Sitting of 6 April 1865

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—James Bourne, esquire for Evesham.
SELECT COMMITTEE—On Thames River nominated (see p. 629); Chemists and Druggists nominated (see p. 479).
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES—On Account—ARMY ESTIMATES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolutions in Committee—Court of Chancery (Ireland) [Salary, Retired Allowances, and Stamps] reported; Land Debentures (Ireland) [Stamps].
Second Reading—Trusts Administration (Scotland)* [92]; Public House Closing Act (1864) Amendment [22]; Commissioners of Supply Meetings (Scotland)* [104] [Mr. Finlay.]
Committee—Public Offices (Site and Approaches)* (re-comm.) [99]; India Office (Site and Approaches) (re-comm.) [100].
Report—Sewage Utilization* [4], and (re-comm) Public Offices (Site and Approaches)* [99]; India Office (Site and Approaches) [100].
Considered as amended—Metropolitan Houseless Poor [83].

WIMBLEDON COMMON BILL—(by Order.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  VISCOUNT BURY,in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that before the establishment of the National Rifle Association and the establishment of the Volunteers, Wimbledon Common was little better than an undrained swamp; it was not much frequented, and was in a very neglected state. After that time, Lord Spencer, who was the lord of the manor, having given leave to certain Rifle corps to errect butts upon the Common, and to the National Rifle Association to hold their annual meetings there, a great improvement was made in the condition of the Common. The inhabitants of the villas surrounding the Common viewed those meetings of the Volunteers as an encroachment upon their privacy, and at first offered considerable objections to their presence on the Common. But ultimately these objections were considerably weakened, as it was found that practically the presence of the Volunteers was rather advantageous than otherwise. The National Rifle Association laid out large sums for drainage and other improvements, so that the Common presented a far more agreeable aspect than it had ever done before. But the question as to the rights of the lord of the manor, and those
  770
  of the people in the vicinity having been once raised, it was not easy to set it at rest. A deputation on the part of the inhabitants of Putney and Wimbledon waited upon Lord Spencer to represent to him the irregularities that were occasioned by the meetings of the Volunteers on the Common, in the shape of gipseys who assembled there, and conducted themselves in a manner detrimental to the morals and comfort of the residents of the neighbourhood. Lord Spencer evinced every disposition to discourage those practices, and requested a meeting of the inhabitants of the vicinity at Wimbledon on a certain day. A great number of persons thereupon attended, when Lord Spencer detailed to them an outline of his scheme in regard to the Common. The noble Lord proposed to dedicate a considerable portion of the Common to the use of the public, reserving to himself only the rights which he exercised over certain other parts of the land. The scheme of Lord Spencer received in the first instance the approval of the meeting; but it was subsequently found that great objections were entertained by many of the inhabitants of the vicinity to the way in which Lord Spencer proposed to manage the Common, and to the inclosure of it. Things were in this position when the hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. Doulton) moved for the appointment of a Committee to consider the question of the open spaces in the vicinity of the metropolis, and the second reading of the present Bill was postponed until that Committee should have had the opportunity of considering the whole subject. In consequence of the illness of the hon. Member for Lambeth, the hon. and learned Member for South-wark (Mr. Locke) presided over the Committee, and after hearing evidence for several days the Committee agreed to a Report which, in his opinion, the House would not be inclined on consideration to support, as it did not agree with the evidence, and recommended a scheme amounting to something very like confiscation; and it was in opposition to the opinion of that Committee that he now asked the House to read Lord Spencer's Bill a second time. The object of Lord Spencer was to divide Wimbledon Common, which comprised about 1,000 acres, into two parts. He proposed to surrender his rights of lord of the manor over 688 acres, reserving his rights only to two acres near the windmill in the centre of the Common and the remainder of the 1,000 acres. Lord Spen-

  771
  cer proposed in respect to those 688 acres to make the necessary roads, to erect a post and rail fence for the purpose of preventing cattle from straying over the Common, and to prevent the commission of nuisances by tramps. That part of the scheme by which it was proposed to put up a fence had been objected to, and Lord Spencer, who wished to dedicate the Common to the public in the way most in accordance with public feeling, would not insist on the erection of a fence if the House thought it undesirable; but it was proposed to compensate the common rights, if any existed, on the part of the Common to be dedicated to the public. The inhabitants of Putney, Wimbledon, and Roehampton very much objected to the common rights being touched, probably because they were conscious that those rights, if examined into, would prove to have merged in Lord Spencer; but the noble Lord contended that the Common could not be fully dedicated to the public and given up to trustees until the common rights were swept away. Now came one of the points to which the opponents of the Bill greatly objected, and which Lord Spencer, with great liberality, was willing to waive. The cost of the improvements on the 688 acres, including draining and putting the Common into a satisfactory state, would amount to a considerable sum, and Lord Spencer, having given up rights of considerable value, could hardly be expected to put his hands further into his pocket and provide the money for those improvements. The noble Lord therefore suggested that the improvements in one part of the Common should be carried out by selling parcels of land in another part, over which he held equal rights. The portions he thus proposed to sell were marked blue, brown, and green upon the map now in the hands of many hon. Members. If the blue portion did not return a sufficient sum to defray the expenditure, then he proposed to sell the brown portion, and in the event of the sum realized being even then found deficient, then to resort to the sale of that portion marked green on the map. Now, those living in the vicinity of those particular lands made grave objections to this part of the proposal, believing that their property would be seriously damaged by the sale of those lands, and they had, on several occasions, declared their intention to raise the necessary funds for the improvements of the 688 acres by subscriptions amongst themselves, or by
  772
  the levying of a local rate. Lord Spencer was quite willing to waive that part of his scheme, provided adequate means could be raised by subscriptions and a local rate; but it was by no means certain that those proposals of those persons could be effectually carried out; and therefore Lord Spencer insisted upon retaining the selling clauses of the Bill, with a proviso that they were only to operate after the lapse of a certain period, and in the event of the failure of adequate means from subscriptions and a local rate. There were other points of his scheme in respect to which Lord Spencer and some of the inhabitants were at issue; but it was likely that on consideration the opposition to those parts of the scheme would terminate. With regard to the management, it was originally proposed that Lord Spencer should be the sole manager. That, however, being objected to, Lord Spencer consented to waive his first proposal, and to vest the management—first in himself, as lord of the manor, and then with him in a Commissioner of the Crown lands, and one other person to be nominated by the Government. The inhabitants of Wimbledon, Putney, and Roehampton proposed, in addition to those trustees, three others representing the interests of the inhabitants of Wimbledon, Roehampton, and Putney—making altogether six trustees. Now, Lord Spencer objected to so many as six, believing that the three trustees he proposed would be much better able to manage the property in the interests of the public generally than a board of six gentlemen; he thought that by such an arrangement the board would be practically a local board, because the local trustees being always on the spot would probably always constitute a majority. It was, moreover, Lord Spencer's wish not to put the management into local hands, but to dedicate the Common to the public generally, and the noble Lord therefore objected to the change suggested by the inhabitants of the vicinity. There had been opposition shown by some of the inhabitants to the meetings of the National Rifle Association, and Lord Spencer, in a national point of view, thought it essential that the Volunteers should4be allowed the use of the Common, and he did not wish to put it out of his power to allow them that use. Lord Spencer, as lord of the manor, was in as good position with regard to manorial property as any other lord of the manor. Indeed, the witnesses before the Committee

  773
  on Open Spaces showed that, owing to the peculiar circumstances of Wimbledon Manor, Lord Spencer had rights greater than other lords of the manor. It was objected before the Committee that there was no evidence as to the court rolls before them, but it was impossible to produce them, and it was unnecessary to do so, because all that was necessary was for Lord Spencer to show that he prima facie possessed the rights he claimed, it being for the House to decide on the second reading whether or not those rights were good in law. If that evidence was worthless he was willing to throw it aside and treat it as a mere assertion; but then he asked that the same rule should be applied to the evidence on the other side, as all the witnesses who spoke as to custom admitted they had never had an opportunity of examining the court rolls. The lord of the manor was, however, willing to give up his legal rights provided this Bill was passed, and when the Bill got into Committee that question could be further inquired into and decided. The Committee appointed to inquire into Open Spaces around the metropolis had exceeded its duty in the Report it made. It should have simply been for or against the scheme, leaving it to the Committee of that House to deal with it in the ordinary way; but instead of that it adopted a Report which amounted, in fact, to confiscation. He congratulated those who who appointed that Committee on the successful manner in which they got together a number of hon. Members who agreed with them in their views, and in this instance the Chairman of the Committee—a Chairman was generally an important person—the hon. and learned Member for Southwark (Mr. Locke) had made up his mind upon the question before he went into the Committee. ["Order!"] He begged pardon if he had said anything irregular to the House, and he would not allude further to it. The Committee, as he had already stated, reported what amounted to confiscation if supported by the House—namely, that Wimbledon should not be enclosed; and secondly, that there was no necessity for enclosing it. So far Lord Spencer was willing to amend his scheme; but as regarded his legal rights no Committee could deprive him of them. The Committee further reported that the Statute of Merton ought to be repealed—a step which certainly could not be determined upon except after considerable investigation and dis-
  774
  cussion relative to the legal rights enjoyed under that statute—whereas this Committee had reported adversely to the scheme and for the repeal of the Statute of Merton, after having had only three days' sitting. The opposition, he believed, principally came from the villa owners around the Common, who had no other rights than as a portion of the public. Now, Mr. Wingrove Cooke in his evidence stated that all the right which could by possibility accrue to the public in common was that in every case of inclosure a sufficient amount in proportion to the population should be reserved for the purposes of recreation. In the case of a Common with 10,000 inhabitants in its immediate vicinity, ten acres should be reserved, and so on in proportion. Now in proportion to the population of Wimbledon four acres only could be so claimed, consequently the villa owners in asserting their legal rights would only be entitled to four acres; whilst Lord Spencer, by this Bill, offered to give up his indisputed right of 688 acres for the recreation of the public. With regard to the commoners, Mr. Wingrove Cooke stated in his evidence that commoners were trespassers if they went there for any other purpose than looking after their stock. That was surely a matter of small money value, and might easily be arranged, especially as five to one of the commoners were in favour of the Bill. He asked the House, then, to read that Bill the second time. Lord Spencer had promised to submit the matter to the House and take their decision upon it, provided they did not attack his legal rights. But if they said that he had no legal rights to give, then the noble Lord must consider himself absolved from the promises he had made, and at liberty to act as he might be advised. But seeing that Lord Spencer was willing to give up to the public rights for which a large sum had already been offered—seeing that four or five railways and two or three hotels had been before Parliament during the last few Sessions, seeking for land in that locality, and seeing that it was very difficult for Lord Spencer to resist these claims, and that it might be impossible for him to resist them with effect for a length of time, he thought a case was made out for reading that Bill the second time, and he begged to move its second reading accordingly.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Viscount Bury.)
  MR. COX,in moving that the Bill be read the second time that day six months, said, that the Committee on Open Spaces near the metropolis had gone fully and fairly into the subject referred to by the noble Lord (Viscount Bury), and had decided that it was not expedient that Wimbledon Common should be fenced round or inclosed. The noble Lord said that Lord Spencer would be willing to do away with the fence, but still he asked the House to read a second time a Bill which gave power to fence and inclose. Moreover, the Bill would extinguish the rights of common, and if those rights were put an end to, then the public would cease to have any right over the Common. He opposed that scheme, not in the interest of any villa owners, but in behalf of the three-and-a-half millions of persons living in the metropolis. Not a single witness came before the Committee who did not answer that from time immemorial the public had gone over that land when and where they liked, without interruption from anybody. The land was thereby brought within the description of a village green, and Mr. Win-grove Cooke did not deny that in that case it was out of the power of the lord of the manor to inclose or touch it. He asked the House, therefore, to support its own Committee, and reject the second reading of the Bill.
  MR. DRAX,in seconding the Amendment, contended that Lord Spencer's rights were not so large as had been assumed. In 1860 that noble Lord attempted to inclose a portion of Wimbledon Common adjoining his (Mr. Drax's) property, and a fence six feet high was put up there. He brought an action against the noble Lord, which was to have been tried at Croydon Assizes; but after putting the trial off as long as he could the noble Lord at last allowed judgment to go against him by default, and the fence had to be pulled down again and the land thrown open to the public. That was conclusive proof that Lord Spencer and his tenants had no right to inclose without an Act of Parliament. He knew something of the rights of lords of the manor, and they were very trifling. Lord Spencer had been allowed to cut turf and sell it for his benefit and to the injury of the freeholders and copyholders. He had also sold sand and gravel; the only other right which a lord of the manor had was to timber, and of that there was very little on Wimbledon Common. Lord Spencer had not an inch of land on the Common.
  776
  He thought Sir Thomas Wilson had a greater right to inclose Hampstead Heath than Lord Spencer had to inclose Wimbledon Common.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Cox.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  MR. LOCKEsaid, that having been Chairman of the Committee referred to by the noble Lord (Viscount Bury), he thought it necessary to make one or two observations upon what had fallen from the noble Lord. He denied that he had given a partial judgment in this case. He had failed on this as on former occasions to understand exactly what it was the noble Lord meant. The noble Lord had appeared in the Committee with a large brief, and conducted the examination of the witnesses, prompted by Lord Spencer, very much as if he were Lord Spencer's counsel. Lord Spencer's solicitor gave to his (Mr. Locke's) mind the most ridiculous evidence with reference to Lord Spencer's rights, and in addition the Committee were asked to receive the opinions of counsel, without the cases being put in upon which those opinions were founded. The Committee offered to receive them, provided the cases were put in; but the noble Lord declined to do so, and the Committee declined to receive the opinion without the case. That was the course that had been pursued throughout. He was willing to have voted for the second reading of the Bill if he could have placed any reliance upon the noble Lord's (Viscount Bury) statements; but having listened attentively to him, he was unable to discover that he pledged himself to anything. It was said that Lord Spencer was giving up a great deal, but after all the attention he had paid to the evidence he was unable to find it out; and he confessed that after applying his mind to the subject he honestly believed that Lord Spencer intended to retain those acres which the hon. and learned Member for Wallingford (Mr. Malins) pointed out, and what the noble Lord intended to do with them was best known to himself. The case had been mixed up from beginning to end in the most extraordinary and complicated manner, and no Member of the Committee could for five minutes together clearly see what the noble Lord intended to do. Lord

  777
  Spencer's solicitor, when he came to give his evidence, painted a lord of the manor such as a lord of the manor had never before been painted on the face of the earth. He was, according to that gentleman's evidence, the most powerful lord of the manor it was possible to conceive, for he was able to do anything and everything with everybody; and that if he was not allowed by Parliament to do what he liked, he could take the Common and act with it as he pleased. If the noble Lord was not prepared to abide by the Report of the Committee he should vote for the Amendment.
  MR. LOWEsaid, he was afraid the House might be led unintentionally to do some injustice in this matter; he therefore begged their attention while he very briefly stated what he believed to be the facts of the case. Lord Spencer was the lord of the manor of Wimbledon, and the Common belonged to him in fee simple, subject to the rights of commoners, and subject to certain roads and rights of way. Wimbledon was resorted to by the public for purposes of amusement, but the lord of the manor could by his mere will exclude the public from it. In this position he offered to surrender the use of 688 acres of this valuable suburban land, of which he was the owner in fee simple, subject only to the rights he had described. He wished the subject should be inquired into by the Committee on Open Spaces. That Committee had inquired into it, and the I Committee had decided by the casting I vote of the Chairman—["No, no!"]—that this Common should not be enclosed, and that the common rights ought not to be extinguished. Surely, when a gentleman came forward and offered to give up 688 acres of valuable land for the amusement of the public, it was for the House to inquire whether it was desirable that the offer should be accepted. Surely it should not be rejected without inquiry? The hon. and learned Member for Southwark (Mr. Locke) said the Committee had reported on the case; but he had omitted to mention that they reported with reference to this particular case of Wimbledon Common that the Act of Merton, which had been in force for 630 years, should be repealed. That Act said that a lord of the manor might enclose, if he could do ss without prejudice to the rights of commoners; and to punish Lord Spencer for offering 688 acres of his land for public amusement, the Committee proposed not only to repudiate the offer but to deprive
  778
  him of the right he had of enclosing any part of the Common without prejudice to the commoners. He said that was not a question to be decided in that off-hand way. The Committee had exhibited much animus, and had decided by the casting vote of the Chairman that Wimbledon Common ought not to be enclosed; and he thought that if the House really wished to do justice in this matter they would send it to be inquired into by a Committee upstairs.
  MR. ROEBUCKthought the House was at present incapable of giving any opinion on this matter. They were totally unfit to decide the question, and ought to send it to a proper tribunal. The noble Lord had unwisely entered into the matter of the Bill. They had nothing to do with it. In common sense and common decency they were bound to send it to the ordinary tribunal for such inquiries—a Select Committee. He knew nothing of Lord Spencer, but private rights could not be dealt with in an off hand manner.
  MR. LOCKE KINGthought it was desirable, in the interests of the public, and of those residing in the neighbourhood, that the Bill should be read a second time. He was not willing to discuss the speech of the noble Lord (Viscount Bury), but he wished the House to bear in mind that several objectionable parts of the Bill had been withdrawn. The proposal to enclose a portion of the Common formed no longer a part of the scheme, and the power of selling the 300 acres only remained part of the Bill, upon the condition that the inhabitants were unable to raise sufficient funds for the contemplated improvements. It would be a great boon to the public to obtain something like 1,000 acres for ever; and if this Bill were not passed there was a possibility that future lords of the manor would deprive them of it. He thought the Bill should be read a second time, and sent to a Select Committee.
  MR. PEACOCKEsaid, that having sat in the Committee upon this Bill, he had formed the highest opinion of the motives of Lord Spencer in bringing it forward, and fully believed Lord Spencer was convinced that he had a full and good title to the Common. At the same time, however, he thought the noble Lord had been badly advised. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Calne (Mr. Lowe), who was always prepared to give an ex cathedra opinion on any subject, appeared to entertain the opinion that Lord Spencer could deal with the Common precisely as he

  779
  pleased; but he could tell the right hon. Gentleman that if he had known a little more of the case and had sat in the Committee, he would have found that the rights of Lord Spencer over the Common were very doubtful and questionable. If Lord Spencer were prepared to abandon the inclosure and the sale of the land, provided a rate could be raised for the object in view, he would advise the House to agree to the second reading of the Bill, and would earnestly entreat the hon. Member for Finsbury to withdraw his Amendment, because, if that were adopted, it would give to the country a false impression as to the feelings of the House on the subject. Every opportunity should be given for arriving at a fair and impartial conclusion on the matter.
  LORD ELCHOsupported the second reading of the Bill, and said he had been in communication with his noble Friend Lord Spencer on the subject, and he thought that very great injustice would be done to Lord Spencer, and to his motives if the Bill were rejected, and not brought under the consideration of a rightly constituted Committee. He bad no interest in the scheme proposed by the Bill, and his evidence before the Committee would show that he Was perfectly impartial. His own sympathy had always been in favour of keeping this and other commons uninclosed. The mere post and rail might not be much obstruction, but there was a strong feeling against inclosures. He was authorized by Lord Spencer distinctly to state that he was prepared to allow the Bill to go before a Committee on the clear understanding that he gave up all idea of inclosing the Common, and that he would postpone the operation of the sale clauses so as to give time to ascertain whether a rate would be raised. He would, therefore, join in asking the hon. Member for Finsbury to withdraw his Amendment and allow the Bill to be read a second time.
  MR ALDERMAN ROSEthought he was speaking for the majority of the Committee when he said they were not prepared to offer any opposition to the second reading of the Bill. He believed, when the Bill went before a Select Committee, there would be formed a very different impression of the motives or public spirit of the noble Lord who had brought the measure forward than was now entertained. He thought that the further the inquiry was pushed the more clearly it would appear that Lord Spencer was not giving up any rights for
  780
  the benefit of the public; but that, on the contrary, under this Bill, he would obtain a right to 300 acres of the Common, of which at present he had no right to dispose. The rights which had been assumed were of a very questionable and doubtful character. Instead of the Report of the Committee being carried by the casting vote of the Chairman, as represented by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Calne, there were only four voted against it, all the other Members being in its favour. It was true that the casting vote of the Chairman was once taken, but it was only on a technical point.
  MR. COWPERsaid, it was a good maxim that we should not look a gift horse in the mouth; but, in this instance, he thought the more the proffered gift was looked at the more valuable we would find it to be. He thought the House would make a great mistake if they did not allow the Bill to be read a second time. The object of that Bill was to secure to the public for ever the unrestricted use of Wimbledon Common. Whatever might be Lord Spencer's rights over the 688 acres offered to be given up to the public by the Bill, those rights had been freely given up. A combination might possibly hereafter be made between the lord of the manor and those having common rights, by which the public would be deprived of the use of the Common; but this Bill would prevent the possibility of that. There were details in the scheme which had met with great objection, and he thought that in the framing of the scheme Lord Spencer had not been well advised; but the objectionable parts of the original scheme had been withdrawn. The Committee had come, by a majority, to the conclusion that there were three objections to the scheme. The first was the proposal to place a fence round the Common; the second, the selling of land j and third, the extinction of common rights. The noble Lord who had moved the second reading of the Bill, and the hon. Member who had seconded the Motion, both said that Lord Spencer had agreed to withdraw his proposal for fencing the Common; and to abandon the power of selling land, if the necessary funds could be obtained, either by means of voluntary-contributions, or by a rate levied upon the residents in the locality. They had been told that the residents were perfectly able and willing to provide the money, and they might, therefore, safely conclude that no sale would take place. The third point

  781
  might safely be left to the decision of a Committee upstairs.
  SIR GEORGE BOWYERthought that the scheme embodied in the Bill ought not to be discussed or settled by a large popular Assembly, but that it ought to be referred to a Committee, for the purpose of being subjected to that research and legal acumen which were always necessary in cases involving questions of common rights and rights of lords of manors. It would, therefore, be very imprudent and injudicious on the part of the House were they to refuse their assent to the second reading in order that the Bill might be referred to a competent tribunal. The Committee had reported that the Statute of Merton ought to be repealed. Now he did not believe that there were ten Members of the House who had ever read that statute.
  Question, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read 2°, and committed.

INDIA—THE BHOOTAN EXPEDITION.

  QUESTION.
  LORD DUNKELLINsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, Whether the present invasion of Bhootan has been undertaken with the consent and sanction of the Home Government; whether it be true that two of Her Majesty's European Regiments have been ordered up to support the invading force; and whether it be the intention of the Indian Government to keep the Troops in the unhealthy country of Bhootan during the coming rainy season; and, if so, what, if any, arrangements have been made for putting them under cover?
  SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, in reply, that when the failure of the mission that had been sent to Bhootan was known, three courses were suggested for the Government to follow. One was permanent occupation of the country; the second was a temporary occupation; and the third was to take possession of a small portion of the country, including the passes leading into the hills, through which the plundering bands came down into the plains. He was averse to a permanent occupation of the whole country, and equally so to a temporary occupation, because he did not see how it would be possible to withdraw when we had once taken possession, and therefore the Government of India and
  782
  himself were of opinion that the third course he had mentioned was that which they ought to adopt. At the end of December all the passes had been occupied, and our loss, except by one unfortunate accident, had been only five men. We remained in peaceable possession until the end of January, when the Bhootanese assembled in great force and attacked our troops. He would not express any opinion upon what happened then, as it was a subject of pending inquiry, but the result had been that it had been thought desirable to send forward a regiment and a half of British troops. He could not say what arrangements had been made or would be made for ensuring protection against the effect of the weather, but in the last despatch he had received there was this statement, "We shall spare no pains to provide shelter for the troops and to secure their health as far as possible."

ENGLISH SUBJECTS IN CHINA.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, he wished to put a question to Mr. Attorney General, but in order to make it intelligible he would state the circumstances which had rendered it necessary. A mercantile house at Ningpo had long been in the habit of sending up the river a boat laden with dollars for the purchase of silk. During the occupancy of that region by the Taepings the boat had never been molested, but lately the boat was attacked and plundered by Europeans in the Imperial service. The men were traced—one to Shanghai and two to Hong Kong, where they were seized and committed to prison. Mr. Kent, the merchant, now informed his partner in this country that the Judge at Hong Kong had released the prisoners, upon the ground that there was no law to punish Europeans who committed crimes in the interior of China. He therefore wished to know from Mr. Attorney General, Whether it is true that the state of the Law is such that Europeans may with impunity commit robberies or murders in China?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL,in reply, said, the only answer which he could give the hon. and gallant Member was, that under the present state of the law in China any European committing any act which would be a crime by the law of this country was amenable, if he could be caught and the facts proved against him, to the Consular authorities in China, and

  783
  also to the Criminal Court at Hong Kong. The difficulty in the case which the hon. and gallant Member had referred to was, he supposed, that of getting up the evidence, and without any evidence there could not in China, as in this country, be any conviction.

SCOTLAND—PORT PATRICK HARBOUR.

  QUESTION.
  MR. TORRENSsaid, he rose to ask the President of the Board of Trade, Whether the works at Port Patrick Harbour are still going on, or whether they are in abeyance; in the event of their being stopped, when it is intended to resume them, and when it is supposed they may be completed; and whether he will state what sum up to the present date has been expended on the Port Patrick Harbour works, and what further amount it is estimated may be incurred for their completion?
  MR. MILNER GIBSON,in reply, said, the works at Port Patrick Harbour were going on, and it was believed that they would be completed by October next. It was believed also that steamers would be able to use the harbour. The sum expended up to the 1st of March last was £35,733. A further expenditure would be necessary to complete the works of £9,882, and in addition to that there was a claim made by a contractor which, though not admitted, might be the subject of litigation, and which might lead, if the decision were against the Government, to a further payment of £5,000 or £6,000.

  COLONIAL BISHOPS.—QUESTION.
  MR. HENRY SEYMOURsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If the Government intend to take any steps to amend the Patents of the Colonial Bishops, defining their jurisdiction?
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, in reply, that the Patents which had been issued by the Patent Office were now undergoing careful examination with a view of submitting a case for the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown. It was the intention of the Government most carefully to examine the late decision of the Privy Council before any further Patents were issued.

INDIA—THE PEGU PRIZE MONEY.

  QUESTION.
  MR. H. COLEsaid, he would beg to
  784
  ask the Under Secretary of State for War, When the extraordinary delay in the distribution of the Pegu War Prize Money is likely to terminate, and why the Prize Rolls of the 51st Foot, which served in that war, have not been yet received at the Royal Hospital, Chelsea?
  SIR CHARLES WOOD,in reply, said, the Prize Rolls for Her Majesty's 51st Foot had been sent to Chelsea Hospital for payment. The rolls of the 102nd late 1st Madras Fusileers, had been received, and the prize money was now in distribution; the remaining Prize Rolls of the Madras portion of the force were expected shortly.

THE EPIDEMIC IN RUSSIA.

  QUESTION.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been directed to the disease now prevailing in Russia and some parts of Prussia; and whether the Government propose to take any steps to ascertain the true nature of the disease, and to avert its introduction into this country?
  SIR GEORGE GREY: Sir, the attention of the Government was directed to this subject by a statement which appeared in one of the daily papers on the 29th of March. Instructions were immediately sent by telegraph to Sir Andrew Buchanan, at St. Petersburg, to make without delay the fullest inquiries into the subject, and to send from time to time all the information he can obtain as to the origin, nature, and progress of the disease, and the mode of treatment of it at St. Petersburg. Instructions were also sent to Her Majesty's Representatives at Berlin, Vienna, Copenhagen, and Stockholm, and to our Consuls at the Baltic ports, to send full information as to the disease, should it appear in any of those parts of Europe. A medical officer has also been directed to proceed at once to St. Petersburg to investigate and report upon the disease, and the officers of Customs have been directed to exercise the utmost vigilance in the examination of vessels coming from the Baltic. The information we have as yet received has been by telegraph, but Sir Andrew Buchanan says that he has forwarded by post a printed medical report on the disease, which is stated to be a fever new in Russia, but not unknown in other parts of

  785
  Europe, and that the mortality—which had been up to eighty per day—was said to be diminishing at St. Petersburg. Lord Napier states that the Minister of the Interior had told him that an unknown disorder had appeared along the valley of the Vistula, but that he was not aware that it came from Russia. The Consul at Dantzic, in a telegram dated to-day, says that a disorder prevalent in that district is a complaint of the brain, chiefly affecting children, but that it had no connection with the disease existing at St. Petersburg. The Consul at Warsaw, in a telegram also received to-day, says that some cases of typhus have occurred there, but no disease having the proportions of an epidemic disorder has up to the present time appeared in Poland. The Consul at Konigsberg reports that no particular epidemic disorder exists there, and the Consul at Memel says that no symptoms of the disease have appeared in that district nor in the adjacent Russian provinces; and a telegram just received from the Consul at Stettin reports that no epidemic has exhibited itself there.

  RENEWAL OF HOSTILITIES IN NEW ZEALAND.—QUESTION.
  COLONEL NORTHsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the Government have received any information of the renewal of the New Zealand War, and of a battle having taken place in which thirteen of our troops had been killed?
  MR. CARDWELLreplied, that the Government had not received any information of the sort. The only information which had reached them was the telegram which had appeared in the morning papers.

BANKRUPTCY AND INSOLVENCY (IRELAND) ACT AMENDMENT BILL.

  [BILL 102.] LORDS' AMENDMENTS.
  Lords Amendments considered.
  Page 1, line 15, the first Amendment, agreed to.
  Page 1, line 16, the last Amendment, read 2°.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(Sir Robert Peel.)
  SIR COLMAN O'LOGHLENsaid, he wished to call the attention of the House to an important Amendment which had
  786
  been made in this Bill by the House of Lords. According to the present state of the law in England, no railway company could be declared bankrupt, and no share holder could be rendered liable for more than the unpaid amount of his shares. He believed that was also the law in Scotland. Up to the end of last year it was believed that the same law prevailed in Ireland; I but it was discovered about that time by some ingenious gentleman that railway companies could be made bankrupt in Ireland, and the result was that one railway company had been made bankrupt. A doubt had also arisen as to whether shareholders in railways in Ireland could be rendered liable for more than the unpaid amount of their shares. Under these circumstances the present Bill, with the sanction of the Law Officers of the Crown, was introduced. It consisted of two clauses, the first of which prohibited any railway company in Ireland being made bankrupt; and the second prevented any shareholder being rendered liable for more than the unpaid amount of his shares. The Bill passed that House; but a Select Committee of the House of Lords, to whom the Bill was referred when it got there, struck out the second clause. When the Bill was returned to the House of Lords, a Motion was made to re-instate the clause, and was lost by a majority of three only. He considered it would be a most unfortunate proceeding if that House should agree to the Amendment of the House of Lords, as the result would be that the assets of the railway companies to be made bankrupt would be lost in litigation, and the shareholders would be harassed by legal proceedings. He moved that the House disagree with the Lords' Amendment.
  MR. BAGWELLsaid, it was very desirable that the Attorney General for England should give his opinion upon this question, which had created a large amount of fear in Ireland, where railways were required, but where they would not be made if the law should continue to be that shareholders must be held to be liable beyond the amount of their shares.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, it was clear that there ought not to be one law for England and another for Ireland in this matter. He thought it desirable that the Government should declare its view on the subject.
  COLONEL FRENCHsaid, that there ought to be some expression" of opinion on this matter by the legal advisers of the

  787
  Crown. Persons who bought shares in Irish railways certainly imagined that their liability was limited to the amount of their shares; but if these Amendments were agreed to no man would be secure.
  SIR GEORGE BOWYERthought it a little extraordinary that when so important a legal question as this was being discussed the legal advisers of the Government were not present. He did not, however, think their advice very material, because in his view there could be no two opinions about the matter, for the simple reason that if the holders of Irish railway shares were made liable to the full extent of their property in case of the bankruptcy of the railway company, no one would hold shares in them, and thus railway enterprise in Ireland would be put an end to altogether. If such a question arose in respect to railways in England, the House would be up in arms, the Standing Orders would be suspended, and they would not separate until the matter had been placed on a proper footing. It would be an instance of inexcusable supineness on the part of the Government, if there was not an immediate expression of opinion on the question.
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIENthought that disagreeing with the Lords' Amendments would tend rather to complicate the question, because the settlement would be thrown over the Easter holidays, and before the House met more than one railway company in Ireland might be made bankrupt.
  COLONEL GREVILLEsaid, that as the legal advisers of the Government were absent, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Board of Trade would give the House the benefit of his opinion. The right hon. Gentleman's name was on the back of the Bill.
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, that the question being somewhat of a legal character, he was not the proper authority, but as he had been appealed to he had no objection to give his opinion on it. As he understood, the shareholders in the Irish railways in question took their shares with limited liability, which was the undoubted law at the time they took them, and therefore they could not be called on for anything beyond the amount of the shares. That was the position in which they stood in 1857, when the Bankruptcy (Ireland) Act passed for the purpose of providing for the winding-up bankrupt companies. Railways were not excepted from that Act, and it had been held, from certain language in
  788
  that Act, that the shareholders in any railway which might be made bankrupt could be called upon to contribute until the whole of the debts of a bankrupt railway were paid. He could not conceive it possible that any court of law would come to such a conclusion, or that an Act which was passed merely for the purpose of winding-up companies could alter the extent of liability falling on shareholders. All that it could do was to provide a mode of collecting the contributions which it was just that the shareholders should severally pay. The question was whether the House was to declare that it was not the intention of the Legislature, when it passed the Bankruptcy Act, to put an end to that limitation of liability which shareholders legally enjoyed by the constitution of their company, or to leave shareholders subject to the litigation that might arise in consequence of the ambiguous language of the Act. In his opinion it was but fair and reasonable to relieve the shareholders from the consequences of an ambiguity in that Act; for whatever might be said about injustice to creditors being inflicted by an ex post facto law, it must be recollected that the creditors acquired the rights they claimed by the operation of an ex post facto law—if the Act of 1857 had the effect which it was pretended; who ever heard of a general law directly taking away the private property of persons, or exposing to liability persons who never heard of it, who were never consulted, and who most certainly were not in the mind of the Legislature when the Act of 1857 was passed? It therefore appeared reasonable and just to re-insert the clause, and disagree with the Lords' Amendments.
  COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he did not think any difficulty would arise from the delay in the Bill which would be caused by disagreeing with the Amendments.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment disagreed to.
  Committee appointed, to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to the Amendment to which this House hath disagreed:—Sir COLMAN O'LOGHLEN, Sir ROBERT PEEL, Mr. MILNER GIBSON, Colonel FRENCH, and Colonel GREVILLE:—To withdraw immediately; Three to be the quorum.

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

  THE STATE PAPERS.—OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. HENRY SEYMOURsaid, he rose to call the attention of the House to the publications entitled the State Papers and Hertslet's Commercial Treaties. He had taken the liberty last year of bringing the former publication under the notice of the House. The State Papers were issued every year, but sometimes they had been as much as twenty years in arrear, and the volume issued in 1864 was about twelve years in arrear. This publication was issued at the public expense, and was sold at such a price as put it quite beyond the reach of the great majority of the people. His hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had undertaken to get the price reduced, and, as he understood, also to look into the contents to see whether matters were not printed as State Papers which ought not to be put in that category. The hon. Gentleman had got the price reduced from 30 s. to 10 s.; but he did not think that the contents of the volume had received his attention. The hook contained 1,400 pages of a most miscellaneous character, and he ventured to say that five-sixths of the contents were not State Papers at all. If he understood the meaning of the term, Correspondence laid on the table of that House, Acts of Parliament, and French Budgets twelve or fourteen years old, hardly came under the title of State Papers. One of the first matters in the volume for 1864 was "Austria—Correspondence about the Affairs of Italy. 1848." He then found under "Belgium" the law, modifying law of 1835, relative to Foreigners, 1841; Budget, 1852; Finance, Receipts, Dotations, Public Debt, &c. Under "Fiance"—Correspondence relating to the Affairs of Italy, 1852. Next came "Germanic Confederation"—Correspondence about the Affairs of Italy, 1852. And then they had "Great Britain"—the whole of the Finance Accounts of 1853. The work also contained the correspondence of fourteen years ago relating to the Slave Trade, the French Budget of an equally ancient date, foreign Correspondence of 1852 relating to obscure British subjects, Correspondence on Italian affairs, Treaties made with Indian chiefs by the American Government, and so on. The House would agree with him that a great portion of the work was perfectly valueless, and ought never to have been
  790
  printed at the public expense. He did not know whether the particular item for printing the work appeared in the Votes, but he was informed that it was included in the expenses of printing for that House under the head of Stationery Votes, instead of being placed under that of the Foreign Office, to which it properly belonged. The publication entitled Hertslet's Commercial Treaties was also edited by the Librarian to the Foreign Office, and he (Mr. Henry Seymour) was desirous of knowing whether that work was published at the public expense; and if not, what were the peculiar relations subsisting between the Foreign Office and their Librarian with regard to work, of which thirteen tons lay at the Stationery Office unsold. In his opinion this hook ought not to be printed at the expense of the nation. He begged to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Layard), as an administrative reformer, to the fact that by eliminating such items from the Stationery Votes a considerable reduction might easily be made under that head.
  MR. LAYARDsaid, the two works were entirely distinct, the State Papers being compiled by the librarian to the Foreign Office, and printed at the public expense, while Hertslet's Commercial Treaties was a purely private work, the Government merely taking a certain number of copies for the use of the public offices and foreign missions. He entirely differed from the hon. Member as to the value of the State Papers, although he agreed with him in his expression of regret that they were so far in arrear. Mr. Hertslet, with whom he had communicated on this subject, was not responsible for this delay, and was anxious to exert himself to the best of his ability for the public service. He intended for the future to publish three instead of two volumes a year; so that by 1870 the arrears would be cleared up. The work was in his (Mr. Layard's) opinion most valuable, and he was in the habit of constantly referring to and quoting the volumes, which contained resumés of British and foreign treaties and digests of the most important public documents published in this country and elsewhere. Mr. Hertslet had just completed a very important addition to the work—namely, a double index—an index of subject and an index of date—which would be of the greatest service to those having the conduct of public affairs. The price at which the work was sold had been

  791
  reduced from 30 s. to 10 s. per volume, which did little more than repay the cost of its production, and was very little for a volume of 1,400 pages. However, Mr. Hertslet thought he should be able still further to reduce the price.
  MR. WHITEquite agreed with the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Henry Seymour) with regard to our State Papers, and their almost absolute worthlessness for practical purposes, and instanced the fact that in 1863 he found the Danish Succession Treaty of 1852 had not then been published in that collection, and he had been compelled to refer for it to the Austrian State Papers, which were brought down eleven years later than those printed by our Foreign Office. The work whose merits, or rather demerits, they were discussing, did not contain many important State documents, whilst it was stuffed with details of palavers and agreements in reference to the slave trade, made ten years previously with certain illustrious personages, such as King Will, Sam Tory, Black Foobra, Old Jack Brown, and other petty chiefs on the West Coast of Africa; not one of whom was able to write his own name. His experience had taught him that for special treaties made by Great Britain, it would be a waste of time to expect to find them in our own State Papers, and he habitually referred for such documents either to Martens' Recueil, published at Gottingen—a German work of deservedly high reputation, or to the Archives Diplomatiques—an admirable French periodical which furnishes, by authority, the very latest information with respect to all international treaties, conventions, or correspondence. He hoped the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs would impress on the librarian of his office the necessity of making a better selection of documents, and of publishing them within a shorter period of their dates than twelve or fourteen years. Such an extraordinary delay justified the suspicion that the Foreign Office did not desire to furnish that full and complete information upon State affairs to which the House and the public were entitled. Seeing how closely the financial condition and well-being of the country were bound up with our Foreign policy, the amplest information ought to be placed within the reach of every hon. Member who desired to make himself acquainted with our treaty obligations; and it was a reproach to our Foreign Office that such knowledge was not
  792
  obtainable from our own State Papers, but from foreign Collections published at Leipsic, Gottingen, or Paris.

OFFICERS SERVING IN INDIA.

  QUESTION.
  SIR HARRY VERNEYsaid, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for India, Whether it is necessary to retain the present Regulation by which Officers serving in India forfeit their Indian allowance if they quit Asia and come to Europe while they are on furlough of six months; and whether he will direct that where noncommissioned officers of regiments in India are sent home on the completion of their first period of service, and others are appointed in their places, the acting noncommissioned officers shall receive the rates of pay due to the rank they filled from the date of their appointment, without waiting until the discharge of the men in England is notified? Although the Regulation mentioned in his first Question might have been a proper one when the journey from India to this country occupied six months, he did not think that it was reasonable to retain it now that the transit could be made in five weeks, so that an officer having six months leave might come home and spend three or four months of it with his family. At least the Commander-in-Chief in India ought to have power to permit officers to come home if he thought proper. The subject to which his second Question referred was a mere matter of justice. He had received a letter from an officer commanding a regiment in India, who informed him that he had under his orders ten acting sergeants and corporals who would not receive the pay belonging to their respective ranks until the discharge of the non-commissioned officers whom they had succeeded had been sent to India. He thought that this was very unfair, and hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would promise that the system should be changed.
  SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, that Indian pay and allowances were given to officers in consideration of the danger which they incurred and the hardships which they suffered while serving in India, and he did not think that it would be fair that the India revenue should be charged with extra pay for a gentleman who was amusing himself in London. As to the second Question of the hon. Baronet, the regulations in force in India were the same

  793
  as those which were observed in this country, and he saw no reason for altering them. The result of the change suggested by the hon. Baronet would be to create a double establishment of non-commissioned officers when only one was required for the performance of the duty.

DEFENCES OF CANADA.

  PAPERS MOVED FOR.
  MR. HALIBURTONsaid, he rose to appeal to the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho) to postpone the Motion upon this subject of which he had given notice. A deputation from Canada was at present on its way to this country, and probably one of the objects of its visit was to make some arrangements with reference to this very question.
  LORD ELCHO,in rising to move an Address for Copy of Papers and Extracts of Correspondence relative to the proposed Canadian Defences and the share of the total cost which is to be respectively borne by Canada and the United Kingdom, said, that the very reasons which had been assigned by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Launceston (Mr. Haliburton) for asking him to postpone the Motion were those which had induced him to bring it forward. In doing so, he felt that some apology was necessary for again bringing the subject of the defence of Canada before the House. In what he was about to say he should be careful not to infringe those rules which had been wisely drawn up for the guidance of Members in debate, and would not quote from, or refer to, the speeches which were made in a previous discussion upon this subject, nor should be question the policy of the Vote to which the House came upon that occasion. He then voted in the majority, and he only regretted that the amount granted was not larger; but he then voted, as he believed most of the majority did, under a false impression. His only reason for renewing the debate upon this subject was that since the last discussion circumstances had been made public which indicated the existence on the other side of the Atlantic of a state of things which not only justified but rendered absolutely necessary their reconsideration of this very grave question. From the first he had entertained a very strong opinion with reference to the policy which the Government were pursuing towards Canada; and he could not but think that of the two courses which had been presented to the
  794
  House the true policy of this country was to be found rather in the path which had been marked out by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Calne (Mr. Lowe)—although he was not disposed to go so far as that right hon. Gentleman—than in what he might call the trail of Colonel Jervois which was being followed by Her Majesty's Government. The opinion of the majority of that House had been clearly indicated by its vote, and he should not have again raised the question had it not been for the news which had recently been received from Canada. Without infringing the Rules of the House, he might Ray that the impression under which they voted the money for the fortification of Quebec was that the share which England was to pay and the part which Canada was expected to take in the defence of her own frontier had been definitively settled between the Governments of the two countries. He was, however, now in a position to show that those who voted under that impression voted under a very wrong impression—that so far from anything having been settled, everything was unsettled, that the whole question was the subject of negotiations between the two Governments, and that the deputation alluded to by the hon. Member for Launceston was now on its way to this country in order to endeavour to bring about some arrangement. The first hint of the existence of this difference of opinion between the Imperial Government and that of Canada he obtained immediately after the last division upon this subject. He repeated that it was the general impression of the House when it was asked to vote this money that everything had been settled, and that there was no difference of opinion. Immediately after the division, on his way home, he went into the reading room and happened to take up The Sun, and the first paragraph that caught his eye was a telegram to this effect—
  "Quebec, March 10.
  "The news that £50,000 has been recommended to be voted by the Imperial Parliament for the defences of Quebec has been very ill received here. Mr. J. A. Macdonald stated in the House that there must he a mistake in the figures, and that £500,000 doubtless is intended. Upon the hon. Mr. Moore inquiring of the Government if the fortifications recommended by Colonel Jervois to be built at a cost of £1,343,000 were to be erected, and what proportion of the cost would fall on Canada, Sir E. T. Tache replied that he hoped all necessary fortifications would be built; but as the matter was now the subject of negotiation between the Imperial Government and that of

  795
  Canada, he could not say how much Canada would be expected to pay."
  That clearly pointed out that everything had not been so satisfactorily settled between the two Governments as the House had been led to believe. That telegram had been confirmed by detailed reports which had been received from Canada of what had taken place in the House of Assembly. He found that Mr. Macdonald, referring to what had been reported by telegram as having been said in the House of Lords by Earl De Grey, stated that the figures must have been intended to mean £300,000or£500,000,instead of £30,000 or £50,000, and that negotiations were going on between the Provincial and the Imperial Governments. Now, as he had before observed, it appeared that there was no understanding between the two Governments, and he hoped the House would bear patiently with him while he read a few extracts from the Canadian papers which had an immediate bearing on the question at issue. The extracts which he was about to quote he had taken from the summary of the proceedings of the House of Assembly in the Toronto Weekly Globe, and from that journal he learnt that Mr. Gait, the Finance Minister, in moving a Vote of 1,000,000 dollars for defences, used the following words:—
  "I may state that in the communications which have passed between the Government of Canada and the Imperial Government on the question of defence, the subject of what the colonies and the mother country should each do in this respect has been postponed..… Those points in reference to the general relations which the colonies should bear towards the mother country in the matter of defence have, owing to the anticipated delay (the Confederation) which may arise, assumed an appearance that requires the Government of this province to approach the Imperial Government in order to obtain a decision on this very important subject."
  Then came a passage to the announcement made in which the attention of the House of Commons had not been invited during the discussions on the subject—for it appeared that after all this 1,000,000 dollars was to be raised on English credit. Mr. Gait added—
  "Any expenditure which Canada may feel called upon to assume must be on the understanding that this will be sustained by the Imperial credit.… We have a right to ask that the credit of the country should be sustained by the Empire."
  The House would now, perhaps, like to have some information on the same authority as to the opinion which prevailed in Canada in reference to the extent to
  796
  which she ought to be defended, and the part the mother country was to take in that defence. Mr. Gait said—
  "The Government feel that their responsibility extends much further than this Report of Colonel Jervois comprises. The responsibility rests on the Government of giving protection not to one part of the province or the other, but to every man in this country. It has been asked why no answer has been made to the Report. Answers have been made, and negotiations are going on, and it is because they are still going on that the Government are desirous of proceeding to Eng land to press them to an issue..… The Government take this ground—that the expense should be assumed in part by the Imperial Government, and under an Imperial guarantee. I have no hesitation in saying that difficulties have arisen in obtaining that guarantee, and unless these difficulties are removed the Government are not prepared to say that this million of dollars will be expended on these works."
  An hon. Member (Mr. Dorion) on hearing that statement made seemed to have been as much astonished as he was himself when he had read it and asked—
  "Am I to understand that no part of this money will be expended until the Government meets again? Mr. Gait.—Certainly not."
  But let the House mark what it was that they were called upon to do—
  "The question of defence (said Mr. Gait) is not merely confined to the erection of certain works. That is only one means of defence…The great lakes will have to be defended. The defence of that portion of the country requires that gunboats should be placed on the lakes. Well, the province of Canada is not able, and cannot be expected, to place gunboats on those lakes. But the Empire is. All these points have to be met and considered with the Imperial Government. If for defence this country is to depend upon a petty Vote of £50,000 a year, then it may be better to adopt the words of one who is no longer among us, but who occupies a seat on the Bench, and say that the best armament for this country is no armament at all."
  Now, he confessed that he, for one, was very much disposed to concur in that opinion. The extracts he might add, which he had just read, were taken from the papers of the 17th of March; but another mail had arrived last night, in which the subject was continued, and the authority which he was next about to quote was one he felt sure to which his right hon. Friend the Secretary for the Colonies would not object, for he quoted the same gentleman himself. He found that Mr. Rose—not the gallant Alderman opposite—in speaking of the Vote of 1,000,000 dollars, said—
  "I do not understand this Vote as meaning that we are to expend one million dollars merely as a contribution towards any particular defen-

  797
  sive works, but this—that the Government on going home can say the people of Canada are serious in this matter, and as an earnest of what they are prepared to do for defence they have armed us with authority at once to spend money for this object on condition that a correct understanding be come to with reference to the future entire system of defence, and that all those anterior misunderstandings which have existed between the two countries should be brought to an end. … They (the Imperial Government) should be told even more strongly than Colonel Jervois has told them, that danger is imminent, that the country is utterly defenceless, and that Canadians could not hold it twenty-four hours. They should, above all, be told that in case of war we shall need the whole strength and all the resources, not of Canada only, but of the whole Empire; and that these must be given ungrudgingly, as before; they should be asked at once to take care of the lakes, and to send a flotilla of the small class of gunboats that are now laid up useless at Portsmouth."
  Now, these extracts afforded, he thought, a sufficient justification for his having brought the subject before the House. He was of opinion that every step we took upon so grave a question—the gravest by far which had been brought under the consideration of Parliament in his time—should be taken only with the fullest information which we could procure, and that we should take care by no rash course of proceeding to enter into engagements with Canada which we might find it impossible to fulfil. And it would, perhaps, be well, seeing what was the state of feeling in Canada on the subject, to take into account what it was she had already done and was capable of doing. In a letter which had appeared the day before in The Times newspaper from "A Member of the Canadian Parliament," the writer, in drawing a comparison between the relative resources of Canada and this country for the purposes of military defence, said—
  "Within the last three years the Canadian Parliament has voted nearly 2,000,000 dollars for our defence, and some 20,000 volunteers have enrolled and organized themselves more or less effectively; that is to say, we have done as much relatively to our population and financial resources as you would in England if you had organized 240,000 volunteers and voted £20,000,000 sterling for military purposes."
  He went on to say—
  "The extreme limit to which any one has ventured to go on this side of the Atlantic has been to propose an expenditure of 10,000,000 dollars on the organization of the militia, and even that only on the supposition that the Imperial Government would lend us the money at the lowest rate of interest at which they could obtain it themselves. And this is precisely equivalent on our part to your undertaking to organize 1,200,000 men, and to expend £100,000,000 sterling of money. It is
  798
  by no means improbable that some such proposition may be made before this communication reaches you. Will the people of England permit their Government to lend us the requisite funds?—will they undertake to provide a flotilla, and to build the fortifications deemed necessary, whether they cost £1,000,000 or £2,000,000 sterling?"
  It was, in his opinion, most desirable that we should come to a distinct understanding with Canada as to what England could and could not do in reference to the present question. The course which he thought we should take was to say that so long as Canada stood by England, England would stand by her, but that we were not prepared to attempt to do that which was not possible. We should deal with the question, bearing in mind what could be done, taking into account the resources at our command and also what was politic in regard to Canada herself. Now, the question of what was possible turned so completely on military considerations that he, as a civilian, was not presumptuous or foolish enough to pronounce any opinion of his own on that point. He, therefore, looked to the opinions of military men, and he should, he confessed, be prepared to rest the point on the views to which an hon. and gallant relative of his (Major Anson) had a few evenings before given expression; for, though the hon. and gallant Gentleman did not belong to the scientific branch of the army, he would not, he felt sure, be deemed to be exceeding the bounds of what was right when he said that no man for his age had seen so much service, or had served with greater distinction in all parts of the world. The career of his hon. and gallant Friend begun in the Crimea; he then went to India, and from the first shot fired at Delhi to the last on the frontiers of Nepaul he had been in all the military operations in that country. Again in China he was one of the first to enter the Taku forts; and after his return from the East, he was for a time present with M'Clellan's army (so that he well knew what an American army was), and afterwards visited Canada, with the position of whose frontier he was well acquainted, so that he could speak of its capability for defence from personal knowledge. There were good grounds, then, for placing reliance on his opinion on such a subject as that before the House; but his hon. and gallant Friend, as well as himself, had since he made the speech to which he referred deemed it to be their duty, to collect upon the question the opinions of practical military men, and he

  799
  would state without fear of contradiction that, going beyond the narrow circle of official military authority, for every one such man who would say that it was possible to defend Canada there were ten who maintained that she could not be defended. His hon. and gallant Friend had written for the best practical military opinion in the country, and the substance of the reply he received was that Canada in a military point of view and in the sense pointed out by Colonel Jervois, and adopted by the Government, was utterly and entirely indefensible. But this question of the defence of Canada was not so much a military question as one of common sense. There was an instinct which told every one that such a country as Canada, with a population of 2,500,000 persons and an extended frontier could not be defended by England, which was 4,000 miles distant, against America, furnished with all the munitions and requisites for war, and also with railways capable of transporting at any moment those munitions to the Canadian frontier. Not even with the assistance of England was it possible for Canada to defend herself against America. That appeared to him to be a self-evident proposition and one more of common sense than of military science. What was the opinion of persons on the Continent looking dispassionately at this question? A letter from the Paris correspondent of The Morning Post—a journal said to be in the especial confidence of the noble Lord at the head of the Government—appeared in that newspaper on the 27th of March, and the following was an extract from it:—
  "The discussion which is taking place in the British House of Commons concerning the defence of Canada attracts much interest and suggests a considerable amount of speculation on this side of the water. The conviction here is that Great Britain cannot hold Canada; and to throw up defences is an invitation, some urge, to war. Are these observations worth the consideration of Her Majesty's Government."
  He did not know whether they were worth the consideration of the Government, but he thought that the House of Commons, instead of indulging in buncombe and "tall talk," which deceived nobody—not even themselves—and least of all those whom it was intended to deceive, the Americans, who were masters of that sort of language. Instead of indulging in bombast they should look the question in the face and say what they meant and would do in this matter. After conversing with military men on the subject he found their opinion
  800
  to be that the utmost it was wise or politic for England to do was to defend Quebec and Halifax, especially the latter. In their opinion Halifax ought to be made inpregnable—our Gibraltar in that part. This it was possible for England to do; and it was very evident what England could not do. He did not think England could or should enter into any engagement to furnish by her credit or give herself to an unlimited extent her money for the erection of defences at Montreal, Kingston, and along that line, which he believed would be perfectly useless. He believed that England would not send an army of 30,000 soldiers to man those defences; and England would not and could not compete with America in the construction of gunboats on the Lakes. He had spoken of what he believed to be possible, and he would now say what he thought politic. He thought that in the interests of Canada it was not wise for that country to burden herself with debt to erect fortifications which it would be difficult, if not impossible to defend, and to make that country a hopeless battlefield in the event of a war with America. They had always been taught to consider that the greatest misfortune which could befall a country was to be made the seat of war, and he believed that all that these defences would do would be to bring down in an aggravated form on Canada, in the event of a contest with America, all the horrors which accompanied war. In the interests of Canada, therefore, he asked the Government to re-consider the policy they were disposed to pursue with respect to Canada. His impression was that the wise policy for Canada to pursue would be, instead of building these useless forts and encumbering herself with debt, to endeavour by freedom from debt, and by every attraction which could be held out to settlers, to increase her population, so that the rich wastes in her territory might be occupied. That was a policy which England ought to encourage. Having stated what he believed to be possible and politic with respect to Canada, he would now say a word on the question which had often been raised in the course of these discussions, and that was the point of honour. He denied the right of those who took a different view from himself on this question to assume that they had a monopoly of proper national feeling and pride in respect to it. He believed that the course he suggested was strictly consistent with national honour; and far from deserting

  801
  Canada, he accepted the dictum of the right hon. Secretary for the Colonies that war with Canada was war with England. He did not suggest that England should desert Canada, but this country should pursue the policy which she adopted with respect to Turkey and the Danubian Provinces. What was that policy? The Danubian Provinces lay between a great military Empire and a river, the possession of which that Empire was anxious to obtain for the purpose of its commerce. The provinces were defenceless, and on more than one occasion Russian armies had crossed the Pruth and occupied them. The Russian hordes were swept back again; but was that result produced by war carried on in the Provinces? No, but by a totally different means; by war made upon Russia in a different quarter. It might be said that England had the advantage of attacking a vital point to Russia at Sebastopol, and that a similar vital point was not to be found in America. The basis of all reasoning on this subject rested on our having the supremacy of the sea—for if we had not that supremacy of what use were our fortifications? But if we had the supremacy at Bea we could inflict immense damage on America. That was the only way in which England could deal an effective blow at America. It appeared to him that to make Canada the battlefield in a war with America would be similar to a man engaged in a duel taking up a position so that his eyes faced the sun. He only hoped that in bringing that subject before the House he had not exceeded the legitimate bounds of debate. He believed the facts he had adduced would show that there were some grounds for asking the House to re-consider that question, for it stood, he maintained, in a totally different position from that which they had been led to suppose it occupied. He knew not what the result of these discussions or of the negotiations pending between the Canadian and the Imperial Governments might be, but for his own part he never should regret having raised his voice against a policy, which, if not tested by war, might doubtless prove successful, but which if tested by war would, he firmly believed, prove fatal to this country. He should ever rejoice that, however feebly, he had raised his voice against a policy which might be preparing in Canada the grave either of the honour or the power of England.
  SIR JOHN HAY,in seconding the
  802
  Motion, said, that he had been unable to give his vote on the late occasion when the fortifications for Canada were discussed in that House. He had felt that to oppose the Vote then proposed by the Government might have seemed indicative of that which he would be the last to entertain—namely, a wish to desert Canada should she unfortunately be engaged in hostilities with the United States. On the other hand, he had felt that if he had supported the Motion he should have given his vote in favour of a system of defence which he believed to be indefensible and not calculated to afford that support to those Provinces which it was, he was sure, the desire of all classes in this country to afford them. Having had the advantage of travelling in Canada and serving in those seas, his attention had been in some degree turned to these matters; and having formed some plan in his own mind as to how Canada should be defended in the event of hostilities, he had thought it would not have been dealing fairly with the House to have given a vote in favour of a policy which in his conscience he disapproved. He must bear testimony to his entire concurrence in the views so ably stated by the gallant Member for Lichfield on the previous discussion. Canada had for the greater part of its frontier a series of lakes, two-thirds the size of the Mediterranean. The upper lakes above Niagara were cut off entirely from Lake Ontario and the River St. Lawrence, and Lakes Huron, Michigan, Erie, and Superior, were entirely commanded by the American navy or the mercantile marine which had Chicago for its headquarters. The Western Provinces of Canada were, at present, utterly indefensible, because it would be impossible, even if England were inclined to do so, to place a naval force on these Upper Lakes in good time, by reason of the physical obstructions which would prevent her sending vessels to occupy them. The forces of America, assembling at Chicago, could advance upon Western Canada and landing at Collingwood, in Georgian Bay, could turn all our defences; and it would be impossible either in a naval or military point of view to defend those Western Provinces against any forces which might attack them either from Detroit or from the shore of Lake Erie. The only portion of the frontier which it might be possible to defend was the eastern portion—namely, Mon-

  803
  treal, Quebec, Lake Ontario, and the St. Lawrence; and unless we decided to keep a naval force there—which we could do only by the termination of the treaty limiting the forces on the Lakes—it would be impossible to defend those Lakes or the St. Lawrence by any naval force which we could improvise on the occasion. The Americans could place any force they pleased at Rouse's Point on Lake Champ-lain, which would be impregnable against anything but regular military operations, and they might have an army of 60,000 men encamped and supplied within thirty-five miles of Montreal, and on our only line of communication which existed in winter. That single line of communication was by the railway from Richmond to Montreal, on the south side of the St. Lawrence, and unless it was defended by an enormous military force it would be cut in two by the force which the Americans might have assembled at Rouse's Point. The fortifications of Quebec and of Montreal would be entirely separated from each other, and Quebec again would be isolated from England during five months in the year by the freezing of the St. Lawrence. The true defence for our North Armerican colonies was the fortification of Halifax and the holding of the province of Nova Scotia. There they had a harbour accessible at all times of the year; for during the twenty-six years that the Cunard line had kept up the communication between Halifax and England, there had been only one occasion on which it was necessary to cut the steamer out of the ice, and even then she was not delayed in making her passage. Therefore, for all practical purposes, Halifax was always within ten days communication of England; and no place could be made more impregnable as long as we had the command of the sea. Having Halifax they might throw in forces for the defence of the other provinces. All they required was a communication between Halifax and Quebec. The true defence for Canada, therefore, was to expedite the arrangements for completing what was called the Intercolonial Railway between Halifax and Quebec. Nearly 200 miles of that railway had been made, leaving about 420 to complete, and when it was finished, avoiding as far as possible the American frontier, they would have a line of communication which would be open at all times of the year, and which would enable this country, even should it be the misfortune of Canada to be overrun by American armies, to throw
  804
  upon the flank of the invading force whatever force we might chose to devote to that purpose. That railway would also be supplemented during the open season of the year by water communication with Quebec. But our great line of defence should be by the railway between Halifax and Quebec. They ought not to attempt to fortify Montreal, or seek to make of that mercantile capital a military base of operations. The Intercolonial Railway would also be advantageous for mercantile purposes; for there was no supply of coal in Canada, and the whole of its supplies could be brought with great rapidity and abundance by such a railway from Picton and Cape Breton, during the five months of the year when the St. Lawrence was frozen. He agreed, therefore, with the noble Lord (Lord Elcho) that it was very desirable that the Government should re-consider the mode in which they were about to afford assistance to Canada, should expedite the completion of those communications on which her defence would so greatly depend, and should hesitate to encourage the Canadians to vote large sums of money for the fortification of a great mercantile city, which could not for a moment be held in the face of the forces which might be sent against it. He should, therefore, support the noble Lord in his Motion for these papers.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House, Copy of Papers and Extracts of Correspondence relative to the proposed Canadian De fences and the share of the total cost which is to be respectively borne by Canada and the United Kingdom,"—(Lord Elcho,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words, proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. BUXTONsaid, he found that as a matter of form he could not move the Amendment of which he had given notice. He could entirely confirm what had fallen from the noble Lord as to the opinions of military men out of doors on this matter. Only the other day a military engineer of considerable authority told him that it would be impossible for us to resist an invasion of Canada by the proposed fortifications, la giving notice of his

  805
  Amendment he did not at all mean to imply that in the interval before the whole question could be decided upon by the Canadian people the fortification of Quebec should be suspended—for, if these fortifications were to be made at all, not an hour ought to be lost in beginning them; and if it should afterwards turn out that the Canadians wished the whole scheme to be dropped, why the loss of £50,000 would not matter. Nor yet did he intend to suggest that the tie between Canada and England should be broken. He only wished that Canada, being so vitally interested in this matter, should be taken into council with us, and allowed the opportunity of deliberating on the question, whether it really was for her interest that we should take part in her land defences. Now, of course, it was very possible that Canada might not take that view; but if she should—and he thought he could show good reason for anticipating it—then we should find ourselves set free, without loss of honour, from what everybody felt to be a most unpleasant, if not perilous, predicament. He had not met with any sensible man who did not see that in commencing this great fortification scheme we were plunging into a sea of difficulty and expense to which no limit was visible; and, although the people of this country were perfectly willing to accept what was inevitable, it would be a great relief if a way of escape could be found without any stain being cast upon our honour. Now, two things were clear—first, that if British troops were to be retained in Canada then fortifications must be built for their protection. The fortification scheme was the inevitable corollary of the maintenance in Canada of a British force. The second point was, that it was clear that England could not at the present time renounce her connection with Canada, and that if she did so she would incur the scorn of the whole civilized world. A third alternative had been presented to the House by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Calne (Mr. Lowe)—namely, that without cutting the tie that bound us to Canada we should inform her that for strategic reasons we must withdraw our army from her shores. That suggestion had been supported by arguments of great force but there was one strong objection. The world had become extremely suspicious of strategic movements. It had been observed that somehow they were always movements towards the rear; and this strategic
  806
  movement, however wise in itself, would probably also be misunderstood as being, in fact, the result of fear. But there remained the question, whether the same end might not be attained in a way to which this objection could not apply. If the Canadians for their own advantage and for the purpose of diminishing the danger of their becoming involved in a war with the United States, requested the mother country to withdraw her troops, and therefore let the fortification scheme fall to the ground, this would not cast the slightest taint upon the honour of the mother country, while at the same time we should be saved from the enormous outlay and the enormous risks which our attempt to defend Canada by land must involve. But two questions would naturally suggest themselves. It might be said that the Canadian Government had already given their assent to the proposals of Her Majesty's Government. But this was not even true with regard to the fortification, scheme. The news had lately arrived that Mr. Gait, the Finance Minister of Canada, in asking for a quarter of a million sterling towards the permanent defences of the country, at the same time intimated that Canada would look to being sustained by the Imperial credit in raising funds for her protection, but said that—
  "Difficulties had arisen on that point, and unless those difficulties should be removed he was not prepared to say that this million of dollars would be expended on the proposed works."
  Mr. Gait said—
  "These and other points must be discussed with the Imperial Government, so that Canada may not be thrust into a position which it would only be an idle sacrifice for her to try to endure."
  And, in fact, the broad question had never been submitted to the Canadian Government, whether they would not prefer that we should withdraw our troops and drop the fortification scheme altogether, which was a very different question from the one whether or not, on the assumption that the troops were to remain there, they should be protected. But then came the main question whether it was worth while to submit the whole matter to the decision of the Canadian people; whether there was a sufficient probability that they would decline our aid on land to make it worth while for us to take such a step. Now, at first sight undoubtedly it might seem absurd to suppose that any colony would deprecate the maintenance of a strong body of troops within their borders by the mother country. There,

  807
  were, however, strong reasons for anticipating that if the question were formally submitted to the people of Canada—if it were fully discussed and deliberated upon by them—they might come to the conclusion that the most prudent course would be to decline the plausible, but dangerous aid offered them by the mother country. It was possible, in the first place, that they would not believe in the likelihood of any war with their American neighbours. They had shown what to us seemed a surprising apathy on this point. Our Government and press during the last three years had been doing their utmost to awaken them to a sense of their danger; but it was only after bullying them and pushing them that they could be induced to arouse themselves to even a moment's alarm. A slight and short panic had no doubt seized them last January; but the circumstances had already passed away which led to that transient feeling of alarm, and symptoms were already visible of their relapsing into their former state of confident repose. Now, should that be their feeling—be it or be it not a well-grounded one—in that case it would naturally strike them that if there really were no great risk of war, then it would be folly for them to lavish, in warding off an imaginary danger, that capital which was so urgently needed for the development of their great natural resources—for railways, for canals, for roads, for bridges, for harbours, and a thousand other enterprizes for which a country like Canada would be ripe could the means only be forthcoming. They would feel—they would justly feel—that for a young and growing country to have its savings buried in dykes and melted in guns, when every farthing was so pressingly needed, would be nothing less than a calamity. The increase of taxation would not only weigh down the springs of their commercial energy, but it would discourage immigration, it would tend to keep away from their shores that population who otherwise might seek a home in their boundless, fertile plains. But it might be said, what would be an outlay of a million and a half of money to a country with such prospects? Now, could any rational being suppose that if Canada were really to be put into a thorough state of self-defence against, perhaps, the greatest military and naval Power in the world, this could be done by an outlay of a million and a half? In fact, that was the bare estimate of the first outlay on the fortifications alone. Then they
  808
  would have to arm them with costly ordnance, to maintain a large army to man them, there must be barracks and bomb-proofs, besides va9t preparations for warfare on the lakes as well, including especially an enlargement of the Rideaux Canal. It was impossible not to perceive that the outlay of this sum upon fortifications involved the expenditure of at least another million and a half in general military appliances. The Canadians would surely shrink exceedingly from their share of this outlay, unless they were under strong and serious apprehension of the approach of war. But let them take the other supposition—let it be granted that they would regard it as probable that war might arise between England and the United States. Perhaps they would take this view; in fact, though he himself was persuaded that there was no valid ground for panic, it would be reasonable to regard it, not, indeed, as probable, but yet as more than possible, that such a war might arise; for, whatever theoretical arguments might seem to prove that the Americans would never fly to arms if they could possibly avoid it, actual experience had shown, and that not once, but on three mighty occasions, with what fiery impetuosity that proud and gallant people would fly to arms, with a reckless disregard of the calamities that might befall them. Ninety years ago they plunged into the War of Independence. Fifty years ago they plunged into a second war with this country when she was in the pride of her power, and they actually had only four frigates and six sloops of war. Again, within the last five years we had seen how eagerly they rushed into a tremendous civil contest, from which, in the opinion of most bystanders, it would have been honourable as well as prudent to abstain. Remembering all this, the Canadians might, perhaps, contemplate the contingency of a war between England and the Federal States. But even in that case it would not follow that they should think it desirable that a detachment of the British army should be quartered within their borders. On the contrary, the Canadians might reasonably conceive that the presence of some 10,000, or even 20,000 British troops in Canada, so far from securing her from attack, would inevitably act as the most powerful inducement that could possibly be held out to the enemy to pour his armies into that province, in hopes of inflicting disaster and disgrace upon England at the one vulner-

  809
  able point so luckily presented to them. They all knew well what a vain, proud, self-confident people our American brethren are. In all likelihood the result of the dreadful war in which they were now engaged would be such as to leave them in a state of the highest elation, fully believing, and not without some reason, that their country had become the mightiest military and naval Power in the world. The Canadians would surely feel that to the Americans thus inflamed and exultant not a shadow of doubt would suggest itself that if they poured into Canada with, perhaps, 200,000 or 300,000 men and an unparalleled artillery they would sweep all before them, and that the little British army would fall into their hands as a glorious prize. The Americans would assuredly be fired by what would seem to them the sure and certain prospect of such a triumph. Surely it stood to common sense that a little British army stationed there, 3,000 miles away from its base, would seem a glittering bait to American ambition. So far from terrifying their powerful neighbours, this mere handful of men would rouse all their energies, would kindle their courage, would fill them—
  "With that stern joy that warriors feel
  "In foemen worthy of their steel."
  In fact, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Staffordshire (Mr. Adderley) said the other day, our keeping these troops in Canada was like waving a red flag in the face of an enraged bull. The right hon. Gentleman concluded thence that we ought to protect them by fortificacations; and he (Mr. Buxton) cordially agreed that if the troops were to be retained there, then the fortification scheme was inevitable; but could the Canadians or any one else suppose that the Americans would be restrained by a few forts on Point Levi or elsewhere from making an ugly rush at the red flag thus waved before them? On the contrary, they would probably consider that the fortifications would also fall into their hands, and thus only add to the splendour of their success. They had shown again and again in the course of the present civil war how little they would shrink from the most lavish expenditure of life in assailing fortifications, and how little fortifications would withstand them. The Canadians, then, might very likely come to the conclusion that the presence of our troops would inevitably cause their provinces to become the theatre
  810
  of war, should hostilities break out—and this, too, a war which might last for years and years, and fill their now happy country with ravage and ruin. He believed the Canadians would feel all this very strongly. But then the question naturally suggested itself whether, even if we had no troops or forts to tempt attack, still the Americans would not invade Canada in order to annex that country to their own. Now, he felt sure that those who were most intimate with the feelings of the Americans would tell them that it was no longer any part of their policy to annex Canada by violence. Some years ago they were eager to induce those Provinces to join them; but he did not believe that they had any ambition to subjugate the Canadians and to compel them into union by force of arms. The war they were now waging was no precedent that way. It was not waged for the conquest of a foreign land, but for the maintenance of the unity of their own country. Surely, too, the work they would have for many and many years in keeping on the shoulders of the South a yoke forced upon them at the point of the sword would render it absolutely impossible for them to attempt at the same time to seize and hold a vast country containing 3,000,000 or 4,000,000 inhabitants, who would regard their dominion with ineffable hatred. But suppose for a moment that they should resolve on such an outrageous and preposterous enterprize as that of the conquest of Canada—in such a case would this fortification scheme be of the least shadow of avail to stop them? Why, of course, as the hon. Member for Launceston (Mr. Haliburton) said the other day, their main object would not be to seize the rugged and comparatively valueless province of Lower Canada; their aim would be to seize the fertile and prosperous plains of Upper Canada, to annex the territory adjoining their own along the line of the Lakes. Our defences of Quebec and of Montreal, therefore, would have no effect in resisting such an enterprize as that. No one proposed that Kingston and Toronto should be defended by our troops, but only by the Canadian militia. Would any one venture in that House to say that if the Americans concentrated an army of, perhaps, 200,000 or 300,000 men at the western corner of Lake Ontario and invested Toronto by land, while innumerable gunboats, brought in pieces by the railways, assailed it from the water, that town could possibly hold out against them?

  811
  Would not the same fate inevitably befall Kingston? Would not our having induced or rather compelled the Canadians to fortify those towns simply be an attraction to the Americans to attack them, and be a help to the Americans in afterwards holding them, should we endeavour afterwards to drive them out? This supposed attempt at annexation would not be delayed even for a week by our having persuaded the Canadians to fortify their principal towns. Considering all these points, his conviction was that if the question were deliberately submitted to the Canadians, whether they wished to retain our troops among them with the inevitable corollary of the fortification scheme, they would probably come to the conclusion that it would only aggravate their danger and tend to involve their country in all the horrors of war. He thought they would probably hold that we could far more effectually aid them by a direct assault upon the enemy, and especially by aiding an uprising of the South. At any rate, it seemed to him that the Canadians had a right to be consulted, and to let their voice be decisive on this question. They were not children to be dandled and done for by the mother country; they ought to be allowed to deliberate and decide for themselves; and if their conclusion should be the one which he anticipated, he was sure that in that case every sensible man would think that we might heartily congratulate ourselves on having got, with perfect honour, out of a very embarrassing position.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, that half a century's military experience had given him Borne ideas on military matters, though they might not be worth much. He had asked himself three questions on this subject of the defences of Canada. The first question was whether it was possible to defend a country like Canada, which was larger than Europe, and possessed a frontier of 1,500 miles, had an overwhelmingly powerful neighbour, and was far distant from this country. The second question was, whether it was politic to defend Canada. And the third, whether we should be justified, so far as the interests of the great mass of the people of this country were concerned, in involving them and their children in prospective responsibilities, which must greatly enhance the burdens this country has to bear. With regard to the first question, there was no doubt in his mind
  812
  that the country which had not within itself a sufficient military force to meet an enemy who would enter it at any point along a line of 1,500 miles, could not be successfully defended. Was it possible that Canada, with every assistance we could render her, could raise a force to withstand 100,000 men, which would be the smallest number that America would send over the frontier? Could the Canadians keep the field against such a force? Certainly not. Then they would have to fall back upon those fortifications named in the Report from Colonel Jervois. All experience and military history taught us that if a country could not keep the open field against an enemy it could not hold its own in a fortress. Engineers informed us that a fortress could be reduced, with a garrison inferior to the besiegers, within a certain number, not of months, but of weeks even. Was it rational, therefore, with the prospects which we had before us of the military aid which Canada could give, to attempt to defend that country? Was it politic to pretend to defend it by laying out £50,000, for fortifications? That sum would do very little for providing adequate fortresses, even were £150,000 added to it next year. Was it creditable that we should expose our troops in such a position as they would be placed in should a war break out? They would inevitably be shut up in a fortress and be obliged finally to retire down the St. Lawrence and return to England. Then, in respect to the second question, admitting that we could not defend Canada, was it politic to show the Americans that we distrusted them by offering menaces such as had been used in the debate? He believed there could be no wisdom in such a course of proceeding. As to the third question, what would the consequences, in a financial point of view, be of a war with America in the defence of Canada? Colonel Jervois, in his Report, stated—
  "That efficient communication should be established with the western districts; that the country between Lake St. Louis and Lake Ontario should he protected by naval in combination with military means that a naval depot should be provided at Kingston, which place should be fortified so as to form a secure harbour for gunboats on Lake Ontario. With the naval command of that lake troops acting for the defence of the western peninsular of Canada might, if overpowered, fall back upon its shore at Toronto, where, if proper works were constructed, they might act in conjunction with the naval force for the defence of that position, either until reinforcements arrived from other

  813
  parts of the country, or until the winter season obliged the enemy to retire."
  The whole programme resolved itself into a succession of "ifs,"—a mere myth. As to the question of costs, Colonel Jervois said—
  "I regard the works for the defence of Montreal and Quebec as being of the most pressing importance. I estimate the cost of those for Quebec at £200,000; those for Montreal at £443,000; and that the armaments for the works at those places will cost about £100,000. The works of fortification recommended at Kingston, Toronto, and Hamilton will cost about £500,000, and the armaments for those places about £100,000."
  But this outlay would only initiate the great scheme, and it must be admitted that there would not be afforded by the plan proposed anything like a sufficient defence of the country. Why, then, spend the money and run the risk of being beaten and degraded in the eyes of the world? Why not retire from Canada while we could do so with honour? As long as we had fortifications in Canada and kept adding to them and maintained troops there, the Canadians as well as ourselves would be constantly apprehending imminent war with America. If we withdrew our troops and reposed confidence in the American people and in the Government of the United States, there was not much probability in the present and prospective condition of the Federals that they would desire to acquire Canada. We can now retire with honour, and leave the Canadian people to make their own arrangements. Supposing we undertook the defence of Canada, which it has been said we were bound to do, the financial condition of that country was such that she could give us very little assistance. Those gentlemen who read The Times newspaper would learn that Canada had no less than five loans open in England, three at 6 per cent, and two at 5 per cent, the stock of every one of which was at a discount, the 5 per cents as low as 82 to 84. Canada was obliged to levy a heavy tariff against England on account of the depression in her finances, not in a hostile spirit, but really from want of money. What, then, was the likelihood of Canada being able to raise and pay a force commensurate with the necessities of a war with America, and what would be our responsibilities if we undertook her defence? England had prospective responsibilities enough for her public works, which must necessarily operate against the Chancellor of the Exchequer's freedom of action for many years to
  814
  come in the arrangement of his Budgets. No fewer than seventy-two fortifications and batteries were now in progress in various parts of this country, and there was a large prospective liability in respect of them. According to the hon. Member for Finsbury (Sir Morton Peto)the armaments of these forts alone would cost something like £14,000,000. Then, on looking into the Army Estimates of this year he found large prospective demands, which would stand over after these Estimates were voted, in respect of works at Dover, Alderney, Chatham, Aldershot and Colchester, defences of Bermuda and Nova Scotia, commercial harbour defences, and other similar purposes. Taking the cost of these works and making a moderate estimate for the outlay upon the proposed defences in Canada and at home, he believed that the total amount of these prospective demands, which hung like a millstone round the neck of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, was about £29,812,201. He asked the House whether they would deliberately continue to involve the taxpayers of this country by augmenting these heavy responsibilities? His advice would be to withdraw our troops from Canada, to keep on good terms with her, and, if possible, with the United States and if America resolved to attack Canada and we resolved to defend her, he agreed with those who thought that we could only do so effectually by operating with our navy on the American coast.
  MR. ADDERLEYsaid, that when he listened to the speech of the noble Lord who made this Motion (Lord Elcho) he had been under the impression that the noble Lord was asking the House to re-consider its Vote on this subject the other day upon the ground that the Canadians were not so ready as we had supposed them to be to take part in defending their own country. He understood, however, that this was a wrong impression and that the noble Lord did not wish the House to re-consider this Vote, and desired we should proceed at once with the fortifications at Quebec, but was of opinion that we should not encourage the Canadians to take the further steps we were then anticipating they would take for their own defence. Now, if this were the noble Lord's view, it was surely an inconsistent and an indefensible one; because if we were not to encourage the Canadians to contribute to their own defence, cui bono the fortifying of Quebec? The only reason why we

  815
  should undertake to fortify this city was to enable the Canadians to elaborate their own defences. The noble Lord said that this defence would be impossible, and that, if possible, it would be impolitic. But a contrary opinion had been mantained by eminent military authorities, and he believed that no country in the world was indefensible if the people were free and were determined to preserve their independence. He saw nothing in the position of Canada to distinguish it from other countries, and there was nothing absurd in the proposition of Colonel Jervois that the Canadians should be encouraged to make strongholds along their frontier which they might themselves garrison. Neither was it absurd to suppose that such strongholds might be garrisoned by Volunteers. We expected that in case of invasion the fortifications lately made around Portsmouth and Plymouth would be held by Volunteer forces; and it was not unreasonable to expect, in the same way, that the Canadian Volunteers would, if attacked, be able similarly to hold the fortifications now proposed. But the noble Lord thought it would be better if they allowed Canada to be overrun, citing, as an analogous case, the Danubian Provinces, the safety of which was maintained not by fortifications but by dependence on the intervention, on occasion arising, of an exterior force. But who was to supply the exterior force in case Canada were attacked? [Lord ELCHO: England.] England? But he thought that part of the argument of the noble Lord was that it was not the interest of England to defend Canada. The two opinions seemed to be inconsistent. If it were the interest of England to defend Canada, then one part of the argument failed; and if it were not the interest of England, then the other part of the argument fell to the ground. He thought himself that it was the interest of England to maintain the North American Provinces as an independent Power. England was a great maritime nation, and in that quarter of the world would gain a great accession of strength by an alliance with the maritime Provinces of North America, which we ought not to allow to accrue to the United States. The reason why the North American Provinces were at present a weakness to England was that they had been prevented from properly developing their own resources. But if the whole strength of Canada
  816
  was drawn out and organized, instead of being an embarrassment and a source of weakness and anxiety at such a moment as this, she would add tenfold to the strength of this country. If the noble Lord had not made out that it was either impossible or impolitic that Canada should develop her own means of self-defence, then the sooner she was both encouraged and enabled to do so the better. But how was that to be done? No one had made any other proposition—even the noble Lord himself had not done so—than that England should assist her. If Canada was to raise militia and Volunteers, how was she to do it? Simply by the aid of the veteran troops of England. [Lord ELCHO: Hear, hear!] So far the noble Lord went with him, English troops must be kept at present in Canada to teach the Canadians; and if that were so, they must have fortifications for them, in case of need, to fall back upon;—and what fortifications should they be? [Lord ELCHO: Quebec.] Well, then, they were both agreed that Quebec must be fortified. But the noble Lord had said that from what he had read in the papers there appeared to be some doubt whether the Canadians were really in earnest in taking steps to defend their frontier. But if the noble Lord drew one inference from that circumstance he (Mr. Adderley) drew another. He allowed there was some uncertainty about the matter, and he was sorry for it, as delay at that time might be very disastrous. But what was the reason for that uncertainty? It was simply this, that the great question of Federation was still undecided. The two Canadas were perfectly prepared for Confederation, but the maritime provinces were not, and until they were, the question of Confederation and of united measures for defence could not be fully determined. In New Brunswick the general election had resulted in the defeat of several of the most prominent advocates of union, but not by large majorities. In Nova Scotia the supporters of union seemed to be paralyzed by the effects of the election in New Brunswick. In Prince Edward's Island the local influence had been always opposed to the union; but it was to be hoped that the opposition might be overcome. In Newfoundland the proposal had been postponed. In New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, however, which were the most important, and which guided the rest, there was a strong and active party in favour of Confedera-

  817
  tion. It might be hoped, therefore, that all opposition to the scheme would soon be removed. He had not the slightest doubt that what made New Brunswick and Nova Scotia hang back was partly because they thought, that by Confederation, they would be swamped by the greater Provinces of Canada, but still more because they could not make up their minds to give up the good things which they were accustomed to get from England, and they feared that they would be thrown more upon their own resources. But he begged to tell them—and in doing so he knew he expressed the fellings of the House—that these Provinces were very much mistaken if they thought that by holding back from Confederation they would continue to receive from England the same support in men and supplies as before. He would tell them plainly that there never would be a Minister in this country strong enough to induce the House of Commons, after an opportunity of independence had been offered, to vote supplies for their special purposes, and the sooner they gave up any such idea the better. He was convinced that the time was at hand when the proposed federation would be accomplished, and that then the defence of Canada, by the Confederated Provinces, would soon be undertaken. He could not at all agree with his noble Friend that the House of Commons should attempt to check the Canadians in their present efforts at defence. On the contrary, they should be encouraged and aided. If the delegates now on their way to England should ask for an Imperial guarantee to raise the sum of money that would be required for their fortifications, he for one would be ready to vote for it. The Government might not be prepared at present to express an opinion upon that point; but so strongly was he convinced that it was the duty of this country to encourage and assist the Canadians in self-reliant efforts that he had no hesitation in saying even beforehand that he should be ready, if the Government were to make such a proposal, to support them in giving the guarantee requisite to enable the Canadians to raise a loan on easier terms for the cost of their own defences, and which he did not believe would involve this country in any serious risk. In conclusion, he deprecated any debates in that House which should lead to remarks in France or other countries that England considered Canada indefensible. He believed it was the opinion of that House that Canada was
  818
  perfectly capable of defence, and therefore, so far from reconsidering their previous decision upon the subject, he held that the Canadians should be encouraged without hesitation or delay, and assisted by Her Majesty's Government to do everything in their power to defend themselves.
  MR. CARDWELL: Sir, I am going to offer only a very few observations, as I am under the impression that it is not the wish of the House that the debate should be much longer continued—indeed, after the able speech just addressed to us by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Adderley) there is not much to be said upon the question raised by the noble Lord. My noble Friend (Lord Elcho) has entirely disclaimed the wish that we should recede from the decision to which we came in the former debate upon this subject, and I think that the gallant Gentleman opposite (Sir John Hay) also told us that in his opinion Quebec ought to be fortified. But my noble Friend says that on the former occasion he voted under a different impression from that which recent intelligence is calculated to make. But if my noble Friend is satisfied that Quebec should be defended, and does not wish that we should reverse our former decision, what does it signify under what impression he gave his vote on the occasion referred to? It is a settled point, then, that Quebec should be fortified—that, at all events, is undisputed; and when my noble Friend says that he gave his vote the other night under the impression that arrangements had been made with the Canadian Government for the defence of the frontier, I must be permitted to say that neither my noble Friend who moved the Vote (the Marquess of Hartington) nor myself said anything to create that misapprehension, and the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Bentinck) who moved the rejection of the Vote commented upon the fact that no such statement had been made on the part of Her Majesty's Government. My noble Friend, however, brings forward this Motion on account of intelligence which has reached us since the last discussion. But I should have thought if there was anything which made it demonstrably unfit to bring forward this Motion, it was that intelligence. Why, what is the intelligence? Is it that the Canadian Government have prorogued their Parliament, and have deputed four Members to come over here in order to confer with Her Majesty's Government on this matter. But does my noble Friend suppose that we are going to

  819
  produce papers in an imperfect state—that we are going to anticipate what these gentlemen may say, or by a statement rashly made to prejudge the question at issue? Manifestly not. These gentlemen have already left their own shores and are now on their way to hold discussion with the Government of this country; and when that is the case it would be a great mistake for us to anticipate the proposals which they may have to make. My noble Friend has read extracts from the debates which have taken place in the Canadian Chambers of Legislation. I believe it would be possible to extract passages which might create an impression which would not be altogether satisfactory; but, then, it would be most unjust to these gentlemen to say that the general spirit in which this subject has been discussed in the Canadian Chambers has not been eminently creditable both to them and us. [Lord ELCHO: Hear, hear!] I am glad my noble Friend cheers that remark. Well, if such be their spirit—if there be but one feeling among them of loyalty to the British Crown, of attachment to British connection, and but one earnest and evident desire to secure the defence of their country, why should those doubts be now thrown upon their disposition at this moment? I shall not quote extracts from the Canadian debates, but I think it only just to Mr. Gait that I should read to the House the concluding passage of his speech. After having alluded to the feeling of the people of this country, to what we should require from the Canadians, and to the spirit which we should expect to be shown, he goes on to say—
  "I trust the taking of this Vote—I speak of the million of dollars on account for defence—will show to the people of England that now, when the danger is before us, we are ready to bear our share of it; that we clothe our Government with power to ask then to unite their resources with our resources, and with these means, united in the defence of this country, I am perfectly certain that we can resist any attack that can be made upon us, from whatever quarter it may come."
  Weir, Sir, that is the spirit in which the Canadian Minister addresses the Assembly. I sincerely trust that when he lands upon these shores that spirit shall not be damped by finding that this House has concluded the question in another sense, that we have determined that it is no use for them to have exerted themselves, to have drawn upon their resources, to have exhibited a loyal spirit to the Crown, or devoted attachment to British connection—no use to hare increased their taxation,
  820
  to have called out their Volunteers, to have exercised their militia, because we, in our superior wisdom, have determined that it would be impossible to defend Canada, and impolitic to do so if it were possible. I trust that the spirit to be found here will correspond with that which they have exhibited, and that, after we have been engaged for years in calling out the energies of the Canadian people, we shall not turn round on them at last and desire to recall the proposals which we have made. I trust we shall take no such retrograde step as that. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Adderley) said that Canada could be defended, but that the defence could be undertaken by its own people. As I stated the other evening, there is no doubt that the primary defence of Canada consists in the knowledge on the part of every foreign country that war with Canada implies also war with England; but the second defence of Canada is to be found in the spirit and energy of its own people. To evoke that spirit and energy has been the aim of Her Majesty's Government, and that it has been evoked in a manner heretofore seldom witnessed I certainly believe. I perceive in their discussions a desire not merely of defending themselves, but of increasing their power to a point which will render them a valuable adjunct to the whole Empire if any danger threaten it; and I trust that the day is not far distant when, in spite of momentary discouragements, the great scheme of federation shall be carried into effect, and when a country, greater than many of the countries of Europe, shall be established in British North America—a country not destined to be great and powerful for its own defence and security alone, but for the support of Great Britain in those times of adversity when the alliance of so great a State will be of infinite advantage to her. Believing, then, that this is the spirit in which these gentlemen are coming to this country, I submit to this House that it is undesirable to continue a discussion which must have the effect of casting doubt upon the intentions of the Canadian people. I think we ought rather to adhere to the policy determined upon by a large majority of this House, and welcome those gentlemen on their arrival in the spirit in which they left their own country.
  MR. KINGLAKEsaid, that he should follow the suggestion thrown out by his right hon. Friend the Secretary for the Colonies, and carefully abstain from cast-

  821
  ing any doubt upon the possibility of defending Canada. He was one of those who voted the other evening with the majority in favour of the Vote for the defence of Canada, and the intelligence afforded to the House that evening by his right hon. Friend was not such as to cause him to desire to retract the Vote he had given; for when the question was one affecting the solemn duty of defending a part of the Queen's dominions there ought to be no faltering, or semblance of faltering, on the part of either the Parliament or the country. He could not, however, agree with the arguments employed by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Adderley) when he endeavoured to deal with the propositions of his noble Friend (Lord Elcho). The right hon. Gentleman asked which would be the country that would come forward to defend Canada in time of need? And his noble Friend answered "England." The whole spirit and meaning of his noble Friend's remarks were, not that he more than any other Member of the House would acquiesce in the invasion of Canada, but that this country should in such an emergency make choice of her own theatre of war, whether in Canada or another part of the globe. He believed that they would all agree that in case of our troops being exposed to a conflict with a vast superiority of forces there was no necessity for any wild sacrifice, and that our troops should therefore if necessary be withdrawn. But at this point he differed from his noble Friend, and also from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Calne (Mr. Lowe), because his opinion was that if we were driven to that painful necessity, the duty of withdrawing our troops was a military duty, and not one to be undertaken beforehand by the State—it was not a duty to be undertaken prematurely upon the suggestion of an imaginary war with another country—a war which had not yet commenced, and with a country which as yet had not even quarrelled with us. But as one who voted with the majority on a previous evening, he must say that, rightly or wrongly, he and others around him had recorded their votes under the impression that Her Majesty's Government had already arrived at an understanding: with the Canadian Government. He did not now, as it were, ask to retract that Vote, because they found only too clearly that that impression was unfounded. He only stated it as a fact. They knew that negotiations had been going on
  822
  for years, that negotiations were still going on, and that these negotiations were of such a character as absolutely to force upon us the considerations of what were to be our relations with Canada, in case of the lamentable contingency of a war with the United States. When a State had determined the limits of the duties it was to perform, he imagined that there was no better test for measuring the extent of those duties than the endeavour to ascertain the correlative power possessed by that State—because, in such a case as this, duty and power were inseparable. Now, it appeared to him the negotiations which had been going on between Canada and the parent State would show that we had not the power—not the unlimited power—of dealing with the resources of Canada which was implied in the argument that it was the obvious and unquestionable duty of every State to defend itself. If the Isle of Wight were invaded it would be competent upon the State and Legislature to deal as it might think fit with every man on that island, to employ its resources as might be deemed proper, and to make use of every acre of its land that might be thought necessary for its defence. But could we deal with Canada in that manner? If he understood the question aright, since the concession to that country of a responsible Government of its own, we were with regard to Canada exactly in the same position as we should be with regard to any foreign and minor Power which we were desirous of protecting. The negotiations which had been carried on appeared to partake exactly of that character. It was very true that these negotiations were conducted by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies instead of by the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Office, but in the end it amounted to the same thing, and the question ought, therefore, to be treated upon the same footing. Now, if we were dealing with a foreign and minor State apprehensive of invasion from a great Power, one of the things we should most carefully abstain from would be advising the lesser State with regard to undertaking hostilities, which we might not be certain of conducting to a triumphant issue:—because no lesson of modern times had been more strongly impressed upon us than that responsibility, and that, too, of the most tremendous kind, must result from our giving advice to a minor Power. When a nation had

  823
  done that she always felt herself hound in honour to make good the promises which, at all events, were implied in the advice which she had given. It appeared to him that for the purposes of this war, if such were to arise, it was of all things necessary that the understanding between the Imperial Government and the Government of Canada should be perfect. He could not but think, therefore, that the suggestions of his hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. Buxton) were of great value. His hon. Friend would endeavour to elicit from the Canadian people some explicit declaration of their desire to have Canada defended in Canada, without regard to the consequences which they knew must result from such a war. He did not think, however, that a mere declaration on the part of the Canadian people would suffice for such a purpose, and the necessary test for proving that the Canadians were in earnest in this matter would be their willingness to resign—of course, for a time only, and for the purpose of providing against an apprehended war—the power which we on our part had willingly conceded to them. He did not suppose that there was any Member in the House, or any man in the country, who desired to revoke the concessions which we had made to the colonies; but it was of the utmost importance that two countries acting together for the purposes of war should act together as one and the same country; and unless such a state of things existed between this country and Canada he should despair of our conducting a war to anything like a successful issue. In the suggestions of his right hon. Friend the Member for Calne there were but two things objectionable. He did not at all believe that the policy shadowed forth by his right hon. Friend was at all less resolute than that suggested by any other Member of the House—indeed, he should be disposed to regard the policy advocated by his right hon. Friend and by the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho) as more formidable in the eyes of an enemy than the plan of defending Canada by a war upon the spot. He believed it would be a mistake unnecessarily to limit the theatre of war in the way suggested by his right hon. Friend the Member for Calne. If his view were acceded to, they would without any necessity be giving to the supposed enemy the advantage of knowing in what part of the world no resistance would be made. At the same time, he argued that the sug-
  824
  gestions of the noble Lord and of the right hon. Gentleman had been of the greatest value, as they very much tended to guard against the very error which was most likely to be committed. There could be no greater error at the beginning of a war than unnecessary seeking a theatre of war in the ground upon which the quarrel had arisen. It was one of the common mistakes of belligerents to confound the cause of quarrel with the business of the war, while, in point of fact, they were quite distinct things. The moment that a cause of quarrel had ripened into actual war, which it would do if Canada were invaded, then the one thing a belligerent had to think of was how best to conduct the war. He thought that some injustice had been done to Colonel Jervois, not by laying his Report before the House, but by using it as an argument for the defence of Canada in Canada. The question put to Colonel Jervois had been how best to defend Canada. If that gallant officer had been asked what, in the event of war between England and the United States, would be the best policy for England, his Report would perhaps have contained different matter, and would have led to a very different conclusion. His (Mr. Kinglake's) opinion was that we should do all we could to raise such fortifications as would secure the British troops in Canada, but that we should disentangle ourselves as much as possible from any arrangement with Canada until we knew that Canada would, in the event of war, place the parent State in full control over her resources. Without such arrangement the position of Canada towards England would be rather that of an independent State than that of an independent colony.
  MR. J. B. SMITHsaid: I believe every Gentleman who has yet spoken this evening voted for the fortifications; I voted against them, and am desirous of shortly stating my reasons for so doing. The right hon. the Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Cardwell) deprecates further discussion on this question, but I think the noble Lord (Lord Elcho) has rendered a public service by bringing the subject again under the notice of the House. We have committed so many blunders in our policy towards Canada that we ought to be particularly cautious to escape errors for the future. Some thirty years ago the people of Canada were dissatisfied with being governed by a colonial Minister sitting in London, and prayed for the right

  825
  to govern themselves. This prayer was denied, and a rebellion broke out in that country, which was only put down at the cost of several millions of money. No sooner, however, was the rebellion quelled, than we granted all that Canada asked for. Now if it were just to grant the Canadians self-government at all, was it not a gross blunder not to have granted it before they were driven into rebellion, and thus have saved the expenditure of millions of treasure and the loss of precious lives? But our blunders did not end here. When we granted to the people of Canada the right of self-government we also gave them all the public lands and all the public revenues, but we neglected to provide that Canada should do what is done by every free country in the world—namely, make the national defence the first charge on the national revenues. Notwithstanding, however, that we gave up to Canada the legitimate sources from which such expenditures should be derived, we have continued, to the present time, to provide her with military and naval armaments without any charge to her; and, moreover, we took upon ourselves to pay the charges of her ecclesiastical establishments and the expenses of the Indian Department. Hon. Members will see among the Estimates delivered yesterday a Vote to be proposed for the ecclesiastical establishments and the expenses of the Indian Departments in Canada. The course we have pursued in not requiring Canada to bear the expenses of her own military establishments is a gross injustice committed on the people of England, because it has forced us not only to pay our own taxes but also the taxes of Canada. Now the working classes of Canada are as well, if not better able than the same classes here to pay taxes, and it is on their labour that the chief taxation falls. But have we benefited the people of Canada by this course? No; on the contrary we have inflicted a serious injury upon them by destroying their self-reliance, which is the distinguishing characteristic of the English race; we have demoralized them, and created among them a pauper spirit, just as a parish is demoralized by giving parish relief to able-bodied labourers. Only the other day we called upon Canada to provide militia to guard their frontiers against American raiders; but it was not until they were dragooned into the duty by the threat of the United States to enter their territory, and by the withdrawal of our
  826
  troops from the frontier and the threat of withdrawing them from the country altogether, that they raised the necessary force to prevent confederate raids upon our allies—the United States. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Staffordshire (Mr. Adderley) has this evening given us another evidence of the demoralization of our North American Provinces. A plan has been proposed for forming the whole of these provinces into one Confederate Government. Some of the provinces, however, object to this union; and what does the right hon. Gentleman assign as the reason? He says—
  "He has not the slightest doubt that what made New Brunswick and Nova Scotia hang back from the union was partly because they would be swamped by the greater provinces of Canada, but still more because they could not make up their minds to give up the good things which they were accustomed to get from England, and they feared they would be thrown on their own resources."
  Why should they not be thrown on their own resources? They are able-bodied labourers, and would be all the better by the withdrawal of parish relief. Why do we make all these sacrifices to Canada, seeing that they are equally injurious to us and to them? It is surprising to find the amount of ignorance which exists in this country on the subject. Some think we should make sacrifices in consideration of the value of our trade with Canada; but the fact is, we derive no benefit whatever from our trade with her more than we should if she ceased to be a colony. In the first place Canada, in return for our liberality to her, imposes higher rates of duties on our manufactures than France does. Second, as she is permitted to buy what she wants wherever she pleases, she only buys of us because ours is the cheapest market. Third, our trade with Canada, instead of being important, is insignificant. The return of our total exports of manufactures to all countries for the year 1863 shows the amount to have been £146,487,368, of which our exports to Canada amounted to only £2,938,201, or just 2 per cent of our whole exports—an amount which, if it were to cease altogether, would scarcely be felt. Our military and naval expenditure on account of Canada during the last four years cannot have been much less than £2,000,000 per annum. Surely it must be admitted that the fewer we have of such customers the better. Having committed such mistakes in past times it behoves us to exercise more than usual caution in our future

  827
  Canadian policy. What are we going to do now? To build forts to provide against an enemy. What enemy, the enemy of Canada? Then Canada is best able to judge and decide what defences are necessary, and she it is who ought to defend herself against her own enemies. But is it the enemy of England that you are going to provide against? Some enemy that will attack England through Canada? There can be no enemy that will attack England through Canada but the United States. I am not one of those who think we are likely to go to war with that country; at the same time we ought not to disregard such a contingency. Now, if, unhappily, we should quarrel with the United States, is Canada, I ask, the battleground that any sane man would choose? It is necessary for England, as well as every other country, to change its policy from time to time with the altered state of things. Let us not shut our eyes to the great fact which has just dawned upon the world. Four years ago the army of the United States was less than 20,000 men, and her navy was composed of a few frigates. Now she is become one of the greatest military and naval powers in the world. Some gentlemen talked of our ability to defend Canada, and as a proof of it have referred to the gallant defence of that country made with 2,000 or 3,000 men some fifty years ago; but do not let us disguise from ourselves that old things have passed away—everything is become new. Have those who talk of fifty years ago been asleep during the past four years? The noble Lord the Member for Stamford (Lord Robert Cecil), however, appears awake to the new state of things. He observed in this House that no one could doubt the fact that America could send 300,000 men to the frontiers of Canada; he might have added that she can bring a force of ironclad steam-rams and gunboats, such as no other country can furnish, to bear upon the coasts and rivers of Canada. Besides, America would have this advantage over us—her base of operations would be the frontiers of Canada, while ours would be 3,000 to 4,000 miles distant. Look at the Crimean war. What an effort was made to send 30,000 men there. How many should we want for Canada? Does any thoughtful man believe we can cope with the greatest military power in the world on its own ground, with men of our own race, too, from abase of operations 3,000 miles off?
  828
  I do not believe that if we were to double our national debt in such an attempt we could prevent America from taking possession of Canada in case of war. Why, then, court humiliation and defeat by erecting fortifications which we should have to defend with such enormous odds against us? One hon. Member wished Quebec to be fortified in order, if necessary, we might withdraw our army. But it would be impossible for it to run away, in case of war, without great national humiliation. I do not wish to live to see such a day. What, then, is the plain and just course to pursue? Let us not commit the folly of placing ourselves, by these fortifications, in the position of an enemy forcing us into a disadvantageous battle-ground. If Canada require fortifications she must provide them for herself, and I would not object that the sum proposed to be voted should be given to her for this object. At the same time, she should be called upon henceforth to do that which she ought to have done from the time the public revenues were granted to her—namely, to pay us all the military and naval expenses we may incur on her account. It is not improbable on these just terms Canada might no longer desire the nominal government of the mother country, but she might wish to manage her own military as she now manages her own civil affairs. The time is arrived when such a change would be beneficial to both countries; for while it would relieve us from burdens we ought never to have been called upon to bear, it will be the means of restoring Canada to a healthy state of self-reliance.
  MR. ALDERMAN ROSEsaid, he very much feared that the effect of the debate would be very mischievous. Upon a recent occasion the House came to the resolution that Canada should be fortified; and the country was thus pledged to the policy that she would exert all her power to defend Canada in the event of its being invaded; and he thought that the Canadians had shown an earnest desire upon their part to prepare the necessary means for their own defence. This debate, however, would have a mischievous and depressing effect, because it would create in Canada the feeling that there was a great uncertainty as to what our future policy would be. We had ourselves made a great demand on the patriotism of the country to supplement our regular army in the case of emergency, and having raised a large

  829
  Volunteer force, he thought that we had a right to call upon Canada to do her part towards her own defence; and he fully believed that the Canadians were prepared to do all in their power to perform their obligations. It was not a fair argument to say that because the project of federation had not been unanimously adopted that therefore it was not to be carried out. He believed it would be carried out, and that we should have the benefit of it in the defence of Canada. He could not accept the noble Lord as an authority on the defensibility of Canada, and he entirely disagreed with the conclusions to which the noble Lord had come. They had heard from the best authorities that Canada was defensible, and that for six months in the year all military operations must be suspended by the excessive cold of the country. If the same doctrine which was enunciated by some hon. Members that evening had been propounded during the Indian mutiny and the other great struggles in which this country was involved, where, he asked, would they have been? He believed that England had attained its present prosperous condition by combating manfully with every difficulty which it encountered. If it were found that this country was pledged to the defence of Canada, and that Canada, relying with confidence upon that pledge, was determined to do her utmost, he was of opinion that the very knowledge of those facts would be sufficient to dispel the emergency which seemed impending over us. He considered that such discussions as the present bad a most mischievous tendency.
  SIR FREDERIC SMITHsaid, he could not understand what object the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire had in bringing forward this Motion, as the question appeared to him to have been thoroughly settled on a former occasion. He at first supposed that the noble Lord desired to reverse the Vote for the fortifications of Canada which had been agreed to a few evenings ago; but that impression was removed when he heard the noble Lord urge upon the Government the importance of defending Quebec. But if the noble Lord were really of opinion that Quebec should be defended, what was the object of his Motion? The defensibility of Canada had been discussed by the highest military authorities in their official capacity, and it has been stated that they had given their opinion in favour of the general scheme of defence and of the particular works which had been brought
  830
  under the consideration of the House. When a man, too, of such great experience as the chief of our Engineers had given his opinion in favour of it, it was rash for any military man of less experience to give a contrary opinion. They knew that the Government intended to send out to Canada, as commander of the troops there, an officer of great experience and talent. He should like to know from the Secretary for the Colonies whether that gallant officer had not stated as his opinion that the defence of Canada was feasible in the manner proposed? The Quartermaster General, too, had had this matter under his consideration, and had expressed his opinion that Canada was defensible. All these things ought to give confidence. He would pin his faith implicitly on the hon. and gallant Member for Wakefield (Sir John Hay) in any naval matter, but he maintained that Quebec and Montreal under the circumstances were perfectly defensible unless we lost the superiority at sea. The hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. J. B. Smith) had stated that America was now stronger than us upon the sea. He (Sir Frederic Smith) must respectfully decline to accept the hon. Member as an authority for such a statement. But if it be true that we are inferior to the Americans on the sea he hoped that the Admiralty would take immediate steps to amend that state of things. He agreed with the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Kinglake) that those who recommended war incurred a grave responsibility; but it was altogether another thing to advise an effectual system of defence against threatened hostilities. Was it to be supposed that it should be a question in the British House of Commons of turning our backs on the Canadians, who were willing to come forward to defend themselves? If a war took place between England and America, we must not select Canada as the battlefield. It was the last place we should choose for our fighting ground. But it would not be for us to make the choice. We must do our worst elsewhere, but, at the same time, we must do our best in Canada. If we showed a gallant spirit in the matter we should rouse the Canadians to do great things for their independence. But we were told that we were 4,000 miles from our base of operations. He had never heard an old term so much abused as was "the base of operations." Where was General Sherman's base of operations when he marched through

  831
  Georgia and Carolina? Our base of operations in respect of the defence of Canada must, of course, be on the other side the Atlantic. Our base of operations would be at Halifax, where our stores would be collected. Some hon. Members had told the House that war could be made in Canada during winter. But when one of our regiments had been obliged to march there in winter, the men were obliged to have their muskets enveloped in straw and flannel. They could not have carried them otherwise. We were told that Colonel Jervois ought not to have reported on the defences of Canada, or that the Government ought not to have produced his Report. But what had Colonel Jervois been sent to Canada for but to make a Report on the best means of defending that colony? He was to report, not on the question of our making war there, but on the best means of defending Canada. The most eminent officers in the army and the navy would have to give advice to the Government as to the way in which we should conduct a war; but Colonel Jervois had been sent out for a specific object, and he had accomplished that object in a manner that did honour to himselt, and reflected credit on the corps to which he belonged. The argument that had been used as to the base of operations for the defence of Canada did not apply at all—it was a mistaken phrase. Our base of operations, in the case of hostilities in the summer, must necessarily be at Halifax and Bermuda. In case of a war with America we should have a fleet in the St. Lawrence; and if, as the hon. Member for Stockport said, our navy was inferior in numbers to that which the Americans could bring there, the sooner that state of things was altered the better. He was glad to see the noble Lord the Secretary of the Admiralty in his place, because he would be able to tell the House whether our navy was or was not inferior to that of the Americans. The Government should be urged to proceed with the defences of Canada quickly, for delay was dangerous upon two grounds. In the first place, an enemy might be "tempted to take advantage of the weakness of Canada; and in the next place, if we delayed with our works of defence, Canada might think us lukewarm in these matters, and neglect those precautionary measures which, on her part, were so necessary. We should do our part; and we should give any assistance that we could give to the colony
  832
  from Imperial funds if there was a certainty of our advances being repaid by Canada.
  MAJOR ANSONsaid, that he would undertake for every one officer which the hon. and gallant Member opposite could produce in proof of Canada being defensible to bring forward ten who would state that Canada was indefensible. In the remarks he was about to address to the House he should express this opinion. He had taken great pains to ascertain the views of experienced officers who had been out in Canada since the affair of the Trent; and he thought the House would be astonished at the concurrence of opinion against the notion that Canada could be defended. He did not think he had met with one officer who did not answer the question he had put to him to the effect that Canada was utterly and hopelessly indefensible. And the officers who expressed this opinion were soldiers in every sense of the term—men distinguished by their efficient and active services in the field, and not mere theorists who could make anything appear defensible upon paper. Why had Colonel Jervois been sent to report on the defences of Canada? Colonel Gordon had been previously sent out to examine into the condition of Canada. Now, no man stood higher than Colonel Gordon in his profession—he was one of the best Engineer officers in the army. And what was the nature of his Report? Colonel Wetherall and Colonel Mackenzie, whose equals in the service could scarely be found, bad also investigated this subject. They formed the best staff of officers that were ever sent out on any expedition. Well, did not all these able and experienced men report upon the defences of Canada? He believed that they did, and that they rather astonished the War Office by the Report which they gave. Why was not their Report produced to Parliament? Why was Colonel Jervois sent out to Canada after they had come home? Now, the whole of this question turned upon the point whether Canada was or was not defensible. By the answer to that question the House ought to be guided in coming to a decision on the course to be taken. If Canada were not defensible, we ought to withdraw our troops to-morrow. The Government had not brought forward a single military authority to show that Canada was defensible. It was true that Colonel Jervois was sent out to Canada to report upon the best mode of defending Canada. Colonel Jervois had sent in an

  833
  able Report, in which he (Major Anson) had no doubt he recommended the very best means of defending Canada so far as engineering operations went. The only two authorities quoted by the Government in favour of Canada being defensible were Mr. Rose and Mr. Galt—no doubt two excellent gentlemen, but certainly no great military authorities. It was said that it was easy to defend Montreal by keeping up our communication with that place and Quebec if we retained our supremacy on the St. Lawrence. But he should just like to ask hon. Members what chance had we of doing that? Just let them look into the question. He believed that there was no portion of the American system of attack so highly organized as the numerous gunboats which swarmed on the American coasts and rivers. We had not got at the present moment, he believed, one single iron-clad gunboat which could navigate the St. Lawrence. Did we know whether we could build iron-clad gunboats capable of crossing the Atlantic, and of then entering the St. Lawrence and standing the fire of the heavy guns planted on the south side of that river—for he supposed we were not going to hold the south side of the St Lawrence. Could we build such boats here and send them out ready for service? Could we build them in pieces here and send them out to be put together at the other side of the Atlantic in sufficient strength to stand against the American batteries? The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir Frederic Smith) objected to the phrase "base of operations." Well, we had no dockyards or arsenals in Canada, and therefore when they talked of the base of operations, that must of necessity be in this country and not in Canada, from the want there of any resources of that kind. England, he contended, was, and must be, the base of operations. The chances were, so far as he could judge, that instead of our having the preponderance on the St. Lawrence the Americans would have it. With regard to the fortifications of Canada, he had received a letter from one of the best officers in the British service upon the subject. That gallant officer said, that—
  "If the proposal is carried out of fortifying Montreal and other places no advantage will be gained; as, though such fortifications may afford shelter, an invading army could have its own way in Canada, particularly in the west, by simply avoiding the few strongholds. I do think that the British soldiers, who in all parts of the world lace cheerfully danger and disease, would be placed in a false position, far apart, with no sup-
  834
  port but a militia force, which as yet we know very little about; while the Americans can at any time, and without difficulty, convey any amount of men and warlike stores by the railways, which lead to so many vulnerable points along the frontier. This question about the defences of Canada is a common-sense one, which in my humble opinion can best be decided by officers of experience, who know not only what an army can do, but also what it cannot do.
  He thought the latter question was lost sight of when we talked about the easy way in which Canada could be defended; and those who argued that Canada could be defended as well as any other country could have read but little of military history, or studied the question at all. Now, with regard to the winter, there was little doubt but that the severity of the weather would stop active military operations in that country. But so far from the winter assisting in the defence of Canada, it would be much more fatal to our garrisons imprisoned in fortifications and cut off from communication with the world than to the enemy, who, by means of their railways running into their camps, would be able to carry off their wounded to a more genial climate, and be able also to get any amount of stores and supplies forwarded to them. So far as the military question was concerned, he regretted to state that he had not heard on the part of Her Majesty's Government any attempt to meet it in argument. All they said was that Canada could be defended, and there wa9 an end of it. But they gave no proof that she was practically defensible.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: Sir, although the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just spoken is a young Member of this House and is a young officer—one, however, who has gained reputation in every quarter of the world—it is impossible to deny that whatever falls from his lips on a subject of this nature is entitled to respectful attention. The impression made upon my mind by his statements this evening is to strengthen the feelings I before entertained, that we have great reason to complain of Her Majesty's Government in relation to this delicate and difficult question. In the first place, so far as I am informed, we have reason to complain of the manner in which they have produced the Report of Colonel Jervois. The hon. and gallant Member has adverted to the Report which he supposes—for he goes no further—has been made by Colonel Gordon and Colonel Wetherall. I do not know whether there is such a Report—at all events,

  835
  I am not aware of its existence; but it is currently reported—it is everywhere believed—that what has been laid upon the table of the House by Her Majesty's Government as the Report of Colonel Jervois is nothing but its covering letter, and that we have, in fact, never seen that Report, I should like to ask the Government whether that is true or false? They have come down to this House and asked for a Vote for the defences of Canada upon the grounds furnished by Colonel Jervois's Report; and my belief is that up to this moment we have never seen that document. I must say we have a right to complain of the course which Her Majesty's Government have thought fit to adopt in reference to this question during the last four years. From the moment of the occurrence of the Trent affair our relations with the United States have been neither comfortable nor satisfactory, and I think it neither delicate nor desirable for Government to have reserved it until this moment to force the subject into a degree of prominence. I think if the Government had taken a wise course they would have seen the possibilities hanging over us, and during the last four years would have, in concert with Canada, gradually prepared us for events, and have placed us in a position in which, if the worst should happen, we should have been better prepared than we are at present to face the exigencies of war. Again, I complain, if Her Majesty's Government meant to do anything, of the paltry course they have taken in proposing a Vote of £50,000 to the House. Now, what has been the result of that proposition? We have heard it stated by the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho) that upon the arrival in Canada of the information that a Vote of £50,000 had been proposed in this House for the defence of Canada, the first impression it made on the minds of the people of Canada was an impression of incredulity. They said it could not be that Her Majesty's Government had only proposed a Vote of £50,000; that there must have been some mistake in the figures; and that Her Majesty's Government must have meant £500,000. I stated on a former evening, and I repeat it, though Her Majesty's Government stated that the amount was as large a sum as could be expended within the year, that that is not the only consideration—the question is, what impression you are to produce upon other countries; and I say with regard to the impression to
  836
  be created in the United States of America, and also in Canada, that Her Majesty's Government could not have adopted a weaker or a more unwise policy on such a subject as this than to come down to the House and ask for a Vote of only £50,000. But the point upon which I most complain of Her Majesty's Government is that they have misled the House with regard to the existing state of affairs between the Canadian and the British Governments. I have no hesitation in stating it, and I believe that there are not two men in this House who went into the lobby in the division that took place the other evening on the proposal of Her Majesty's Government who did not fully and entirely believe that there was a distinct understanding between the Ministers of Canada and the Ministers of the Queen of Great Britain with regard to the policy to be mutually adopted. I have no hesitation in saying that my belief on that point was complete and explicit. I say the conduct of the Government on that occasion was not ingenuous. I myself heard a question upon this subject asked by no less than three Members of the House—by the right hon. Member for Huntingdon, the hon. Member for Horsham, and the hon. Member for Norfolk. Those hon. Members positively and deliberately put the question to the Government, "Are you proposing this Vote on the distinct understanding with Canada what is to be her proportion of the expense." I say it was not candid of the Government, knowing, as they must have done, that no such understanding existed, and that the whole question remained open, not to give an explicit answer to that question. The inevitable result of their silence was that the House was practically misled upon the subject. So far from there being a complete understanding between our Government and that of Canada on this point, we find that the intention of Government as to the fortifications caused the greatest surprise when it became known in that country; and we now find that there is at this very moment on the high seas a deputation sent over by the Canadians to negotiate with us as to the proportion of the expenses each country is to bear. I think it is far from creditable to Government that at this moment, after they have come before the House to ask for a Vote for these fortifications, they know not what the intentions of the Canadians are in respect to these works, neither are the Canadians aware of ours. I can

  837
  only attribute this feeble and halting policy to the same cause which has produced other bad results—namely, a division of opinion in the Government. I cannot understand what can have been the motives of Her Majesty's Government in coming down to this House, and asking for this Vote, without being prepared to state what were their intentions and what were the intentions of Canada upon this subject. With regard to the future, I must say that I feel impressed with the language I have heard this evening from my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lichfield (Major Anson). He has spoken upon this subject with authority, and with a freedom from party bias; and it is incumbent upon the Government to explain more fully than they have done upon what grounds they have not produced the bonâ fide Report of Colonel Jervois, upon which, we are told, we are proceeding, and what answer they are prepared to make to the high professional opinion we have heard expressed by my hon. and gallant Friend, and those other officers to whom he has referred. I freely say my impression has hitherto been of an opposite character. I do not regret the Vote I gave the other evening in favour of the Government proposition. My opinion is strong and decided that so long as Canada is loyal she cannot he abandoned. I heard with sorrow and with entire dissent the language made use of on a former occasion by the right hon. Member for Calne (Mr. Lowe). I do not say that his policy is not entitled to credit for its prudence, and that, perhaps, it might be better with nations as with individuals if they were, instead of showing fight, to run away. No doubt, the running away would be cheaper than fighting. ["No, no!"] I am not alluding to my noble Friend, but to the language of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Calne, and I do not think that I greatly exaggerate that language when I say that, in dealing with a question of this kind, it is practically running away, though I entirely dissent from his and other hon. Members' views upon that point. I can imagine no greater misfortune, not only to the two countries but to mankind, than a war between this country and America, and I hope and trust that the Government of this country will not give the United States the slightest excuse for a quarrel between them; but if, unhappily, a quarrel should be forced upon us we have but one course to pursue, which is to meet it with the whole force and power of the Empire.
  838
  I am sorry hon. Gentlemen have raised the question whether, in the event of that unhappy circumstance arising, we should fight America in Canada or elsewhere; but if that unhappy event should arise, which God forbid! we must fight her wherever she is vulnerable, and, above all, if Canada is loyal we must not desert her. I entirely go with the noble Lord in that policy, and whatever difference of opinion I might have with the noble Lord on other subjects, I believe he is one of the last men in this country to advocate the desertion of a loyal people attached to this country as a portion of the Empire. Then arises the question, is there any force or not in the arguments of my hon. Friend? Is the defence of Canada a practical impossibility or not? England has not been in the habit of regarding anything of this nature as impossible; it has not been by following a prudent policy like that which is now recommended that we have arrived at our present pitch of grandeur. Had we been guided by such a policy, we should not have been what we are in India; we should not have captured Sebastopol or gained | any of the hundred triumphs of which we are so proud. My noble Friend (Lord Elcho) smiles. Is he thinking of the language which he used in the early part of the evening—that we must not push the doctrine of honour too far? That is language which is not acceptable either in this House or elsewhere. Personally, I am sure that my noble Friend is one of I the last men who would think of abandoning the honour of England; but when he and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lichfield (Major Anson) raise a question of most grave and serious importance, it behaves the Government to state candidly to the country upon what authority they are acting. However high may be our sense of honour, and however indomitable the courage of our people, it would of course be folly to attempt anything which is really an impossibility; and if the defence of Canada is impossible, if we are to regard the question in this serious light, let us address ourselves to it in time. Do not let us wait till the emergency of war arrives, and then say that the thing cannot be done. Now is the time—when this deputation is on its way—now is the time for the Government to make up their minds deliberately, calmly, and carefully as to the policy which they mean to adopt, and I hope that they will then candidly declare to the House what that policy is to be.
  MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEsaid, that although he entirely agreed with what had fallen from the right hon. Baronet (Sir John Pakington) towards the close of his remarks, he could not concur in his earlier observations. The first charge which the right hon. Baronet made against the Government he should leave to be dealt with by his noble Friend (the Marquess of Hartington); but this he must say, that whatever military advice Her Majesty's Government might have received from Colonel Jervois, Colonel Gordon, or others, which they had not produced, they were in possession of none which was inconsistent with those opinions of Colonel Jervois which they had laid before the House. The right hon. Baronet made a second charge which had been answered over and over again, and accused the Government of proposing to contribute no more than the paltry sum of £50,000 towards the defences of Canada. Only the sum of £50,000 was asked for this year, because, according to the professional advice given to the Government, that was the largest sum which could properly be expended upon Quebec and Point Levi during the next twelve months. The right hon. Baronet did not quite correctly represent the substance of what was said by that eminent person Mr. John A. Macdonald in the debate of the 7th of March. That gentleman supposed that the sum voted was £30,000, and not having heard the explanations of Her Majesty's Government, he expressed surprise at the smallness of the amount, and suggested that it must be a mistake for £300,000. Oddly enough Mr. John A. Macdonald had hit upon the exact amount which the Government were asking the House to vote—namely, £200,000 for works at Quebec, and £100,000 towards their armament. The taking of a small sum this year was merely a question of time and arrangement. But Mr. John A. Macdonald went on to say that—
  "He had every reason to believe that these negotiations would result most happily in defences being provided which would secure the protection of Canada without pressing too heavily on the resources of the country."
  In the third place, the right hon. Baronet complained that his right hon. Friend the Secretary for the Colonies had misled the House by the statement which he made the other night, and which induced them to vote by an overwhelming majority the first instalment of the grant towards the
  840
  defences of Canada. He entirely denied that either his right hon. Friend or his noble Friend at the head of the Government said anything which could have had the effect of misleading the House, or inducing them to assent to a Vote which they would otherwise have rejected. His right hon. Friend never for a moment pretended that he was in possession of official documents which would show a detailed arrangement between the Home Government and that of Canada, as to the contribution which each was to make towards the defences of that country. The hon. Member for Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck), indeed, alleged it as a serious charge against him, that he produced no such arrangement. His right hon. Friend merely assured the House of the general confidence which he entertained as to the part which the Canadian Government were prepared to take in this matter. But, more than that, he did not rest the justification of the Vote which was then before the Committee upon anything which was to be done by the Canadian Government, but maintained that even if they did not fortify Montreal, it was right and proper that the Imperial Government should fortify Quebec. Her Majesty's Government were indeed convinced that the Canadians were prepared to take upon themselves a share of the expense of providing their own defences, and that conviction had since been confirmed by the fact that the Canadian Parliament had voted 1,000,000 dollars for that purpose; but what they said was, that independently of the fortifications of Montreal, it was right and expedient that the Imperial Government, thinking it their duty to maintain a considerable force in Canada, should fortify Quebec in connection with that force. He, therefore, denied that the right hon. Baronet had established any of the charges which he had made against the Government. He was, however, happy to agree entirely with everything which the right hon. Baronet had said in the latter part of his speech. He had never listened to any debate in which it was more difficult to make out what was the real meaning of the speakers. He did not at that moment comprehend what was at the bottom of the mind of his noble Friend who introduced the question. Did he mean that Canada was to lay down her arms? because that was the only true and logical conclusion from his arguments. After all these dreary, dispiriting, and, if they had any effect at all, most mischievous proclamations to the people of Canada

  841
  —after telling them that they were indefensible, how could we have the face to urge them, as we had for years past been doing, to make preparations for their defence? The fact was that our military authorities had concentrated all their attention and interest upon our own gallant troops; but the Canadians had the same interest in their gallant forces, and if we were continually proclaiming that it would be folly and madness to expose our troops to destruction in Canada, the Canadians would draw their own inference from that doctrine; and it would be unpardonable in us to continue to exhort them to organize their militia, to increase the number of their Volunteers, and to engage in war, when at the same time we told them that the task which we sought to impose upon them was a hopeless one. Let us be consistent in this matter, and if we held these views with regard to our troops, let us—though we should be applying to the New World a rule which had never been accepted in the Old one—tell the Canadians at once that their only safety was to be found in laying down their arms and inviting no attack. His belief in regard to these matters was that common sense—he was almost ashamed to use the word, they had heard so much about common sense on both sides—was of more use than military knowledge, and that the rules of common sense on the other side of the Atlantic were much the same as they were on this. When he saw that in Europe a comparatively weak Power believed that its true safety lay in disarming in the presence of a superior Power, he should be ready to recommend the adoption of such a course by Canada. When, for instance, he saw Belgium dismantle the fortifications of Antwerp and disband her army, he should be prepared to concur with his noble Friend (Lord Elcho), who, if he was consistent, ought to recommend Canada to adopt such a measure. Belgium, however, though infinitely inferior to Canada in natural means of resistance, was doing her best to play a gallant part in her own defence—not, of course, expecting that she was to defend her territory unassisted, and for ever, against a superior Power—and who expected Canada to do that?—but knowing that she would make herself, as Canada would, a very tough customer to any assailant, and that she would be assisted, as Canada would be, by powerful allies both within her territory and without it. When he saw Belgium taking
  842
  that course, he was convinced that that was the one which ought to be followed in the New World. A good deal had been said in the course of the discussion about a supposed dilemma, which in reality was no dilemma at all. It was contended by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Calne that the question at issue involved the alternative of defending Canada either in Canada or elsewhere; but to the Government there was no difficulty on the point, for they were of opinion that Canada should be defended both in Canada and elsewhere. And he thought that the majority of the House had shown plainly enough that they concurred in this view of the matter.
  GENERAL PEEL: I have already given my opinion as to the policy of defending Canada, and I do not intend to trespass upon the time of the House for more than a few minutes on this occasion. I regret that anything should have occurred to render necessary a renewal of the debate on this subject, or which should have the appearance of weakening in any way or producing any misunderstanding with regard to the unanimous decision of the House of Commons that if Canada should be attacked on our account it was our duty to defend her. Even the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Calne, I think, went that length; and although he, as well as my noble Friend the Member for Haddingtonshire, says it is not possible to do so—[Lord ELCHO: Not in Canada]—still they admit that it is our duty, if possible, to defend Canada if the Canadians are prepared to assist in defending themselves. Now, I do not at all wish to speculate as to the power which might be brought to bear either in attacking or defending Canada. The Canadians themselves, I imagine, ought to be the best judges whether they would be able to resist attack or not; and, for my own part, I can only say that if they are prepared to display the same devotion and energy as the Americans of the South have exhibited they may hope, with our assistance, to be able to resist any attack which may be made upon them. I recollect having heard it said within the last twenty-five years that it was impossible to defend this country, and that if England were invaded the best thing the Guards could do would be to march out of London and leave it to take care of itself. But what was the answer of the Minister of that day to those statements—of a Minister who could not

  843
  be accused of being warlike—the late Sir Robert Peel? He said—
  "In the first place, the Guards would not inarch out of London; and, in the next place, if they did they would be pelted by every old woman whom they met."
  Such, too, I cannot help thinking would be the fate, and deservedly, of the Members of this House if they came to the conclusion that in the event of Canada being prepared to defend herself we should afford her no assistance. There is not, I believe, a single hon. Gentleman—not even the hon. Member for Birmingham—who goes further than myself in approving the policy of not interfering in the affairs of other nations, or who would more deprecate any measure tending to drag this country into a war with America or any other State, unless our honour was involved. There is, however, a great difference between not fighting another person's battle and not fighting our own. It would be no question of our going to war for Canada; but, that if war should be declared against us, and that Canada was attacked on our account, and was defending herself, and fighting in our battle, that we should assist her to the utmost of our power. This is said to be "fair weather policy" and "tall talk;" but I know of no policy so deserving of being designated "foul weather policy" and "small talk" as that of those who proclaim to the world that we do not intend to defend ourselves. If, indeed, we are in such a state of helplessness as to warrant that conclusion, what has become of the £185,000,000 which, including the Estimates of the present year, have been voted by the present Parliament for the naval and military service of the country? We may well be asked whether we did not divide the money among ourselves. I believe that if any foreign Minister were to take up our Estimates he would imagine us to be a great military nation. We have 220,000 regular troops in a state of great efficiency; we have 120,000 militia, and 150,000 Volunteers, besides the Yeomanry and the Pensioners which form a very formidable array. But, then, there is another force with respect to which, I am sorry to say, I was indiscreet enough to put a question to the Government the other evening; we have got an army of reserve, which is formidable exactly in proportion to the mystery observed with respect to it. No army is so much to be feared as that about whose movements or numbers you
  844
  know nothing, and which, for all you can tell, may be in your rear, or on your flank. Indeed, my own opinion was that this army of reserve must have been in the backwoods of Canada, for we never see it in this country. I only hope that the gunboats about which we have heard so much are not of quite so mythical a character, But, be that as it may, I may, in confirmation of what has fallen from my right hon. Friend near me (Sir John Pakington), say that I, too, was under the impression that some understanding had been come to between Her Majesty's Government and that of Canada on this question of defences because I inferred from the replies of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, in answer to repeated questions as to whether the defences of Montreal and those of Quebec were to be carried on at the same time, and whether our fortification of the latter depended upon the Canadians taking upon themselves the defence of the former place, that there was between the two Governments some sort of agreement on the subject, and I believe the House concluded that there was a proper understanding between the two Governments, I do not now wish to draw any comparison between the force which might be employed in attacking Canada and that which ought to be engaged in defending the province. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lichfield (Major Anson), than whose authority as a military man I am willing to admit there is no higher, has given it as his opinion that Canada cannot be defended; but I, for one, am not prepared to relieve the Government from the responsibility which attaches to their carrying out that policy which they deem to be right. I cannot consent to act on the opinions of military men, however distinguished, who are not responsible for those opinions. I prefer leaving the matter in the hands of the Government, whose duty it is to carry into execution those measures which have been sanctioned by the House of Commons. I hold in my hand a letter in which it is stated that it is perfectly possible to defend Canada; but, for the reasons I have just mentioned, I should not lay any stress upon it. The hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Smith), I may add, in speaking of America, said she was in a very different position from that which she some time ago occupied. In that statement I perfectly concur with him. Four years ago America had no standing

  845
  army; and what is it that she has since done? Why, she has raised an army second to none, whether you take into account the bravery of the men of whom it is composed or the merits of some of the S officers. Am I alarmed by this fact? Not at all; because I see no reason why we, I with all our resources, with the standing army which we have ready at hand, and the number of experienced officers which we possess, should not in a short time be I enabled to cope with America or any other country. I sincerely trust we may not have occasion to enter into a war, but if such a misfortune should happen, it must be no little war, or must England ever submit to any humiliation that the last man, or last guinea she has got, can save, her from.
  MR. CARDWELLwished to say, in explanation, that he never said anything intended to confirm the impression that any agreement had been made between us and the Canadian Government with respect to these defences. He always understood that we acted on our own responsibility; and when the hon. Member for Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck) put questions on this subject he (Mr. Cardwell) stated twice, in order that there might be no mistake, that no despatch had been received which would justify him in giving a positive assurance on that point.
  GENERAL PEELsaid, his complaint against the right hon. Gentleman was rather that he had never answered explicitly the questions which had been put on the subject than that he had made any positive statement.
  MR. LAIRDsaid, that as the House was of opinion that Canada should be fortified, the sooner the fortifications were commenced the better. The hon. and gallant Major who recently spoke (Major Anson) seemed to doubt the possibility of sending out armour-clad vessels in pieces; but such a proceeding was very practicable. When a difficulty arose some twenty-five years ago in the East Indies with respect to Russia, he was instructed by the Government to send out several armed vessels in pieces, and they arrived at their destination, and were afloat on the Euphrates before people in this country knew that they had been ordered. There was no doubt, then, that it was possible to send out armour-clad vessels in pieces, and put them together in Canada. He had sent out a vessel to Savannah in pieces, and had no doubt that it had since been adopt-
  846
  ed as a gunboat and used in the present wars. In reply to the question, whether this country had any armour-clad vessels fit to go up to Montreal, he could state that four capable of reaching that point were now ready. They were the Scorpion, Wyvern, Research, and Enterprise. Two other iron-clad vessels were building—the Viper and Vixen, which could get up to Montreal, and from thence, through the locks, to Lake Ontario. They might be ready for sea by the next summer; and there were no other iron clads able to go beyond that point. If it were thought desirable to send out other iron-clads, there would be no difficulty in building them so that they could pass through the locks between Lake Ontario and Lake Erie, or they might be sent out in pieces. With respect to the defences of Canada, the basis of operations was an important consideration. That basis must in winter be Halifax and Bermuda; but both those places were deficient in means for repairing vessels, and until the Government brought forward a scheme for remedying this deficiency, this country would stand at great disadvantage in time of war. In the event of a war with America, he hoped the Government would not only be prepared to hold their own, but to carry on offensive operations by sea if necessary. We ought to be prepared with the means of offence as well as defence, and the Government ought to lose no time in making their preparations.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON,in reply to some observations which fell from the hon. and gallant Member for Lichfield (Major Anson), said, it was true that Colonel Gordon and other officers had been sent to Canada at the time of the Trent affair, and had made a Report, which was in the possession of the War Office; but he denied that there was anything in that Report implying that, in the opinion of those officers, it was not possible to defend Canada. On the contrary, they drew up a plan of defence resembling in many particulars the scheme of Colonel Jervois. It was true that Colonel Gordon's plan for defending the Western Provinces differed from that of Colonel Jervois; but in Colonel Gordon's Report there was not one word showing that Canada was not defensible. The hon. and gallant Member said that the conclusion of the great majority of military men was adverse to the opinion that Canada was defensible. Now, he thought, with the right hon. and gallant

  847
  Gentleman opposite, that while according all possible deference to the judgment of the hon. and gallant Member for Lichfield, very much value should not be attached to opinions given by those who were not responsible. It was very strange, if there were such unanimity in the army against attempting to defend Canada, that every one of the officers whom the Government felt it their duty to consult expressed a contrary opinion. Not only Colonel Jervois, but also Colonel Gordon, Sir William Fenwick Williams, and other military officers, held sentiments at variance with those expressed by the hon. and gallant Member for Lich field. But even if military opinions were against the Government he should deny that this was a question on which military men alone were able to give an opinion. He had always admitted that it would be impossible to preserve intact the whole frontier of Canada, as it was impossible to preserve intact the frontier of any continental country having on its border a great military Power; but a point on which civilians were competent to give an opinion was, that by the expenditure of a certain sum, and by raising a certain number of men, it was possible to defend certain points; and if those points could be held, it would not, the Government thought, be worth while for an enemy to attack that country at all. The Government anticipated that they would be able to hold Quebec, if Canada, as they had every reason to believe she would do, performed what she had promised. If the Canadians would defend Montreal, it would be possible to defend the line from Quebec to Montreal; and if Canada were willing to expend a larger sum, and raise more men, it would be possible to defend the line of the Upper Province, and maintain an intrenched camp in Western Canada. There was one other observation he wished to make. The right hon. Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington) remarked on the smallness of the proposed Vote. Now, it had been repeated over and over again that in fixing the sum for the present year the Government acted on professional advice, and they were told that the sum proposed to be voted was all that could be usefully expended during the year. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Government ought to have asked for a larger sum; but no useful end could be answered by attempting to delude the House or the world into the notion that Government were going to spend a larger sum within the year than
  848
  they really intended to do. The right hon. Baronet opposite, had he been in office himself, would not have asked for a larger amount. In the first year of commencing a work it was not easy to spend profitably a large sum of money, although much had to be done in preliminary matters. He considered that the Under Secretary for the Colonies had completely answered all the other questions; and there was no ground for saying that there was such a diversity of opinion among military men as had been stated.
  LORD ELCHO,in withdrawing his Amendment, said, he desired to offer an explanation with respect to two points on which he had been misunderstood by some hon. Gentlemen. What he had said with regard to Quebec was that he thought this country ought to fortify it; and with regard to the honour of England, while admitting that England could not be too jealous of her honour, he nevertheless was of opinion that in fighting Canada's battle it was not necessary for the honour of England to fight it on Canadian soil.
  Amendment withdrawn.
  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEasked whether the Government would postpone the War Office Vote till after Easter. If money were required in the meantime, he supposed there would be no difficulty in obtaining a small Vote on account.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid the Vote had already been postponed as late as possible, and every exertion had been made to place the Reports relating to the War Office in the hands of Members in time for that discussion. It was very desirable that the discussion on the subject should be taken that night, as it had occasioned considerable amount of excitement in the War Office.
  GENERAL PEELthought that was a reason why the matter should not be hurried over that night.
  COLONEL GILPINsaid, there could be no reason for hurrying on the Vote, as it could not come into operation before the 30th June.
  Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
  SUPPLY considered in Committee.
  CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES—on Account.
  (In the Committee.)
  (1.) Original Question [April 3] again proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £1,748,000, be granted to Her Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the Charge of the following Civil Services to the 31st day of March 1866: viz.

  Class I.

  Public Buildings, Ireland

  £33,000

  New Record Buildings, Dublin

  3,000

  Class II.

  Two Houses of Parliament, Offices

  18,000

  Treasury

  14,000

  Home Office

  7,000

  Foreign Office

  18,000

  Colonial Office

  8,000

  Privy Council Office

  7,000

  Board of Trade, &c.

  18,000

  Privy Seal Office

  1,000

  Civil Service Commission

  3,000

  Paymaster General's Office

  6,000

  Exchequer (London)

  2,000

  Office of Works and Public Buildings

  8,000

  Office of Woods, Forests, and Land Revenues

  8,000

  Public Record Office

  6,000

  Poor Law Commissions

  20,000

  Mint, including Coinage

  14,000

  Inspectors of Factories, Fisheries, &.

  10,000

  Exchequer and other Offices in Scotland

  2,000

  Household of Lord Lieutenant, Ireland

  2,000

  Chief Secretary, Ireland, Offices

  5,000

  Inspection, &c. of Lunatic Asylums, Ireland

  1,000

  Office of Public Works, Ireland

  6,000

  Audit Office

  9,000

  Copyhold, Tithe, and Inclosure Commission

  5,000

  Inclosure and Drainage Acts; Imprest Expenses

  4,000

  General Register Offices, England, Ireland, and Scotland

  17,000

  National Debt Office

  4,000

  Public Works Loan Commission and West India Relief Commission

  1,000

  Lunacy Commissions

  2,000

  Registrars of Friendly Societies

  1,000

  Charity Commission

  5,000

  Local Government Act Office, and Inspection of Burial Grounds

  2,000

  Landed Estates Record Offices

  1,000

  Quarantine Expenses

  1,000

  Secret Service

  8,000

  Printing and Stationery

  100,000

  Postage of Public Departments

  35,000

  Class III.

  Law Charges, England

  20,000

  Criminal Prosecutions, &c.

  70,000

  Police, Counties and Boroughs, Great Britain

  65,000

  Crown Office, Queen's Bench

  1,000

  Admiralty Court Registry

  3,000

  Late Insolvent Debtors' Court

  1,000

  Probate Court

  21,000

  County Courts

  40,000

  Land Registry Office

  £2,000

  Police Courts, Metropolis

  5,000

  Metropolitan Police

  40,000

  Lord Advocate and Solicitor General, Salaries

  1,000

  Court of Session

  5,000

  Court of Justiciary

  3,000

  Exchequer, Scotland, Legal Branch

  1,000

  Sheriffs and Procurators Fiscal not paid by Salaries, and Expenses of Prosecutions in Sheriff Courts

  4,000

  Procurators Fiscal, Salaries

  3,000

  Sheriff Clerks

  4,000

  Register House, Edinburgh, Salaries and Expenses of Sundry Departments

  4,000

  Law Charges and Criminal Prosecutions, Ireland

  20,000

  Court of Chancery, Ireland

  2,000

  Courts of Queen's Bench, Common Pleas, and Exchequer, Ireland

  4,000

  Process Services

  3,000

  Manor Courts Compensations

  1,000

  Registry of Judgments

  1,000

  Court of Bankruptcy and Insolvency, Ireland

  2,000

  Court of Probate, Ireland

  3,000

  Landed Estates Court

  3,000

  Dublin Metropolitan Police and Police Justices

  10,000

  Constabulary of Ireland

  200,000

  Four Courts Marshalsea Prison

  1,000

  Inspection and General Superintendence of Prisons

  5,000

  Prisons and Convict Establishments at Home

  80,000

  Maintenance of Prisoners in County Gaols, &c., and Removal of Convicts

  90,000

  Transportation of Convicts

  10,000

  Class IV.

  Public Education, Great Britain

  175,000

  Science and Art Department

  45,000

  Public Education, Ireland

  90,000

  University of London

  2,000

  Universities, &c. in Scotland

  5,000

  Queen's Colleges, Ireland

  2,000

  Belfast Theological Professors, &c.

  1,000

  British Museum

  35,000

  National Gallery

  10,000

  Scientific Works and Experiments

  3,000

  Class V.

  Clergy, North America

  1,000

  Justices, West Indies

  1,000

  Western Coast of Africa

  5,000

  St. Helena

  2,000

  Falkland Islands

  2,000

  Labuan

  2,000

  Captured Negroes, Bounties on Slaves,

  12,000

  Commissions for Suppression of Slave Trade

  3,000

  Consuls Abroad

  75,000

  Ministers at Foreign Courts, Extraordinary Expenses

  4,000

  Special Missions, Outfits, &c.

  6,000

  Class VI.

  Superannuation and Retired Allowances

  60,000

  Polish Refugees and Distressed Spaniards

  1,000

  Relief of Distressed British Seamen

  9,000

  Miscellaneous Charges, formerly on Civil List

  £1,000

  Westmoreland Lock Hospital

  1,000

  House of Industry Hospitals

  2,000

  Cork Street Fever Hospital

  1,000

  Dr. Stevens's Hospital

  1,000

  Concordatum Fund, and other Charities and Allowances, Ireland

  1,000

  Non-conforming and other Ministers, Ireland

  15,000

  Class VII.

  Temporary Commissions

  3,000

  Patent Law Expenses

  6,000

  Fishery Board, Scotland

  4,000

  Local Dues on Shipping under Treaties of Reciprocity

  16,000

  Inspectors of Corn Returns

  1,000

  Miscellaneous Expenses from Civil Contingencies

  2,000

  Total

  £1,748,000

  LORD ROBERT CECILsaid, that when he opposed the Vote late the other night he then felt, as he felt still, that, however irregular the proposal of the Government might be, it was impossible to resist it without inconvenience to the public service. He had no wish to carry his opposition any further; but he earnestly appealed to right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench to take some steps to avoid placing the House in what it must feel to be the humiliating position of professing to regulate an expenditure which it was not allowed to discuss in detail. If the effect of the Report of the Committee, as stated by the First Lord of the Treasury the other night, was that Votes on account must take place of that enormous amount, because the balances left upon the Votes of the previous year had to be paid back into the Exchequer, then there would be no other means of restoring regularity to the financial business of the House than by fixing the financial year to begin on the 1st of July instead of on the 1st of April. If the present system continued, they would have large Votes on account for all the item3 of charge, without giving the House an opportunity of determining whether the expenditure was politic or not.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, the noble Lord was mistaken in supposing that a Vote on account precluded the most detailed discussion by the House of each head of charge to which the Vote applied. A Vote on account being only a portion of the total sum to be voted, enough remained under each head to enable the House to discuss in the greatest detail the separate items under those heads, and to atop, if it thought fit, any further expenditure upon them. Whenever the House, on going into
  852
  the Estimates in detail, determined that any given Vote should cease, it would cease of course, and no further expenditure would be incurred after the date to which the Vote on account would carry the particular service concerned. The practice of voting on account was inevitable, owing to the balances being paid back into the Exchequer.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, he did not understand his noble Friend (Lord R. Cecil) to wish now to stop the Vote on account, but to urge that in future years, when Votes on account were likely to be taken before Easter—a practice which, though resulting from the change that had taken place in regard to the balances, had yet put the House in a somewhat new position—the Government should lay on the table the particulars relating to those Votes.
  MR. CARDWELLthought it would often be extremely inconvenient to lay the Estimates so early on the table. The present proceedings originated in a reform resulting from an inquiry made by the Public Moneys Committee, and when the practice was adopted it was clearly understood that the Vote on account would not preclude discussion when the remainder of the sum was asked for.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  SUPPLY—ARMY ESTIMATES.
  GENERAL PEELsaid, that if the Government now insisted on taking the discussion on the War Office Vote, he should move that the Chairman report Progress. Only that morning four different Reports had been put into the hands of Members; and he defied any man, however conversant with the duties of the War Office, to tell what would be the effect of those Reports upon the clerks of that Department. If there was that commotion in the War Office which the noble Marquess alleged, it was the worst policy not to allow those gentlemen to be fairly heard. He was not sure that he might not entirely agree with the proposal of the Government; but, as those gentlemen said their interests were deeply affected by the plan, he appealed to the Government to postpone the discussion of those Reports till after Easter.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(General Peel.)
  COLONEL DUNNEsaid, that the Reports in question had only been delivered to him

  853
  that morning. He had been engaged all day in a Committee; and he had had scarcely time to turn over a page.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, the effect of taking the Vote and the discussion that night, with insufficient information, so far from quieting the commotion in the War Office, would only increase the already prevalent feeling of discontent, besides which some other Returns bearing on the subject for which he had moved had not yet been laid on the table of the House. He, therefore, thought it would be advantageous to the public service that the Vote should be postponed.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he did not think that the excitement in the War Office was in the least owing to the Report of the Committee—he believed, on the contrary, that the recommendations of the Committee were on the whole well received at the War Office. It was owing to the known fact that a discussion was about to take place in that House, and the idea which was entertained that changes might result there from in the position of some of the officials. As the hon. Baronet had said, such a state of things must be injurious to the public service, and therefore the sooner it was terminated the better; but as it appeared to be the general wish that the discussion should be postponed, he would yield to that wish. Perhaps, however, there would be no objection to their going on with the non-effective Votes to-night.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  (2.) Original Question again proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £33,200, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge of Chelsea and Kilmainham Hospitals, and the In-Pension thereof, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1866, inclusive."
  COLONEL DUNNEcalled attention to the necessity of making some change in the pensions and position of soldiers. Until the position of the soldier was improved, and till every man entering the army could feel assured that after a certain time, unless his conduct disentitled him, he should receive such a pension as would support his existence, any alteration in the time of service would be of no avail. In every case pensions were given in the most niggardly and unfair way. The papers were filled with cases of hardship from that cause. He held the War Office responsible for the present state of things. The
  854
  warrant should be revised. The pensions were too small; 7d. and 6d. per day was too little for a man who had lost his health in the service. After serving twenty years Is. a day was as little as any man should receive. The smallness and uncertainty of the pensions acted most prejudicially upon the army; and he trusted that the Government would, by an additional expenditure, which would not be large, wipe away this blot upon the administration.
  COLONEL NORTHfelt bound to compare the pay and allowances of the Major of Chelsea Hospital with those of the two senior clerks of that establishment. He did not mean that the latter were too high. Mr. Talman, who had been nearly half a century in the important office he filled with great credit to himself, received not one farthing more than he was justly entitled to. The pay of the second clerk began at £350, and rose to £450 per annum, at an annual increase of £15. The first clerk had an unfurnished house, and received eight tons of coals, 1001b. of candles, and 15,000 cubit feet of gas. The pay of the Major of the future establishment was to be £350, including his half-pay, or his half-pay with so much salary in addition as would make up £350 a year. He might also receive a pension for wounds; £10 per annum in lieu of clothing—namely, the Windsor uniform. He was allowed unfurnished apartments, coachhouse, and stabling for three horses, twelve tons of coals, 1501b. of candles, and 25,000 cubic feet of gas. What were the military services of Sir John Wilson? He had served the country for sixty-eight years. He served as midshipman in the navy for nearly six years. He was employed on the coast of Ireland during the rebellion in 1798; in the expedition to the Helder in 1799, and Egypt in 1801, where he received a medal from the Capitan Pasha for having saved the lives of a boat's crew belonging to a Turkish man-of-war. He received three wounds while a midshipman, and the last was a severe wound on the head, which produced total deafness, in consequence of which he was invalided, and quited the navy in 1803. His health being restored he entered the army in 1804, and served in the 3rd Battalion Royals at Walcheren in 1809, where he was twice wounded during the siege of Flushing. He afterwards served in the Peninsula, and was in the battles of Busaco, the retreat to the lines of Torres Vedras, and at the actions of Pombal, Redinha,

  855
  Condeixa, Casal Nova, Foz d'Arouce, and Sabugal, the blockade of Almeida, and battle of Fuentes d'Onor. In 1812 he joined the 2nd Battalion Royals in Canada, and was in the attack made on Sackett's Harbour, and Great Sodus (where he received a severe bayonet wound). He was also in the actions at Black Rock, Buffalo, and the battle of Chippewa, in which he received seven wounds, and being left on the field of battle, he fell into the hands of the enemy. During his career in the two professions he received thirteen wounds, and has two balls still lodged. The brevet rank of Major and that of lieutenant-colonel was conferred upon him for his conduct at Buffalo and Chippewa. Sir John received the war medal with two clasps for Busaco and Fuentes d'Onor. This officer, he was bound to say, in no way complained of his allowances. He was allowed to receive the good service pension and his half-pay, besides £350 a year. He was also allowed to waive his rank in order to remain at Chelsea Hospital. But the reason why he drew particular attention to the subject was that the result of every movement of the War Office was that some reduction was made in the allowances to these old distinguished soldiers; and Sir John's allowances were to be diminished to his successor. Sir John Wilson received seventeen tons of coals; his successor was to receive only twelve. Anything more miserable than the change could hardly be conceived. Then the idea of a man of his services being allowed £10 a year in lieu of clothing! Why did they not make his salary £400 a year at once? Stabling for three horses was allowed, but no forage. The house allowed was formerly furnished, now it is unfurnished. Formerly there was a garden attached, and the house not subject to be rated; it is now rated at £175 a year. On one side of the road were the barracks occupied by the Guards; on the other side were the houses of these distinguished officers. In both cases residence was compulsory; the duties in each were analogous, and it was difficult to understand why the residences should be rated in the one case and not in the other. At Hampton Court Palace there was no doubt a beneficial occupation, and rates were properly payable; but he did not see how there could be any such beneficial occupation where officers were compelled to live in certain quarters for the performance of
  856
  certain duties. It was a gross breach of faith with the officers to make them pay rates, for they entered the army on the understanding that they were to receive certain pay, allowances, and free quarters. When he had asked on previous occasions questions as to the payment of rates and taxes by officers on duty he was informed that no decision had been arrived at. After Easter he should again refer to this subject, and hoped his noble Friend would then be prepared with some satisfactory answer.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON,in reply to the hon. and gallant Member for the Queen's County (Colonel Dunne), said he had never denied that the War Office were responsible for the pension warrant; what he said was that the pensions were considered by the Chelsea Commissioners, acting under the warrant issued by the Horse Guards, and that they were granted on more liberal terms than formerly. He understood the hon. and gallant Member to say that after a twenty-one years' service a soldier might receive 6d. a day. But in such a case the lowest pension was from 8d. to 1s.; if the soldier was discharged at an earlier date from inability to serve, he might receive a pension of 6d. He did not mean to say that these were liberal terms, but the men had enlisted under these conditions; and where men had not served their full time the Chelsea Commissioners, with the concurrence of the Secretary for War, might make the temporary pension a permanent one. In many cases, moreover, a soldier who might be incapacitated for further service in the army, might not be permanently incapacitated for earning his living. As to the subject brought forward by the hon. and gallant Member for Oxfordshire (Colonel North), he was not aware that there was any intention to make a change in the pay and allowances of Sir John Wilson's successor; but the pay of all these officers must be proportionate to the duties they had to perform, and these duties were of no very onerous character. No case had been made out for raising the pay of any one of them. If any change took place in the pay of the Major, a change would be necessary in the pay of the Governor and Lieutenant Governor. The Governor received £500, the Lieutenant Governor £400, and the Major £350, and he did not think it necessary to increase the pay of these officers. As to the question of rates and taxes, that was not under the

  857
  control of the War Office—it was for the consideration of the Treasury. With reference to the general question of rates, the Government had decided to allow matters to remain in the same position as they had hitherto been. Under the Ordnance regulation a great number of officers did pay rates, but they were considered to have a beneficial occupation. Those officers who reside in houses in which their duties compelled them to remain were not liable to pay rates.
  COLONEL NORTHsaid, that nothing could be more miserable than the pay of the Governor and the Lieutenant Governor. The Field Marshal received £500 a year, and another General of the army of seventy-one years' service received £400. The reason why he called attention to the pay of the Major was that the £350 a year granted to him included his half-pay. Sir John Wilson had £350 a year in addition to his half-pay, and he wanted to know if Sir John Wilson's successor, who would be sure to be an old and deserving officer, would have the same amount. It was within the last few years only that the officers had been called upon to pay rates. The navy officers did not pay rates, and the same exemption should be made in favour of the officers of the army.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the gallant Officer seemed to think that some sacred principle was involved in this matter of rates, and that he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had been guilty of some disrespect to those gentlemen in saying that their case ought to be considered rather as that of civilians than as that of officers of the army. He abided by that opinion; as an establishment like that of Chelsea Hospital was not connected with any military duty. It was not a case of principle at all, but one simply of so much money. If the salaries were too small let them be re-considered.
  COLONEL NORTHsaid, that when these officers entered the army it was with the understanding that they were to have certain pay, certain allowances, and free quarters; but if they were made to pay taxes that could not be called free quarters. It was only in that day's paper that he saw eight or ten officers of Woolwich summoned for taxes and rates.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERdeclined to allow that it was a question of free quarters at all.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  (3.) £1,168,000, Out Pensioners, Chelsea Hospital, &c., agreed to.
  (4.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding 4131,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charges of the Superannuation Allowances, &c., which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1866, inclusive."
  COLONEL DUNNEdrew attention to the case of barrack masters. They were a class of men who entered as barrack masters late in life because they had served in other capacities, and the difficulty of providing them with any remuneration when they left the barrack department was so great that they were obliged to retain in office men utterly incompetent. The number of superannuations in the War Department was, as he saw by a paper on the table, so considerable, that they must really greatly augment this Vote, and he trusted therefore it would be postponed.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he could see no possible advantage in such a postponement. The clerks in the War Department were superseded at their own request, and discussion would make no difference whatever in this Vote.
  COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he was surprised that the noble Lord had never heard of the complaints made on the subject, as the attention of every Secretary at War for the last few years had been called to them. He should move that the Chairman report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again,"—(Colonel Dunne,)—put, and negatived.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  (5.) £29,000, Non-Effective Services, Disembodied Militia, and Yeomanry Cavalry.
  COLONEL DUNNEhoped that care would be taken that the same allowances, at least, would be held out to officers going into the militia as were given to officers going into the Voluuteers.
  THE MARCHESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, it would be irregular to discuss the question now, but could assure the hon. and gallant Member that he was under a wrong impression as to the meaning of the circulars which had been issued on the subject.
  Vote agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

  METROPOLITAN HOUSELESS POOR BILL— [BILL 83.]—CONSIDERATION.
  Bill, as amended, considered.
  LORD ROBERT CECILsaid, he desired to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Poor Law Board to the clause which he had moved in his (Lord Robert Cecil's) absence and in his behalf, but which he thought the right hon. Gentleman had materially altered. He did not complain of that, because the clause, as it originally stood, would not, perhaps, have been capable of practical administration. His desire was to place upon the statute book by means of that clause a declaration that the guardians of each parish were bound to admit the destitute poor for whose benefit the Act was passed, and that it should not be a matter of discretion whether they received them into the workhouse or not. If such a declaration were inserted in the Bill, then the authorities would be bound under a penalty to admit the poor man whenever he should apply; whereas, at present, public opinion was the only influence that wa3 brought to bear for the relief of the poor in the way which legislation prescribed. He did not mean to impugn the conduct of the guardians in the London parishes as a whole—he believed that they desired to do their duty—but he feared that a good deal of cruelty was practised by the inferior officials, and that there was great suffering among the poor of the metropolis in times of severe weather or distress in consequence of the hardheartedness of those in whose hands the practical administration of the law was placed. He had been informed on good authority that more than once poor persons bad been sent away from workhouses on the plea that the wards were full; and yet Returns had been made to the House of Commons from those very workhouses by which it appeared that not a single applicant had ever been rejected. He would not name the workhouses in question for this reason, that the charge depended upon the statement of poor persons, who, having left the neighbourhood, could not now be brought forward to verify it; but he had heard on authority which he could not question that those persons were trustworthy, honest men. What he desired now was to bring this failure in the operation of the law—and a very serious one it was—under the notice of the right hon. Gentleman with the view that the attention
  860
  of the Board might be turned to the subject, and that hereafter, if it were possible to do so by legislation, measures might be taken to provide a remedy. At present he did not intend to move any Amendment to the clause; but he desired to obtain from the right hon. Gentleman the assurance that he would establish some practical supervision of the operation of this Act, and enforce as far as he could upon the workhouse authorities the necessity of their admitting all destitute persons who applied within the time prescribed by the Act, unless there were some good ground for their non-admission. He wished also to allude to one other point. The Return laid upon the table of the House exhibited an enormous difference in the amount of diet allowed to the paupers. In some workhouses a ridiculous amount of relief was granted; while in others the allowance was comparatively liberal. Such a state of things, however, tended to create between the different parishes a competition of parsimony; because guardians would endeavour to reduce their scale of relief to the amount afforded by their neighbours, in order to prevent an influx of paupers into their parish. In the clause of which he had originally given notice he had inserted a provision relating to this matter, but it had been struck out by the right hon. Gentleman. He hoped, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman would, at all events, exercise the powers which he already possessed to secure a uniformity of diet.
  MR. C. P. VILLIERSsaid, he was glad that the noble Lord was satisfied with the course which he had pursued on the previous day, because, according to the noble Lord's admission, he had accepted the practicable portion of the Amendment suggested by the noble Lord, and omitted only that portion which, according to the noble Lord's own statement, it would have been impossible to carry into effect. The noble Lord said he desired to put on the statute book a declaration that the guardians were bound to relieve every destitute person who applied for relief. That duty existed now. By the state of the law at present the guardians were obliged to admit everybody seeking relief, and the Poor Law Board already had power to enforce this course upon them, as far as they had any authority at all to interfere in the proceedings of boards of guardians. The noble Lord had very fairly admitted that he had no evidence to prove that the guardians had neglected their duty in this

  861
  respect, nor had any proof upon tins point been adduced by any one else. That was the case with the Poor Law Board. Charges to that effect had undoubtedly been made, but no proof had, in any instance, been forthcoming. His hon. Friend the Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) had, on the previous day, mentioned a case which had come under his own notice. His hon. Friend had been told by a man who asked him for relief, that he had been to the workhouse, but had received nothing, and that the wards were full. Anxious to test the truth of the statements, his hon. Friend accompanied the man to the workhouse, and not only found that the story was untrue, but that the man himself was an arrant impostor. It was in the absence of such inquiry that letters, reflecting upon the conduct of Boards of Guardians, were written to the leading journal of the country. He believed that the guardians were desirous of providing adequate accommodation, and for this reason they desired that this Bill might be made permanent. In answer to his inquiries, he learned that the police had refused about seventeen or eighteen persons; but their reasons for so doing were, that in all the cases the applicants for relief were drunk, disorderly, riotous, or had money in their pockets. He did not, however, believe that any really destitute person had been refused j and now that the Act was made permanent, even better provision than existed hitherto would be made for the relief of paupers. He was not aware that any further improvement could be effected by this Bill.
  Amendments made.
  Bill to be read 3° To-morrow.

INDIA OFFICES (SITE AND APPROACHES) (re-committed) BILL.

  [BILL 100.] COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clause 2 (Power of Secretary of State in Council to purchase Land.)
  SIR GEORGE BOWYERrose to object to the system of the Chairman in calling out simply the number of the clauses, instead of following the old practice of reading the marginal notes of each clause.
  MR. VANSITTARTobserved, that the
  862
  clause gave power to the Secretary of State for India to purchase lands with money derived from Indian revenue. He wished to know what had become of the £200,000 received from the sale of the old East India House, Haileybury and Addiscombe Colleges, and Warley? He had looked over the accounts and could not find those sums charged to the credit of the Indian Government. Probably they had been handed over to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to enable him to produce a popular Budget on the eve of a general election.
  SIR CHARLES WOODassured the hon. Member that if he would look hack to past accounts he would find the sums received from the sale of the properties mentioned duly credited to the Indian Government. The object of the Bill was not to purchase a site, but to take compulsory powers with respect to the land required for the building.
  LORD CLAUD HAMILTONobserved, that the Secretary for India had stated on a previous occasion that nothing would be charged to the Indian revenue for the objects of this Bill.
  SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, the object of the Bill was to obtain possession of property in order to widen the street, and the surplus land would probably be sufficient to meet all the expense.
  LORD ROBERT CECILthought the hon. Baronet near him (Sir George Bowyer) was justified in calling attention to a departure from the old practice in Committee; inasmuch as it now appeared that when asked upon this very clause what had become of certain moneys the Secretary of State could only tell the hon. Member who put the question that if he looked through the accounts for five years he would find it all entered in them. He hoped that the old practice in Committee would be adhered to in future.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the term "old practice" seemed to imply an innovation on the part of the present Chairman of Ways and Means. From his own experience he could only state that he was not aware of any innovation. The practice had always been to adapt the rate of progress with the Bill to the importance of the Bill itself. He himself had introduced a Bill consolidating all the laws relating to the duties upon spirits, which contained 400 clauses, which Bill passed through Committee in five minutes. Mem-

  863
  bers were supposed to have the Bill in their hands and to be able to call attention to any clause upon which they had any remark to make.
  SIR GEORGE BOWYERdisclaimed any intention to impute blame to the Chairman, who had only followed the practice of his predecessors; but he still maintained that the old and the proper practice was for the Chairman to read the marginal note of each clause. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the rate of progress of a Bill depended upon the importance of the Bill; but that was not a question that ought to be left to the discretion of any officer of the House, however high his authority might be.
  MR. VANSITTARTobserved, that although the Secretary of State for India told them that the clause only gave power to purchase land, yet there was a charge for the cost of such land upon the Indian revenues.
  SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, he did not anticipate any loss, but if there were, it would fall on the revenues of India.
  Clause agreed to.
  Remaining clauses agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

PUBLIC HOUSE CLOSING ACT (1864) AMENDMENT BILL— [BILL 22.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. COX,in moving the second reading of this Bill, complained that he had been represented as desiring to re-instate the orgies of the Haymarket. No man was better pleased than himself with the result of the Public House Closing Act upon the neighbourhood in question; it had put down scenes which were a disgrace to the metropolis; still he would again assert that the measure was directed against that locality, and he was borne out in this view by the language of the Home Secretary in introducing the Bill. When that speech was made every Member understood the right hon. Gentleman to apply his observations to the Haymarket and Coventry Street. Yet, while he freely admitted that the result of the Act had been beneficial in those quarters, it had also inflicted very great detriment and injury upon many of Her Majesty's sub-
  864
  jects. He alluded to persons who were in the habit of attending the public markets of the metropolis. One petition in favour of the present Bill was signed by 400 persons attending the Metropolitan Cattle Market. Another was signed by 895 gardeners, salesmen, and greengrocers attending Covent Garden Market. Petitions for the Bill were also signed by 691 persons attending Newgate Market, and 150 persons attending Farringdon Market. There had also been a petition signed by 1,187 persons engaged in the offices of the morning newspapers and on the printing establishments of the metropolis. They had to commence business at 7 p.m., and when they came out of their places of business between 2 and 3 o'clock a.m., they were unable to obtain any refreshment. Why should not these persons be able to take a cup of tea or coffee? A petition had been presented against the Bill, which was signed by a person who called himself the Chairman of the West London Association for Suppression of Public Immorality. He (Mr. Cox) was as anxious as the chairman who signed the petition to suppress public immorality; but the Bill before the House had nothing to do with morality at all. His Bill simply proposed to give a discretion to the Home Secretary, to the Lord Mayor of London, and the mayors of boroughs where the Act had been adopted to give licences for opening not only public-houses but also coffee houses. The Bill gave power to the local authorities, on evidence being produced of the necessity of accommodating any considerable number of people attending markets or being otherwise engaged within the prohibited hours, to grant occasional licences for the sale of refreshment. A great deal of hardship was suffered, under the present law, especially in regard to markets. For instance, all the people who were obliged to be at the Islington Cattle Market by eleven or twelve o'clock on Sunday night, arriving, perhaps, from distant parts by railway, were unable to obtain any refreshment until four o'clock in the morning. This was a great hardship, and during this inclement weather was a very serious thing. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the second reading, and expressing his readiness to receive any suggestions for its Amendment which might be tendered in Committee.
  COLONEL EDWARDShad great pleasure in seconding the Motion of the hon.

  865
  Member for Finsbury. He was, however, extremely sorry that this Bill should be brought on at this late hour (a quarter to one o'clock), because he knew that on that (the Opposition) side of the House there were many Members absent who approved of the measure, and would have wished to take part in the discussion. He wished it to be perfectly understood that, whilst advocating this Bill, he did not wish to interfere with the Public House Closing Act of last Session, which had been such a great boon to the metropolis, but simply to grant one or two licences to houses for the use of the night workers, to be placed under the control and surveillance of the local authorities, near the markets and morning newspaper offices, to relieve from a great grievance and most meritorious and important class, to whose labours during the midnight and early morning hours not only the United Kingdom, but he might add the whole civilized world, were indebted for rapid information of all occurrences in all countries, whether political or social. He alluded to the compositors who supplied the formes for the press, and they were hound to do all in their power to promote the comfort and well-being of these people. It might be urged by the Home Secretary that the lending journal had already provided for those in their employment upon their own premises, which was most commendable, but there were other proprietors, whose premises were more limited, and so circumscribed, that it was impossible to afford space for a canteen where the night workers could obtain refreshment. When at two or three o'clock in the morning they left their work, where they had been engaged in an artificially heated atmosphere, there was no place open in which they could find those refreshments which were absolutely necessary for them, and, from the arduous nature of their employment, a certain amount of stimulant was essential. Some of them, after these long hours of toil in this unwholesome air, had long distances to walk before they reached home without having any resting place. Under these circumstances he thought the Bill absolutely necessary, and the hon. Member for Finsbury was entitled to much credit for having introduced it. Although the House was small, he trusted the Bill might be allowed to be read a second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Cox.)
  MR. LAWSONopposed the Motion. The Bill of last Session had proved itself a most useful measure, and had effected a wonderful improvement in the appearance of the streets of London at night. The Vestry of St. Paul's, Covent Garden, had petitioned against the Bill. There were thirty-one towns under the operation of the Act, besides the metropolis, with a population of upwards of 2,500,000, and the Act worked well in all of them; and he, therefore, thought that any alteration would be imprudent. The hon. Member might have established some cases of grievance, but they were entirely local—confined to the metropolis. What The Times could do for its employés the other London journals could do for theirs. ["No, no!"] It was an insult to the proprietors and managers of those other papers to say that they could not. He admitted it was a grievance to market gardeners and others whose business required them to be out at a late hour of the night or very early hours of the morning to include the sale of ordinary refreshments with that of spirituous liquors in the prohibition under the Act of the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department. He thought the sale of liquors not spirituous might have been permitted ["No, no!"]; but if as regarded the sale of spirits an exception was made in favour of compositors, drovers, and gardeners, the public in general would come in, and the Act of last Session would be inoperative. There was a grievance, but it was so small a one that he thought it would not be well to accede to the proposition of the hon. Member. He, therefore, moved, as an Amendment, that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
  MR. FINLAYseconded the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now" and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Lawson.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  MR. HENLEYsaid, the hon. Gentleman who had moved the rejection of the Bill ought to have been the first to second the Motion for the second reading, for the measure was a very moderate one, and, he thought, calculated to advance the peculiar views of the hon. Member. To put down the assembly of loose men and looser women in a particular quarter of the town the Bill of last Session had been passed.

  867
  The hon. Member (Mr. Lawson) would open coffee houses, and let the loose men and loose women assemble in those houses. If something were not done to relax the provisions of the Act of last year there would be a re-action. The Members of that House had their refreshment rooms open up to any hour at which the House might adjourn. In those rooms they could have their wine or beer. How, then, could they reconcile it to their consciences to refuse to allow hardworking people an opportunity of purchasing a glass of beer when, if people were working, they most required refreshment? It was all very well to say that The Times had established a club. People were going about endeavouring to get the humbler classes to form clubs; and if they did form clubs, how could the House prevent them from drinking in those places? There was no use in the Members of that House cocking up their noses. If the humbler classes were not permitted to have their refreshments openly, they would have them secretly, and perhaps under much more dangerous circumstances.
  SIR GEORGE GREYshould be sorry to sanction any measure which would materially interfere with the operation of an Act which had worked so beneficially as the one passed last year for the closing of public-houses within certain hours. He must observe that the beneficial operation of that Act bad not been confined to the Haymarket. There were places in the East End also in which much disorder had prevailed, and the Act had worked well in that quarter of the metropolis as well as in the West End. The hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Lawson) appeared to think that refreshment houses ought not to have been included in the Bill of last year; but if the hon. Gentleman was in possession of the facts which had been laid before him in respect of many of those houses, he might, perhaps, be disposed to change his opinion. He was bound, however, to say that he had received many representations of the inconvenience felt by a portion of the community, especially persons having business in the markets of the metropolis, in consequence of the operation of the Act; and he thought those persons were entitled to have their case fairly considered. He believed that, without injuring the beneficial operation of the Act, or destroying any of the restraints imposed on disorderly houses, it might be possible to effect the object which his hon. Friend the
  868
  Member for Finsbury had in view. The case of persons attending the markets was not so difficult to deal with as that of other parties from whom representations had been received, because generally there were public-houses within the precincts or in the immediate vicinity of the metropolitan markets. But with respect to public-houses scattered in other localities, it was not so easy to make a selection of public-houses without imposing an invidious duty on the police. He should have already given notice of Amendments to his hon. Friend's Bill, but he had been seeing deputations on the subject from day to day. Only that day be had received a large one from the neighbourhood of Covent Garden. Those whom the deputation represented were not anxious that the Bill should be relaxed, and asked that if a relaxation of its provisions were decided on it should be to the least extent possible. He should not oppose the second reading of his hon. Friend's Bill; but he should have certain Amendments to propose in Committee, and of these he should give an early notice.
  MR. ROEBUCKsaid, that the hon. Member for Finsbury did not pretend to give additional means of refreshment to particular classes, but merely allowed the authorities to extend the hour for closing refreshment houses.
  MR. AYRTONhoped the right hon. Gentleman would not give power to the police to give certain tradesmen liberty to keep open beyond the usual hours. This was a point for the consideration of the magistrates only. It was impossible to open certain houses for the accommodation of certain classes—if open to any one, they would be open to all. He thought it would be better to repeal the Bill of last Session altogether rather than to amend it in the way proposed.
  SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, the local authorities of St. Paul's, Covent Garden, dreaded the public-houses in that place being opened while those in the surrounding neighbourhood were closed, as the consequence would be that all the improper characters would congregate there.
  MR. LAWSONsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read 2°, and committed for Thursday 4th May.
  House adjourned at half after One o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading— Record of Title (Ireland)* (63); Inclosure* (64).
Second Reading—East India (Governor General's Powers, &c.)* (57).
Third Reading—Bank of Ireland* (19); East India High Courts* (62); Private Bill Costs (51) and passed.

PRIVATE BILLS.
On the Motion of the CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES it was Ordered—
That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a Second Time after Thursday the 29th Day of June next:
That no Bill confirming any Provisional Order of the Board of Health, or authorizing any Inclosure of Lands under special Report of the Inclosure Commissioners for England and Wales, or for confirming any Scheme of the Charity Commissioners for England and Wales, shall be rend a Second Time after Thursday the 29th Day of June next:
That no Bill confirming any Provisional Order made by the Board of Trade under the General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861, shall be read a Second Time after Thursday the 29th Day of June next:
That when a Bill shall have passed this House with Amendments, these Orders shall not apply to any new Bill sent up from the House of Commons which the Chairman of Committees shall report to the House is substantially the same as the Bill so amended.—(The Chairman of Committees.)

PRIVATE BILL COSTS BILL—(No. 51.)

  THIRD READING.
  Bill read 3a (according to order), with the Amendments.
  THE DCKE OF CLEVELANDsaid, that if the Bill were passed in its present shape it might be attended with very injurious
  768
  consequences. The case of a landowner who in opposing a Bill which affected his property was merely protecting his rights was very different from that of other opponents. Of course it was necessary that the person should be a bonâ fide landowner, and that his opposition should be bonâ fide; but if that were so, it was extremely hard that he should run the risk of being made liable to costs while merely attempting to defend his property. He begged, therefore, to move the introduction of a clause to this effect—that no opponent of a Bill which proposed to take away any portion of the property of such opponent should be liable to costs if he failed in his opposition to the Bill.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he was sure their Lordships would agree as to the propriety of introducing some such proviso as that proposed by the noble Duke; but his apprehension was that the words suggested would not meet the case of persons who, under the guise of landowners, were put forward by a rival Company to oppose a Bill in the most vexatious manner. He should therefore suggest that, instead of the noble Duke's clause, some such words as these be inserted—
  "And that if such opposition has not been made bonâ fide by a landowner or landowners, then the promoters shall be entitled to recover from the opponents such portion of the costs as the Committee may think fit."
  THE DUKE OF CLEVELANDsaid, he would readily adopt the words of the noble and learned Lord.
  LORD HOUGHTONsaid that the Amendment suggested by the noble Duke and the noble and learned Lord was perfectly agreeable to his own views; but if the other House should object he would not bind himself to defend it to the extent of risking the loss of the Bill.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsuggested the insertion of the following proviso.:—
  "Provided always that no landowner who bond fide opposes a Bill which proposes to take any portion of his property for the purposes of the Bill shall be liable to any costs in respect to his opposition to such Bill."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Further Amendments made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

  RECORD OF TITLE (IRELAND) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill for the Recording of Titles to Land in Ireland—Was presented by The Lord Chancellor; read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 63.)
  House adjourned at a quarter before Six o'clock, till To-morrow, Two o'clock.