. I am not going to discuss at all the propriety of this cession of the Ionian Islands. Upon that question I have a very, very strong opinion, and I have expressed that opinion very strongly in this House. But this has now passed—it is a matter of history, and I am not going to revive the question. But the hon. Member who spoke last (Mr. Chichester Fortescue) has referred to a portion of the history of the Ionian Islands, and he has said that the result of English dominion there has been to establish a kind of Paradise. [" No, no!"] Will the hon. Gentleman allow me to proceed? He said this—that, where there had been disorder, where there had been no regular Government, we had established a regular Government, that agriculture had flourished, that roads had been made, which had conferred the greatest benefits on the inhabitants. The hon. Gentleman contrasted this state of things with the condition of Greece. But has there been that freedom? Has there been that constitutional government developed? Has there been that agricultural prosperity? Have public improvements ' been made? The very reverse. Of all countries in Europe there is not a country where so little has been done for the prosperity of the people as in Greece. And yet the hon. Gentleman, for the glorification of the policy of his Government, has pointed out this as the result of their policy—that whereas we have made the

  373
  Ionian Islands specially prosperous under our rule, and whereas their condition was particularly contrasted with the condition of Greece, we have now severed our connection with the Islands, we have deprived them of the benefits of that established and regularly-organized government which gave them all those benefits, and we have united them to a country which has long been in a state of anarchy, in which, whilst it had a Government, according to the description of those who found fault with the late Greek Government, no improvement had been made, and which, since the late Goverement has been overthrown, has gone far to relapse into that anarchy and disunion which so lately distinguished it under the Ottoman Government. I come now to deal with the Motion of the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Gregory), which is, to call the attention of the House to the demolition of the fortresses of Corfu and the neutralization of the Ionian Islands. I am entirely in accordance with his opinion in reference to those points, and I regret the more, on this ground, that the House is so thin, because I think this is one of the many instances of the policy of the Foreign Secretary and the Government altogether—for the noble Lord at the head of the Government said the other night that he identified himself with the policy of the noble Earl, I say that the policy of the Government on this question is just one of those they have meddled, and where in meddling they have done no good to those in whose favour they have interfered. On the contrary, I say they have compromised the character of this country. First, let me point out the course of the Government in reference to the Greek question, in reference to the abdication of the late King. I pass over the fact that the Government went all over Europe hawking the Crown of Greece to any body whom we could find willing to make a good bidding; that they offered it first to one and then to another; and I say that Her Majesty's Ministers greatly compromised our own position by allowing the name of one of the members of our Royal Family to be introduced into the discussion, it being well known that the Prince would never accept it, and that his name was only put forward for the moment to oust the claims of a Prince who might have been put forward by the Court of Russia. But having hawked the Crown of Greece all over Europe, at length we obtained a candidate; we
  374
  obtained somebody who would accept it, the present King of Greece. Upon what terms did that Prince accept the throne of Greece? It was specially provided that he only accepted it upon the condition of an effective union of the Ionian Islands with Greece. Well, of course, that Prince was perfectly entitled to lay down that position, and we were entitled, as far as we could, to carry out that agreement; but we were not entitled — that agreement having been made and that condition having been laid down — to take any step, which, on the one hand, would compromise the position of the future King of Greece, or which, on the other hand, should disappoint the expectations of the Greek people, or of the people of the Ionian Islands. But what has been done? The agreement being that the crown should be accepted only on the condition of the effective union of the Ionian Islands with Greece, what was done? The present King of Greece was induced to hurry off to Greece before that effective union was completed. And the British Government ought to have known, that at the time it was stipulated that the union should take place, that was a condition which they had no power to make and an engagement which they had no power to fulfil, without the consent of the other Powers of Europe. And not only that, but it was expressly stated by the noble Lord opposite, and by the noble Earl who is at the head of the Foreign Office, that the effective union of the Ionian Islands with Greece could not be accepted without the adhesion and consent of the other Powers of Europe. Yon induced the present King of Greece to go to Greece, there being no union effected between the Ionian Islands and Greece, and then your difficulties arose; because you were perfectly well aware that you could not unite the Ionian Islands with Greece of your own mere motion. It was quite out of your power to do it. You induced the King of Greece to go there, and then your difficulties arose. You applied to the other Powers of Europe, the parties to the Treaty of 1815, and what was the answer? At first they were not inclined to agree; but other great political questions being at the time pending, they did not raise difficulties, and therefore they agreed to the union of the Islands to Greece on certain terms—and those terms you have been compelled to carry out. The first fault I find with the policy of the Government is that they were unable to fulfil their pro-

  375
  mise that the King of Greece should go to Greece under an effective union of the Ionian Islands with Greece, they not having first obtained the assent to it of the great Powers of Europe. [Mr. LAYAED: No, no!] It is not a courteous way for the hon. Gentleman to answer me in that manner; he should rather give any information he possesses to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, as I see he is taking notes, is to follow me in this debate, who, no doubt, will give me a suitable answer. I now come to the terms upon which this effective union has been completed, and here I may say Her Majesty's Government have conducted themselves more blame-ably than in the instance to which I have already alluded. The Ionian people and the Greek Government were told that there was to be a union effected between them, but not one word was said to them as to the condition, and that it was to be one that would turn out to both parties, not an advantage, but a disgrace. You had to enter into negotiations with Austria and the other Powers of Europe, and they have made stipulations under which alone the Ionian Islands can be united to Greece. The first is the demolition of the fortresses. Now, I ask you to point out to me under what treaty, or on what stipulation in any treaty, rests your right to destroy those fortresses. Under the treaty by which you became possessed of the Protectorate of those Islands, and under which you were entitled to occupy the fortresses, you were hound to apply certain monies you received from the Ionian people towards the maintenance of the fortifications, and I want you to show me your right to demolish them. I entirely deny that you have any such right whatever. I perfectly admit that it would be legitimate on the part of the Austrian Government to say they would not consent to the union of the Ionian Islands with Greece unless they were demolished; but when that proposition was made to you, it was your duty to say that, under such circumstances, the union of the Ionian Islands to Greece was impossible, because we have no right whatever to destroy those fortresses. The hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies has argued that we have a right to destroy what we have built up for a number of years past with British money; but I entirely deny it. By destroying what you have built up you do not restore the forts to their original position, but by pulling your improvements
  376
  down you make those forts that remain valueless. And what I say is, that you have presumed on your power to do that which you have no right to do, and in this respect the Ionian people and the Greek people have the greatest grounds of complaint against you. Further, when you spoke of the union of the Ionian Islands with Greece, you told neither the Ionian people nor the Greeks that they were to have a possession where all that which we had been doing for a series of years, and which we considered to be of importance for the security of the Islands, was to be destroyed, and that we were going to hand over to them not great military strongholds, but mere heaps of ruins. What, again, is the state of the case as regarded the neutralization of the Ionian Islands? You told the Ionian people that they were to be united to Greece; you told the Greeks that they were to have this great addition to their kingdom; but you did not tell them that in order to preserve it they would not be entitled to send a single regiment there beyond what was necessary for police purposes; nor did you tell the Ionians that, except a few policemen, they were not to have that which, of course, after a long occupation such as ours, they would look forward to —namely, a garrison, with all the dignity and splendour which naturally attached to the presence of a garrison. But there is something even worse and more objectionable behind. I refer to the commercial stipulations annexed to the cession of the Islands. When you said you would cede these Islands to Greece, the Greeks naturally considered that you intended that they should be joined to Greece as a part of the kingdom, subject to the same laws, having the same relations with foreign Governments, with the like aspirations and interests for the future. But you have done nothing of the kind. You have told the Greek Government that, with respect to commercial arrangements and the admission of foreign vessels to the ports of the Ionian Islands, they were to be absolutely powerless. You had no right to do that. To sum up the whole matter, you have abused your power as regarded the fortresses. With respect to the neutralization of the Ionian Islands, you have done that which is dangerous to them and dangerous to Europe, while in the matter of commercial regulations you have done your best to impede the future prosperity of the Islands. You had done all

  377
  this without a shadow of authority, without any ground of right. In doing it you have deceived at once the Greeks and the Ionian people; and the result will be that you would hand over that which had been a prosperous possession of the British Crown to a long future of anarchy and revolution.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I am afraid it would not be for the convenience or advantage of the House that the debate should be carried on in the manner which has characterized it hitherto—that is to say, by hon. Gentlemen who, appearing at one portion of the evening, were not present during the other portions, who reply to speeches they have not heard, and who advance arguments which, totally out of place, they would have spared if they themselves, instead of being also out of place, had been in their seats during the speeches of the responsible officers of the Crown. I am always glad to hear the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken (Mr. S. FitzGerald), but I believe the House would have been deprived of a great portion of the immense advantage of hearing his speech, if he himself had been present when my hon. Friends the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, and the Under Secretary for the Colonies addressed the House. I admit that I am somewhat in the same condition myself; but I am not volunteering to instruct the House — I am simply rising, on the part of the Government, to notice the observations which fell from the hon. Gentleman. At any rate, I had the advantage of hearing the excellent speech of my hon. Friend the Under Secretary for the Colonies; and I must say, so far as I can recollect the terms of that speech, I would wish to he bound by it as a manly, just, impartial, and liberal exposition of our policy with respect to the Ionian Islands, worthy of my hon. Friend, myself, and of the Department which he represents in this House. The hon. Gentleman opposite appears to think that there was a great inconsistency in the representation made by my hon. Friend. The representation was this—that the people of the Ionian Islands had reaped great benefits and advantages under British rule, and yet, notwithstanding, they were seized with a kind of itch for political union with Greece. That appears to the hon. Gentleman opposite to be a paradox and inconsistency; I contend, on the contrary, that there is no paradox or inconsistency in those statements. It is perfectly true that
  378
  the English Government has conferred great benefits on the Ionian Islanders, and yet they may cherish a sincere desire for union with Greece. For after all it is not material advantages that form the entire life of a people. There is something in the heart, the mind, the traditions, and the history of man, and I have always maintained that these Ionians being of the same blood with the Greeks, the great parents of civilization, would have been the basest of human kind if they had entertained no desire to share their political and national fortunes. No doubt the base men of the Ionian Islands traded on that rooted sentiment of the honest and good portion of the Ionian people; but having mixed with all classes, all political sects, and all ranks of that people, I never found any distinction between them, except in this — that all men professed the desire of union with Greece, that the good men felt it, and the bad men traded on it. The policy of Her Majesty's Government with reference to the Ionian Islands has long been before the country. When the resolution was first taken by the Cabinet it was not concealed, but was at once made known to the country and to Parliament. There was a disposition in some quarters to complain that this matter was going to he transacted in the dark and done in a corner, and that England was going to be cheated out of the possession of the Protectorate. But the facts confute that allegation. All last Session the intention of the Government was as notorious as day. If hon. Gentlemen objected to the cession, why did they not address the Crown on the subject? There was no premature engagement to bind the Crown, until long after it was in the power of Parliament to interfere and check the action of the Executive. Why was not the opinion of Parliament fairly challenged at an earlier day? It is quite possible that hon. Gentlemen opposite were not of one mind on the subject. There is one eminent and distinguished man who sits on the opposite benches, and with whom I was brought into relation on this subject. He ought to be the organ of hon. Gentlemen opposite if he objects to the cession of these Islands. I refer to the Colonial Secretary in the Government of Lord Derby (Sir E. Bulwer-Lytton). Why s he not in his place to-night? Why does le leave to the hon. Gentleman (Mr. S. FitzGerald), and to the noble Lord the First Commissioner of Works in the Government of Lord Derby, to vindicate the

  379
  title of the Ionian people to remain under the British Crown? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hertfordshire has never opened his mouth in objection to the policy of the Government upon the cession of the Ionian Islands; yet he is the person who, if he had objected, should have been in his place to-night—and from my knowledge of his high character and feeling he would have been in his place —to impeach the proceedings of Her Majesty's Government. The hon. Gentleman has flinched from grappling with this question, and with the policy of the Government, but he made objections to certain particulars of our proceedings. He says that it was the condition of these arrangements that the Ionian Islands should be effectively united with Greece, and that we undertook to affix conditions which it was not in our power to fulfil. It is undoubtedly difficult in this, as in other transactions, to make a satisfactory arrangement of details. We had many parties to consult, who were standing in a different category. We had to consult first the people of the Ionian Islands, then the people of Greece, who were for the moment without a regular and organized Government; we had to deal with the person who was about to become the Sovereign of Greece; we had to deal with the various Powers who were parties to the treaty of protection, who entertained widely different views, and stood in widely different positions. How were we to do otherwise than fix our eyes on the main question, whether it was or was not the desire of the Ionian Islanders to be united to Greece? Would it not be paltry and frivolous, when we had ascertained that this desire really existed, if we had, on account of any minor questions, shrunk from giving effect to that desire? I do not, however, admit that there has been any failure in the details, or that any one has been induced to act by expectations that have turned out to be delusive. I do not admit that the hon. Gentleman has made out the charge which it was perhaps his ex-official duty to bring against Her Majesty's Government. The hon. Gentleman says that it is not in the power of the Government to fulfil their promise to the Ionians of an effective union with Greece. But is not that promise about to be fulfilled? Are we to be told, because Corfu is to be neutralized, that the union of these Islands with Greece is Ineffective? You may tell me that the neutralization of Corfu is a
  380
  bad arrangement. On that point there may be much to be said; but if Her Majesty's Government had enforced the completion of these arrangements without the neutralization of Corfu, the hon. Gentleman would have been quite as eloquent in pointing out the danger of allowing Islands to pass into the possession of Greece, which are remote from her territory, one of which is divided by only two miles of sea from the territory of the Ottoman Porte, and contains a fortress capable of holding 20,000 men. Then there is the question of the demolition of these fortresses. As regards the works that have been erected by England, I must confess that if the Austrian Government had confined its demand to the demolition of Fort Neuf, it might reasonably have been expected that the feelings of the people of Corfu would have been effectively consulted, and that none of those powerful sentiments which have been enlisted in this matter would have been excited. I will not say that Austria has inflicted any injury on the people of Corfu; but they are particularly attached to those fortifications—they are bound up with their traditions; they remind them of the times of the Ottoman domination; and to see the mine driven, the axe, and the mattock at work in destroying them must undoubtedly be painful to the population of the Island. I do not think that the course taken by the Austrian Government has been injurious, but I do admit that it has been painful. But would Her Majesty's Government have been justified in making such a condition a ground for withdrawing the assent of Great Britain from the fundamental points of the arrangement, and thus defeating the great desire of the people for union with their neighbours and fellow citizens? Clearly what we had to do was to act in perfect good faith in giving effect to what we believed to be the desire of the people as far as was compatible with the general objects of European policy; and to sacrifice all interests of a secondary character to the attainment of that end. Although I must confess that I look with suspicion and with some degree of aversion on the policy of Austria towards the Christians of the East—which I do not consider to have been at any time a fraternal, a generous, or a confiding policy—in this particular instance I do not believe that it has been the means of inflicting a wrong or a wound on the real political interests of the people of the Islands, It is not for their interests,

  381
  or for those of the people of Greece, to be in delusive possession of the attractions of a great fortress, lest they should feel themselves prematurely stimulated or driven in to the political arena, and urged to anticipate, by forced and unnatural efforts, what may, in the counsels of Providence, possibly be the future fortunes of their race. As one who is sincerely attached to that people, I confess my earnest desire that they may be induced resolutely—and it will require resolution— to lay aside every dream of conquest, to cast away every temptation to aggression, that they may set themselves to the prosecution of peaceful industry, to the establishment of good laws, to the cultivation of union among themselves, and to the peaceful development of the resources of their people. And I further hope that in this important crisis of their history they may eschew that vain ambition and pride of military establishments which, undoubtedly, was the great misfortune and vice of the late Government of Greece, and which might be stimulated to even a higher intensity if that people, numerically so small, were enabled to boast of possessing fortresses of so high a rank even among the great fortresses of Europe, But there was another point more distinctly put by the hon. Member — he seems to think that a delusion was practised, first on the King of Greece, and, secondly, on the Ionian Assembly, by our keeping back the knowledge of these important conditions of union until both these parties were effectually committed to them. My information on this point is not as full as I could wish, for my mind has not recently been given to the subject, but I hope to be able to make the matter clear to the House. The acceptance by the Ionian Assembly of the preferred union with Greece is dated last October. The King did not commit himself finally by taking his departure until a later date—in fact, His Majesty did not arrive in Greece till November. The treaty was made in August, and in that month the King was perfectly aware of its conditions.
  MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALDasked, if the conditions of the demolition of the fortresses and the neutralization of the Islands were made known in the month of August?
  THE CHANCELLOR OP THE EXCHEQUER: That was so. The conditions were communicated to Copenhagen from the British Government in the month of July; and as early as the 10th of August
  382
  despatches written from Copenhagen recited in detail conversations of the British Minister with the Danish Government on, these two subject. This was before the preparation of the final treaty, before the Ionian Assembly was invited to commit itself by an acceptance of the union, and long before the King committed himself by setting out for Corfu. The hon. Gentleman has referred to certain conditions with reference to commerce. Perhaps he had chiefly in view the important line of steamers, called the Austrian Lloyds. I believe it was originally asked that a perpetual concession should be granted, guaranteeing the possession of their privileges in perpetuity to that line. Such an arrangement would have been, I think, very disparaging to the kingdom of Greece, and in itself essentially a deviation from the rules of justice. The terms of the agreement, as it now stands, I am informed, continue the line for fifteen years, and at the end of that time the Greek Government will be bound to negotiate for the renewal of the general covenant; but the conditions of that renewal will be as free to the Greek Government as to any independent Crown. With regard to the Ionian Assembly, Her Majesty's Government accepted the declaration of the will of the Assembly as the most competent organ of the people in those Islands; and I do not think they could do more. Her Majesty's Government did not invite, and I do not think by their acts they have ever given their sanction or expressed concurrence in the favourite modern doctrine of plebiscite, or, as we should call it, national suffrage. I think I may fairly appeal to the right hon. Gentleman whether, with the complexity of affairs and the diversity of persons and interests we had to deal with, he could have pointed out any order of proceedings more reasonable in itself, more conformable to public law, or more likely to attain the object in view than that which we actually followed.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, the right hon. Gentleman commenced his speech by a violent attack on his hon. Friend (Mr. Seymour FitzGerald) for the indiscretion — a word of which they had heard much that night—he had shown in speaking in a debate during the whole of which he had not been present; but the right hon. Gentleman then proceeded to admit that he had not himself been present through the debate, and that therefore he was himself guilty of the very

  383
  same offence with which he charged his hon. Friend. And really from the speech which he had delivered it was to be inferred that he had spent very little of his time in the House during the debate which had been raised by the hon. Member for Galway. Did the right hon. Gentleman require to be told that this question was raised, not upon the great question of the policy of the cession, but as to the manner in which the Government were carrying it out? One would have supposed, listening to the right hon. Gentleman, that the debate had been originated by his hon. Friend or himself, and that they had come down to raise a great debate on the policy of the cession of the Ionian Islands. On the contrary, it had been raised by those who, unlike them, had not objected in limine to the cession of these Islands, but who, like the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Gregory), had been among the most forward and determined supporters of that foolish policy — and a foolish policy he (Lord John Manners) did not hesitate to say it was, as he had taken the proper occasion to say so last year, almost at the commencement of the Session. The right hon. Gentleman taunted them with not having challenged the policy of the Government at the proper time, alleging that no step which had been taken by the Government previous to the meeting of Parliament would have prevented Parliament from giving a formal vote. Did the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that Her Majesty's Government had not announced to Europe that negotiations were pending for the cession of the Ionian Islands to Greece before Parliament met? Did he mean to tell them that the noble Viscount, almost in as many words, had not denied the right of Parliament to interfere in the matter of the cession of these Islands, which had come under the protectorate of the Crown merely by virtue of a treaty? In what circumstances, then, were those placed who objected to the policy of that cession? and with what justice could the right hon. Gentleman taunt them with not having brought forward a Motion on that subject? If the right hon. Gentleman had been in his place he must have known that the question raised that night was raised by the hon. Member for Galway impugning the mode and manner in which the cession was subsequently carried out. After all the virtuous indignation which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had expended upon his hon. Friend
  384
  he had not condescended to answer his arguments and facts. He had not made any reply to his hon. Friend's argument as to the right of the Government to demolish these fortifications; but he gave reasons why the Ionian people might be unwise in retaining fortifications requiring 20,000 men. The arguments of the right hon. Gentleman went to the length of asserting that it was bad policy on the part of the Ionians to wish to maintain them. What, however, his hon. Friend had contested was the right of the English Government to destroy those fortifications. He would not himself give any opinion on that point; for, entertaining the views which he did of the cession of these Islands, he did not wish to mix himself up with these—as he held them to be—minor questions. But the right hon. Gentleman had made no answer to the challenge of his hon. Friend; and as to these considerations of policy, surely the Ionian people and the Greeks might be allowed to be the best judges. If, as the right hon. Gentleman said, they were so well adapted to spread the name and fame of their Greek ancestry throughout a remote posterity, why might they not he trusted to decide these questions for themselves? He confessed he was a little amused at finding that the right hon. Gentleman who lectured his hon. Friend for not being present at the whole of the debates, had in one of those eloquent speeches in which he so often delighted to indulge, enlarged upon the virtuous determination of the present Ionian population to recover the connection with their own glorious Greek ancestry. Surely the right hon. Gentleman could not have been in the House when the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs was enlightening them on that very question about half an hour before, taking care to tell them that these modern Ionians were in reality nothing better than Venetians.
  MR. LAYARDbegged the noble Lord's pardon. What he might have said was that some of the leaders and a good part of the population of Corfu were so.
  LORD JOHN MANNERS: If they took away Corfu from the Ionian Islands they took away a considerable portion of the subject-matter of that debate. Having done what the right hon. Gentleman had not done—namely, listened to the greater part of that discussion, he came to the conclusion that in the cession of these Islands a very foolish thing had been done, and done, too, in the most ungracious

  385
  manner, in a manner which had dissatisfied everybody and contented nobody. They had heard from the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Gregory) a statement of the grievances and the feelings of the Greek and the Ionian people in that matter, The statement had been corroborated on that (the Opposition) side in an amusing speech, which the right hon. Gentleman did not hear, by the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. Smollett), who did not dissent from the policy of the cession. They had seen, also, in all the public papers the feeling which animated the King of Greece and his Ministers. On the other hand, three official Gentlemen had expressed satisfaction that night with the cession. The chief ground of the satisfaction expressed by the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs amounted to this—that the Ionian Islanders were a most discontented, turbulent, bad Venetian people, who were, however, extremely happy under the rule of England, but who, he seemed rather to anticipate, would find that they had made a bad bargain by the exchange. That was the hon. Gentleman's only proof of the political sagacity of Her Majesty's Government, and the only ground of his satisfaction, The other Under Secretary who had spoken had dilated on the happiness, the contentment, the liberty, the material, moral, and social development which these Islands had enjoyed under our Protectorate, and there fore the satisfaction that he could feel in handing them over to a State in which, as he said, freedom was unknown, the Under Secretary himself could hest explain. And, lastly, they had heard from the Chancellor; of the Exchequer himself—as he humbly believed, the real cause of the cession of the Ionian Islands—one of those glowing harangues which he doubted not would greatly please people out of doors, concluding with a very sensible piece of practical advice to the Ionians and Greeks generally, which, it was much to be questioned, from all that had been seen of their antecedents, whether they were very likely to profit by. But the sum of it all was, that a very foolish and imprudent thing had been done in a most unsatisfactory and ungracious way; and he believed that neither the people of Greece nor the Ionian people, nor those who were interested in the welfare and prosperity of the Greeks, would have cause to bless Her Majesty's Government for having ceded those Islands at all, and still less for ceding them in the manner they had done.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, that hon. Gentlemen opposite not having committed themselves in any way on this question last year derived one advantage perhaps from that course—namely, that they were able now that the cession had taken place and the thing was done, to take whatever side they pleased in the matter. But although last Session there had been no formal debates on that question in that House, in the other House the distinguished leader of the Conservative party had expressed definite opinions with regard to the conditions of the cession of these Islands. He was bound to say, that if anybody was to blame about those conditions to which the hon. Member for Hoi sham (Mr. Seymour FitzGerald) had just objected it was Lord Derby himself. Speaking in a debate on the 30th of June last — a debate antecedent to the signature of the treaty, and still more so to the imposition of the terms complained of by Count Sponneck, Lord Derby was, he believed, historically the first English statesman who referred to the neutralization of these Islands, as being one essential condition for the proper carrying out of the proposed cession. His hon. Friend the Member for Horsham complained of the disgust felt by the Ionians at their ceasing to have the advantages of garrisons and military expenditure; but Lord Derby had foreseen this and "wished the Ionian Islands joy of the change." The demolition of the fortifications was suggested by Lord Derby as necessary to the proper carrying out of the cession. The noble Lord said —
  "There is another point of minor importance on which I should like some information from the noble Karl. I presume that when we cede the Islands we shall not hand over the extensive works which we have constructed at Corfu at so much expense. Those works will probably be demolished, for it is obvious that the Greek army, which, I am told, consists of 8,000 men and 4,000 officers, will find it very difficult to garrison these extensive works." [3 Hansard, clxxi. 1726.]
  And, so far from the Greek nation and the people of the Ionian Islands being taken by surprise, the course to be pursued was indicated in the reply of Earl Russell, who said—
  "With regard to the fortifications, it is doubtful whether some of them should not be destroyed, because Greece maintains a very small army, and therefore large fortifications in the Ionian Islands would only be a temptation to a foreign Power to take them." [3 Hansard, clxxi. 1733.]
  That was long before the date of the treaty, so that the Greeks had ample information of what was intended to be done. Who-

  387
  ever was in fault it was not Her Majesty's Government, and it seemed rather hard that they should be taunted for carrying out suggestions made by their opponents. As to the general question, he was confident that the country was satisfied that considering the expense to which we were put and the complications in which we were involved by the Protectorate of these Islands, their cession was a great boon; and if hon. Members opposite or his hon. Friend behind him (Mr. Gregory) would put that question to the House, he had no doubt that it would by an overwhelming majority pronounce, as the country had already pronounced, in favour of the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
  MR. CAVEsaid, that his hon. Friend (Mr. Seymour FitzGerald) did not object either to the neutralization of the Ionian Islands or to the demolition of the fortresses. What he objected to was, that the Resolutions in regard to those matters, which were come to at an early period, were not sooner communicated to those who were most interested in them. He (Mr. Cave) had already expressed his opinion fully on this question, and he should not have risen had it not been for the attack which had been made upon Sir Henry Storks by the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire. He should be the last to object to perfect freedom of debate, and he entirely dissented from the doctrine that a public servant should be spared because absent. The character of public servants was the property of the country which employed them, and it was the duty as well as the right of the representatives of that country to discuss it. Still, moderation was necessary. It was not right that a public man whose acts had been adopted by the Government should be spoken of as Sir Henry Storks had been in the last Session of Parliament in terms which Cicero might have employed in denouncing Verres, or Burke have applied to Warren Hastings. Perhaps, therefore, even at that late hour, the House would give him a few minutes to defend an absent man; and as he had heard some of the circumstances which had been referred to discussed upon the spot, he might, perhaps, be allowed to give his view of the matter. Before Lord Seaton's Reform, the Administration of the Ionian Islands was practically in the hands of the Lord High Commissioner. Afterwards it was thrown, or intended to be thrown, into the hands of the Ionian people, or rather of their Parliament, which, perhaps, was
  388
  not quite the same thing. The intention was that there should be government by party, but that, in a small community, was obviously impossible. In England each class is divided, and class not arrayed against class (though some have endeavoured to bring this about); but in the West Indies for instance, party conflict would be conflict of races; in the Ionian Islands that of classes. If, therefore, the party system were impossible, the Government would be in the hands of one class, and become oligarchy or ochlocracy, unless controlled by a strong hand for the good of all. The Lord High Commissioners before Sir Henry Storks, instead of holding this position, governed the country by the great families into whose hands they threw all the offices, and who made things, comfortable, ruling by monopoly of patronage but causing great and just discontent in the mass of the people. Sir Henry Storks went out in troublous times. He had a perfect knowledge of the Oriental and semi-Oriental races, and was determined to put an end to that state of things, and not only to reign but to govern. That caused great discontent against him among the higher classes, who immediately began to intrigue against him, and who raised the cry of union with Greece, not that they wanted it, but in order to obtain a return to the old régime, in order to get rid of a master. They wanted, to use an apt illustration, though it sounds like a bad joke, they wanted to get King Log instead of King Stork. But who were they who thus conspired against the Lord High Commissioner? Were they in open opposition? No; the people who got up this agitation were actually Members of the Government. It was as if one-half of the present Cabinet, which was said not to be quite in accord upon all questions, was plotting to turn out the noble Lord at the head of the Government. Under such circumstances, how was it possible that the Government should be carried on? He mentioned this among many instances to show the difficulties with which the Lord High Commissioner had to contend. The man who had to govern diverse races under such highly exceptional circumstances as those under which Sir Henry Storks had to rule those Islands ought to be treated like the general commanding an army, and to be judged by the results. We should not look at such transactions from an English point of view. We had done mischief enough already, by supposing our English

  389
  system to be like a general fitting saddle which would suit the back of any horse. Vigour and justice were the qualities which, in the eyes of all Eastern races, constituted the beau ideal of a ruler, These qualities characterized the first, and he believed they characterized him who was apparently to be the last of the English Presidents of the Septinsular Republic; and as the name of Sir Thomas Maitland was a household word throughout the seven Islands where his administration was regarded as a kind of golden age, so he believed that the present Lord High Commissioner would be remembered with no unkindly feelings by the great majority of the Ionian People, when they regretted, as they would do a thousand times, the just and beneficent Protectorate of England.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, it did not follow, though they might be in favour of the cession, that they were, therefore, precluded from objecting to the mode in which it had been carried out. The objection which he had taken last Session to the policy of the Government was that the House was kept in the dark with respect to it. He complained that Her Majesty's Government had thought proper, instead of consulting Parliament, to act upon the prerogative of the Crown; and that this had given rise to most of the difficulty which had arisen. If Parliament had been consulted there would have been a probability of avoiding the vacillating policy which had been pursued. Her Majesty's Government had first demanded £10,000 for the late King, and the repayment of £90,000 to this country; but the first demand had been modified so as to be nearly abandoned, and as to the £90,000 that demand was abandoned altogether. These were instances of the vacillating policy to which he had alluded.
  MR. GREGORYsaid, he would withdraw his Motion.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn,
  Main Question put, and agreed to,

SUPPLY.
SCPPLY considered in Committee.
House resumed.
Committee report Progress; to sit again on Monday, 4th April.

CATTLE, &c. IMPORTATION BILL, AND CATTLE DISEASES PREVENTION BILL —NOMINATION OF COMMITTEE.
MR. H. A. BRUCEmoved that the Select Committee to which these Bills are
390
referred should consist of seventeen Members.
MR. FERRANDcomplained that no Members representing manufacturing districts were nominated upon the Committee, and, with a view to supply the omission, moved that the Committee consist of nineteen Members.
MR. H. A BRUCEassented to the Motion, and undertook to confer with the hon. Member as to the additional names to be placed upon the Committee.
Motion agreed to,
Ordered, That the Cattle, &c. Importation Bill and Cattle Diseases Prevention Bill be committed to the same Committee.
Ordered, That the Committee do consist of nineteen Members: — Committee nominated:—
MR. BRUCE, Lord NAAS, Mr. CAIRD, Mr. LEADER, Mr. MILLER, Mr. LESLIE, Mr. HODGKINSON, Mr. HUNT, Mr. THOMPSON, Colonel BARTTELOT, Mr. HOLLAND, Mr. BENTINCK, Mr. Cox, Sir WILLIAM MILES, Mr. Alderman SALOMONS, Mr. ALGERNON EGERTON, and Sir THOMAS BURKE:—Power to send for persons, papers, and records; Five to be the quorum.

CATTLE, &c. IMPORTATION BILL, AND CATTLE DISEASES PREVENTION BILL —NOMINATION OF COMMITTEE.

  COSTS SECURITY BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Butt, Bill to amend the Law relating to the giving of Security for Costs by Plaintiffs resident out of the jurisdiction of the Courts, ordered to be brought in by Mr. BUTT and Mr. MURRAY.
  Bill Presented, and read 1°. [Bill 58.]
  House adjourned at a quarter before One o'clock, till Monday, 4th April.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS — First Reading — Settled Estates Act Amendment [H. L.]* (No. 35); Improvement of Land, 1864 [H.L.]* (No. 36).
Second Reading—Court of Chancery (Despatch of Business)*(No. 18); Conveyancers, &c. (Ireland)* (No. 17).
Committee—Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes (Ireland)* (No. 26); Malt for Animals* (No. 16).
Report— Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes (Ireland)* (No. 26).
Royal Assent — Consolidated Fund (£584,650) [27 & 28 Vict. c. 5].
Consolidated Fund (£4,500,000) [27 & 28 Vict. c. 6].
Sir John Lawrence's Salary [27 & 28 Vict. c. 2].
Inclosure [27 & 28 Vict. c 1]
Mutiny [27 & 28 Vict. c. 3].
Marine Mutiny [27 & 28 Vict. c. 4].

DENMARK AND GERMANY.

  POSTPONEMENT OF NOTICE.
  EARL RUSSELL: Seeing that the noble Earl opposite (Earl of Ellenborough) has given notice of his intention, on the Motion for Adjournment, to call the Attention of the House to the actual State of Affairs in Germany and Denmark, I rise on public grounds to request the noble Earl not at present to bring on that discussion. I do not expect that anything that could fall from him will tend to increase the difficulties which surround the settlement of this question; and, for my own part, I must say that I should have been very glad to render the fullest explanation of the conduct of the Government in respect to the affairs of Denmark and Germany. There are, however, reasons of public policy which make it desirable that there should be no discussion at the present moment. In the first place, I have now to present, by command of Her Majesty, various papers in continuation of those which were presented a few weeks ago. These papers contain the further correspondence which has taken place up to a very recent period. In the next place, there has been a correspondence lately carried on with regard to the holding of a Conference and a proposed armistice, and I have good hopes that the Danish Government will agree to that Conference. If that should be the case, I should hope that an armistice, on the ground of humanity and on the basis already proposed,
  294
  would be acceptable to all parties. But that matter is still in doubt, and your Lordships will see that the discussion of this subject, at a time when these matters are still in doubt, would be very undesirable. I do therefore trust that the noble Earl, on grounds of public policy, will postpone the discussion until all the papers which have been presented are in your Lordships hands. Although, as I have stated, I have no fear that anything the noble Earl might say would interfere with the settlement of this question, yet any discussion at the present moment night be liable to misapprehension by the parties now engaged in war, and might thus tend to the public injury, and prevent the success of the negotiations which are now being carried on.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH: Under the circumstances stated by the noble Earl, I cannot take upon myself the responsibility of bringing on at the present moment a discussion on the existing state of affairs in Germany and Denmark. At the same time, I cannot come to the conclusion at which he arrives. I by no means participate in the noble Earl's opinion, that a discussion on the subject in this House would have an injurious effect. On the contrary, I am very much afraid that if we adjourn this discussion we shall postpone it until a period when it will be too late to produce any beneficial effect.
  THE EARL OF DESART: I regret that your Lordships are always met with the same excuse—that negotiations are still going on — negotiations "never ending, still beginning," until the result is absolute failure.
  VISCOUNT STRATFORD DE REDCLIFFE: It affords me much gratification to find that the noble Earl, whose Notice appears on the Votes of the House, feels himself at liberty to acquiesce so cheerfully in the request addressed to him by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs; but I cannot refrain from expressing, at the same time, my concern at that part of what has fallen from my noble Friend the Foreign Secretary, which states that considerable uncertainty still hangs over the prospect of a Conference on Danish affairs. Ten days have elapsed since the last conversation upon that important subject in your Lordships' House, and the official language respecting a Conference is still confined to an expression—a stronger one perhaps— of hope. It appears, moreover, that if the Danes consent to a Conference, there

  295
  is little reason to expect that they will agree to have it accompanied with an armistice, and it also appears that no basis of negotiating in the Conference has been established by common arrangement. Under such circumstances, with every wish for a pacific settlement, and with all due feelings of deference to Her Majesty's Government, I cannot look forward to the issue of the pending difficulties without a sentiment of deep and painful apprehension.

THE EASTER RECESS.
  ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE.
  On the Motion of Earl GRANVILLE, it was agreed "That the House at its rising do adjourn till Tuesday, the 5th of April next."
THE "KEARSARGE" — FEDERAL ENLISTMENTS IN IRELAND.

  ADDRESS FOR PAPERS.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDErose to ask a question of the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, of which he had given private notice. In a recent debate his noble Friend read to their Lordships a letter addressed by Captain Winslow, the Commander of the United States steamer Kearsarge, to the American Consul at Queenstown, which was to the following effect:—
  "A party of the men, either by the connivance of the crew or otherwise, were concealed on board this vessel on the night of her departure from Queenstown. These men, I learn, were in expectation of being enlisted in the service of the United States, after the Kearsarge had proceeded to sea; but found their mistake. To have turned them ashore at Brest would have been to expose them to temptation to enlist on board the Florida. I therefore determined to leave them at Queenstown as soon as it was practical. You will please notify Admiral Jones, as I informed him that no enlistment should be made at Queenstown. I have, therefore, sent on shore this party that no charge of subterfuge may be alleged against me."
  When these men were brought back and landed at Queenstown, they were indicted for having enlisted in this very ship, the captain of which, by saying that "they found their mistake," distinctly implied that they did not enlist. Sworn depositions were taken, in which it was stated that when they landed in France, they were told that if they liked to enlist they might do so, and that all but one accepted the offer. The Attorney General for Ireland thought it necessary to prosecute, and upon those depositions they were indicted for having so enlisted. At the trial the
  296
  men saw that the evidence was too strong against them, and they every one of them pleaded guilty to the very offence to show that they could not have committed which the noble Earl read that letter—and concluded by saying, "I do not know that the captain could have acted otherwise than he did." What said the Judge who tried these persons? Referring to the leniency which he was about to show, he said that he pitied these men very much, and wished that he had before him those who were more guilty than the prisoners. And that there might be no mistake as to who those were, he said, "unfortunately that can not be done, because it is known that the vessel had proceeded to sea,"—clearly showing that the persons who entrapped and induced the men to enlist were the officers of the ship or persons connected with it. More than that, it was stated in the sworn informations that when the party first went on board the Kearsarge in Queens-town, there was a person there who was said to be representing the American Consul. It appeared to him that this was a most serious proceeding. When his noble Friend heard of the transaction, he applied to Mr. Adams, and it was from that Minister that he had received the letter which his noble Friend had read to their Lordships. He had no doubt that Mr. Adams placed implicit reliance in the veracity of the gentleman who wrote it. There might be some circumstances of which he was ignorant, which might explain the circumstances, but he thought that an explanation was due to the House, to which his noble Friend had read the letter, to the United States' Government, to the United States' navy, and to the character of Captain Winslow, There were other circumstances connected with, the late trial to which he wished to call attention. The prisoners having pleaded guilty, the Attorney General for the Crown very naturally and properly stated that there was no wish to press for a severe sentence, and the Judge bound the men over in recognizances of £20 to appear when called upon. Let the House see how the Americans treated an analogous case, in which a British subject was charged—not with enlisting men directly into a regiment, or on board a ship, but with merely "retaining and hiring a British subject to go into British territory in order that he might enter the service of the British Crown." One Wagner was charged with retaining and hiring Abraham Cook, who there was

  297
  no doubt was a British subject, to go beyond the limits of the United States to enlist into the service of his own country, and the case having been heard and the prisoner convicted, the Judge sentenced him to imprisonment for two years and a fine of 100 dollars. His noble Friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs had lately told the House that the Government had for some time been aware that enlistment for the Federal army was going on in Ireland, and that remonstrances on the subject had been addressed to the American Minister. But if that enlistment were going on against the wishes of the Government, why was it that the offenders were not punished? It was said, indeed, that no evidence on the subject could be procured. It appeared from the statement which had been made by the responsible officer of the Crown—the Attorney General—on the occasion of the trial to which he had adverted, that the law on the subject in Ireland had never been made known to the people, and that they were in total ignorance of the provisions of the Foreign Enlistment Act as set forth in the Queen's Proclamation. The Attorney General said, "I take this occasion to announce to the people what are the provisions of the Act;" and the Judge added that considering the prisoners were ignorant of the law, he was disposed to let them off easy. Now, everybody who had lived for any time in Ireland knew that there was not a proclamation issued offering a reward of £5, which was not stuck up at every police barrack throughout the country, and yet the Government, which professed to be so anxious to prevent recruiting for the Federal service, left, according to the Attorney General, the people of Ire land for two and a half years in entire ignorance of the law and proclamation on the subject. He begged leave to move for a copy of the information on which the indictment in the case of certain persons for enlisting for the Federal service was founded, for the matter was a very serious one, and the House ought to be placed in possession of all the requisite details with respect to it.
  EARL RUSSELLsaid, that so far as the Government were concerned, he did not think his noble Friend had any reason to complain. Constant statements were made to the effect, that the people in Ireland were being recruited for the Federal service, and that the offending parties were not prosecuted. But in the instance to
  298
  which the noble Marquess alluded, certain persons were taken on board a ship of war of the United States, who were afterwards landed and had been proceeded against by the Government; nor did his noble Friend seem to find any fault either with the Attorney General who prosecuted, or with the Judge. The noble Marquess, however, called upon him to explain the letter of the commander of the Federal vessel denying the enlistment. He (Earl Russell) would only say that it was that very day that he had learnt that the men had pleaded guilty, and that it was not likely he should have received any fresh communication from that officer on the subject. He found, at the same time, in the papers which had just been presented, that there was not only the letter from which his noble Friend had quoted, but one from Lieutenant Commander Thornton to Captain Winslow, in which he said —
  "I beg leave to state, in accordance with your request, that on or about the 3rd of November, 1863, several men from Queenstown came on board of this ship as applicants for enlistment in the naval service of the United States. In the absence of yourself, and of any definite instructions in regard to such applications, I told the men that if they were physically qualified for enlistment they might remain on board until your return, when you would decide. Upon your return your instructions were not to enlist them; they were accordingly sent out of the ship."
  How it was that the lieutenant commander had acted upon those instructions, and that notwithstanding these men were said to have been enlisted, he could not explain. It was very proper that the United States' Minister should be informed of the circumstances of the case, and that he should be asked to account for them. For his own part, he could only say that in his opinion, when a captain in the United States' naval service and a lieutenant serving under him alleged certain facts to have occurred, the Government were not to blame if they did not at once declare that they did not believe a word of the statement, and that those gentlemen must be telling falsehoods. With respect to the general question, that sufficient pains were not taken to make the law known in Ireland, he should simply assure the House that so far as the Foreign Office were concerned, they had not only some time ago directed papers containing extracts from the Foreign Enlistment Act to be circulated, but had again repeated the instruction last autumn. The Irish Government had, of course, its own

  299
  method of making those announcements public, and he would only say that he recollected the late Mr. O'Connell having once observed—it having been stated that come officer of the Government had put a notice in the Dublin Gazette—that there was no such sure way of keeping the matter secret. The Irish Government had, no doubt, taken those steps which they deemed proper in the present instance.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid, it was quite evident that the men had been enlisted, and he was surprised that the noble Earl should be deceived by such transparent falsehoods as those which had been put forward. It was not true that the men were sent on shore at once, for they were taken to Brest, and it was not till after the lapse of thirty-six hours, the American Minister having probably telegraphed to the captain meanwhile not to trifle about these men, that they were taken back to Cork, where they were landed in the uniform of the United States' navy. He would, under these circumstances, ask the noble Earl whether he believed the captain's story? He should like to know what the noble Duke at the head of the Admiralty would think if any captain in our service were to tell him that fifteen men had got on board his ship, and that he had not found out that they were there until he had been at sea three or four days? The fact was that the United States' captain had in the present instance either stated what was a transparent falsehood, or else he was not fit for his post, and did not know how to command a ship. He would ask their Lordships to contrast the noble Earl's satisfaction with the explanation of the American captain on the subject with the manner in which he had received the assurances of the Messrs. Laird and other British merchants, who had pledged their honour not to send a vessel which had been seized by the Government to sea without a week's notice, and yet who had their promises disbelieved. The fact, however, was, that any transparent falsehood seemed to be a sufficient excuse for a particular line of conduct when it came from the Federal Government.
  EARL RUSSELLsaid, that the reports both of the captain and the lieutenant of the Kearsarge stated that the ship put to sea on the night of the 5th November, 1863; it was blowing hard and very stormy, and on the following day it was found that several were strangers on board, and on
  300
  inquiring it was found that they had come on board at Queenstown in the hope of being enlisted. They were landed at Brest, but afterwards re-embarked, and were landed at Queenstown in the pilot boat. This was the statement of the captain and the lieutenant, and he confessed he did not see the discrepancy to which the noble Earl that had just spoken had referred.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEthen moved an Address for
  Copies of the Informations and Depositions upon which an Indictment was framed against certain Persons for having enlisted on board the United States Ship of War Kearsarge, and of the Indictment to which those Persons pleaded Guilty at the last Assizes for the County of Cork.
  Motion agreed to.

  SETTLED ESTATES ACT AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the Settled Estates Act, 1858 —Was presented by The Lord CHANWORTH, and read 1a. (No. 35.)

  IMPROVEMENT OF LAND, 1864, BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill intituled the Improvement of Land Act, 1864—Was presented by The LORD CHANCELLOR, and read 1a (No. 36.)
  House adjourned at Six o'clock, to Tuesday the 5th of April next, a quarter before Five o'clock.